Diagnostic and prognostic role of TFF3, Romo-1, NF-кB and SFRP4 as biomarkers for endometrial and ovarian cancers: a prospective observational translational study

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate trefoil factor 3 (TFF3), secreted frizzled-related protein 4 (sFRP4), reactive oxygen species modulator 1 (Romo1) and nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) as diagnostic and prognostic markers of endometrial cancer (EC) and ovarian cancer (OC). Methods: Thirty-one patients with EC and 30 patients with OC undergone surgical treatment were enrolled together with 30 healthy controls in a prospective study. Commercial ELISA kits determined serum TFF-3, Romo-1, NF-кB and sFRP-4 concentrations. Results: Serum TFF-3, Romo-1 and NF-кB levels were significantly higher in patients with EC and OC than those without cancer. Regarding EC, none of the serum biomarkers differs significantly between endometrial and non-endometrioid endometrial carcinomas. Mean serum TFF-3 and NF-кB levels were significantly higher in advanced stages. Increased serum levels of TFF-3 and NF-кB were found in those with a higher grade of the disease. Regarding OC, none of the serum biomarkers differed significantly among histological subtypes. Significantly increased serum levels of NF-кB were observed in patients with advanced-stage OC than those with stage I and II diseases. No difference in serum biomarker levels was found between those who had a recurrence and those who had not. The sensibility and specificity of these four biomarkers in discriminating EC and OC from the control group showed encouraging values, although no one reached 70%. Conclusions: TFF-3, Romo-1, NF-кB and SFRP4 could represent new diagnostic and prognostic markers for OC and EC. Further studies are needed to validate our results

Histone deacetylases as new therapy targets for platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer

Introduction: In developed countries, ovarian cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women. Due to the nonspecific symptomatology associated with the disease many patients with ovarian cancer are diagnosed late, which leads to significantly poorer prognosis. Apart from surgery and radiotherapy, a substantial number of ovarian cancer patients will undergo chemotherapy and platinum based agents are the mainstream first-line therapy for this disease. Despite the initial efficacy of these therapies, many women relapse; therefore, strategies for second-line therapies are required. Regulation of DNA transcription is crucial for tumour progression, metastasis and chemoresistance which offers potential for novel drug targets. Methods: We have reviewed the existing literature on the role of histone deacetylases, nuclear enzymes regulating gene transcription. Results and conclusion: Analysis of available data suggests that a signifant proportion of drug resistance stems from abberant gene expression, therefore HDAC inhibitors are amongst the most promising therapeutic targets for cancer treatment. Together with genetic testing, they may have a potential to serve as base for patient-adapted therapies

