Epigenetic <it>CRBP </it>downregulation appears to be an evolutionarily conserved (human and mouse) and oncogene-specific phenomenon in breast cancer

Abstract Background The cellular retinol binding protein I gene (CRBP) is downregulated in a subset of human breast cancers and in MMTV-Myc induced mouse mammary tumors. Functional studies suggest that CRBP downregulation contributes to breast tumor progression. What is the mechanism underlying CRBP downregulation in cancer? Here we investigated the hypothesis that CRBP is epigenetically silenced through DNA hypermethylation in human and mouse breast cancer. Results Bisulfite sequencing of CRBP in a panel of 6 human breast cancer cell lines demonstrated that, as a rule, CRBP hypermethylation is closely and inversely related to CRBP expression and identified one exception to this rule. Treatment with 5-azacytidine, a DNA methyltransferase inhibitor, led to CRBP reexpression, supporting the hypothesis that CRBP hypermethylation is a proximal cause of CRBP silencing. In some cells CRBP reexpression was potentiated by co-treatment with retinoic acid, an inducer of CRBP, and trichostatin A, a histone deacetylase inhibitor. Southern blot analysis of a small panel of human breast cancer specimens identified one case characterized by extensive CRBP hypermethylation, in association with undetectable CRBP mRNA and protein. Bisulfite sequencing of CRBP in MMTV-Myc and MMTV-Neu/NT mammary tumor cell lines extended the rule of CRBP hypermethylation and silencing (both seen in MMTV-Myc but not MMTV-Neu/NT cells) from human to mouse breast cancer and suggested that CRBP hypermethylation is an oncogene-specific event. Conclusion CRBP hypermethylation appears to be an evolutionarily conserved and principal mechanism of CRBP silencing in breast cancer. Based on the analysis of transgenic mouse mammary tumor cells, we hypothesize that CRBP silencing in human breast cancer may be associated with a specific oncogenic signature.</p

ASH ISTH NHF WFH 2021 guidelines on the management of von Willebrand disease

Von Willebrand disease (VWD) is a common inherited bleeding disorder. Significant variability exists in management options offered to patients. These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), the National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF), and the World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and health care professionals in their decisions about management of VWD.ASH, ISTH, NHF, and WFH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel. Three patient representatives were included. The panel was balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The University of Kansas Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit and the McMaster Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline development process, including performing and updating systematic evidence reviews (through November 2019). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance to clinicians and patients. The panel used the GRADE approach, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.The panel agreed on 12 recommendations and outlined future research priorities.These guidelines make key recommendations regarding prophylaxis for frequent recurrent bleeding, desmopressin trials to determine therapy, use of antiplatelet agents and anticoagulant therapy, target VWF and factor VIII activity levels for major surgery, strategies to reduce bleeding during minor surgery or invasive procedures, management options for heavy menstrual bleeding, management of VWD in the context of neuraxial anesthesia during labor and delivery, and management in the postpartum setting5130132

Surgical management of patients with von Willebrand disease: summary of 2 systematic reviews of the literature

von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most common inherited bleeding disorder. The management of patients with VWD who are undergoing surgeries is crucial to prevent bleeding complications. We systematically summarized the evidence on the management of patients with VWD who are undergoing major and minor surgeries to support the development of practice guidelines. We searched Medline and EMBASE from inception through October 2019 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs), comparative observational studies, and case series that compared maintaining factor VIII (FVIII) levels or von Willebrand factor (VWF) levels at .0.50 IU/mL for at least 3 days in patients undergoing major surgery, and those with options for perioperative management of patients undergoing minor surgery. Two authors screened and abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We conducted meta-analyses when possible. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. We included 7 case series for major surgeries and 2 RCTs and 12 case series for minor surgeries. Very-low-certainty evidence showed that maintaining FVIII levels or VWF levels of .0.50 IU/mL for at least 3 consecutive days showed excellent hemostatic efficacy (as labeled by the researchers) after 74% to 100% of major surgeries. Low- to very-low-certainty evidence showed that prescribing tranexamic acid and increasing VWF levels to 0.50 IU/mL resulted in fewer bleeding complications after minor procedures compared with increasing VWF levels to 0.50 IU/mL alone. Given the low-quality evidence for guiding management decisions, a shared-decision model leading to individualized therapy plans will be important in patients with VWD who are undergoing surgical and invasive procedures

Outcomes of long-term von Willebrand factor prophylaxis use in von Willebrand disease: A systematic literature review

Background: Von Willebrand Disease (VWD) is a common inherited bleeding disorder. Patients with VWD suffering from severe bleeding may benefit from the use of secondary long-term prophylaxis. Aim: Systematically summarize the evidence on the clinical outcomes of secondary long-term prophylaxis in patients with VWD and severe recurrent bleedings. Methods: We searched Medline and EMBASE through October 2019 for relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies (OS) assessing the effects of secondary long-term prophylaxis in patients with VWD. We used Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool and the RoB for Non-Randomized Studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool to assess the quality of the included studies. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: We included 12 studies. Evidence from one placebo controlled RCT suggested that VWD prophylaxis as compared to no prophylaxis reduced the rate of bleeding episodes (Rate ratio [RR],.24; 95% confidence interval [CI],.17–.35; low certainty evidence), and of epistaxis (RR,.38; 95%CI,.21–.67; moderate certainty evidence), and may increase serious adverse events RR 2.73 (95%CI.12–59.57; low certainty). Evidence from four before-and-after studies in which researchers reported comparative data suggested that VWD prophylaxis reduced the rate of bleeding (RR.34; 95%CI,.25–.46; very low certainty evidence). Conclusion: VWD prophylaxis treatment seems to reduce the risk of spontaneous bleeding, epistaxis, and hospitalizations. More RCTs should be conducted to increase the certainty in these benefits

von Willebrand disease: proposing definitions for future research

von Willebrand disease (VWD) is a common bleeding disorder, which affects 1 in 100 individuals based on laboratory testing and at least 1 in 1000 individuals based on presence of abnormal bleeding symptoms.1,2 VWD was first described almost 100 years ago, and since the initial report, major advances in both diagnostic testing and treatment options have improved outcomes for patients living with VWD; however, many patients still experience significant complications and barriers to treatment. An underlying problem is the lack of consistent unified definitions. In recent work developing evidence-based guidelines for VWD,3,4 it was noted that studies on VWD often used varying definitions. For example, studies of von Willebrand factor (VWF) concentrates did not have consistent definitions for major bleeding, studies on VWF prophylaxis did not use consistent definitions of what constituted a prophylaxis regimen, and studies on desmopressin did not use consistent definitions of desmopressin responsiveness. In addition, common bleeding conditions, such as heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) and postpartum hemorrhage are variably defined. Such inconsistencies in describing study regimens and endpoints hinder the ability to compare study outcomes and to advance treatment of patients with VWD. We propose definitions for future use in VWD research to facilitate comparison of treatment options. These definitions are based on the most common usage in the literature and endeavor to encompass the most common situations in VWD. The proposed definitions were derived from existing literature and discussed at the first in-person meetings of the guideline panels. Group members made amendments, and the consensus document was circulated to the group. All authors approved the final document