Host range and symptomatology of Pepino mosaic virus strains occurring in Europe

Pepino mosaic virus (PepMV) has caused great concern in the greenhouse tomato industry after it was found causing a new disease in tomato in 1999. The objective of this paper is to investigate alternative hosts and compare important biological characteristics of the three PepMV strains occurring in Europe when tested under different environmental conditions. To this end we compared the infectivity and symptom development of three, well characterized isolates belonging to three different PepMV strains, EU-tom, Ch2 and US1, by inoculating them on tomato, possible alternative host plants in the family Solanaceae and selected test plants. The inoculation experiments were done in 10 countries from south to north in Europe. The importance of alternative hosts among the solanaceous crops and the usefulness of test plants in the biological characterization of PepMV isolates are discussed. Our data for the three strains tested at 10 different European locations with both international and local cultivars showed that eggplant is an alternative host of PepMV. Sweet pepper is not an important host of PepMV, but potato can be infected when the right isolate is matched with a specific cultivar. Nicotiana occidentalis 37B is a useful indicator plant for PepMV studies, since it reacts with a different symptomatology to each one of the PepMV strains.Ravnikar, M.; Blystad, D.; Van Der Vlugt, R.; Alfaro Fernández, AO.; Del Carmen Cordoba, M.; Bese, G.; Hristova, D.... (2015). Host range and symptomatology of Pepino mosaic virus strains occurring in Europe. European Journal of Plant Pathology. 143(1):43-56. doi:10.1007/s10658-015-0664-1S43561431Alfaro-Fernández, A., Córdoba-Sellés, M. C., Herrera-Vásquez, J. A., Cebrián, M. C., & Jordá, C. (2009). Transmission of Pepino mosaic virus by the fungal vector Olpidium virulentus. Journal of Phytopathology, 158, 217–226.Charmichael, D. J., Rey, M. E. C., Naidoo, S., Cook, G., & van Heerden, S. W. (2011). First report of Pepino mosaic virus infecting tomato in South Africa. Plant Disease, 95(6), 767.2.Córdoba, M. C., Martínez-Priego, L., & Jordá, C. (2004). New natural hosts of Pepino mosaic virus in Spain. Plant Disease, 88, 906.Córdoba-Sellés, M. C., García-Rández, A., Alfaro-Fernández, A., & Jordá-Gutiérrez, C. (2007). Seed transmission of pepino mosaic virus and efficacy of tomato seed disinfection treatments. Plant Disease, 91, 1250–1254.Efthimiou, K. E., Gatsios, A. P., Aretakis, K. C., Papayannis, L. C., & Katis, N. I. (2011). First report of Pepino mosaic virus infecting greenhouse cherry tomato in Greece. Plant Disease, 95(1), 78.2.Fakhro, A., von Bargen, S., Bandte, M., Büttner, C., Franken, P., & Schwarz, D. (2011). Susceptibility of different plant species and tomato cultivars to two isolates of Pepino mosaic virus. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 129, 579–590.Gómez, P., Sempere, R. N., Elena, S. F., & Aranda, M. A. (2009). Mixed infections of Pepino mosaic virus strains modulate the evolutionary dynamics of this emergent virus. Journal of Virology, 83, 12378–12387.Hanssen, I. M., Paeleman, A., Wittemans, L., Goen, K., Lievens, B., Bragard, C., Vanachter, A. C. R. C., & Thomma, B. P. H. J. (2008). Genetic characterization of Pepino mosaic virus isolates from Belgian greenhouse tomatoes reveals genetic recombination. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 121, 131–146.Hanssen, I. M., Paeleman, A., Vandewoestijne, E., Van Bergen, L., Bragard, C., Lievens, B., Vanachter, A. C. R. C., & Thomma, B. P. H. J. (2009). Pepino mosaic virus isolates and differential symptomatology in tomato. Plant Pathology, 58, 450–460.Hanssen, I. M., Mumford, R., Blystad, D.-G., Cortez, I., Hasiów-Jaroszewska, B., Hristova, D., Pagán, I., Pereira, A.-M., Peters, J., Pospieszny, H., Ravnikar, M., Stijger, I., Tomassoli, L., Varveri, C., van der Vlugt, R., & Nielsen, S. L. (2010). Seed transmission of Pepino mosaic virus in tomato. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 126, 145–152.Hasiów-Jaroszewska, B., Borodynko, N., Jackowiak, P., Figlerowicz, M., & Pospieszny, H. (2010a). Pepino mosaic virus – a pathogen of tomato crops in Poland: biology, evolution and diagnostics. Journal of Plant Protection Research, 50, 470–476.Hasiów-Jaroszewska, B., Jackowiak, P., Borodynko, N., Figlerowicz, M., & Pospieszny, H. (2010b). Quasispecies nature of Pepino mosaic virus and its evolutionary dynamics. Virus Genes, 41, 260–267.Jeffries, C. J. (1998). FAO/IPGRI technical guidelines for the safe movement of germplasm no. 19. Potato. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, Rome/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome pp 177Jones, R. A. C., Koenig, R., & Lesemann, D. E. (1980). Pepino mosaic virus, a new potexvirus from pepino (Solanum muricatum). Annals of Applied Biology, 94, 61–68.Jordá, C., Lázaro Pérez, A., & Martínez Culebras, P. (2001). First report of Pepino mosaic virus on natural hosts. Plant Disease, 85, 1292.King, A. M. Q., Adams, M. J., Carstens, E. B., Lefkowitz, E. J., (eds). (2012). potexvirus, pp 912–915, in virus taxonomy, classification and nomenclature of viruses; ninth report of the international committee on taxonomy of viruses (p 1327) London, UK: Elsevier Academic PressLing, K.-S., & Zhang, W. (2011). First report of Pepino mosaic virus infecting tomato in Mexico. Plant Disease, 95(8), 1035.Martin, J., & Mousserion, C. (2002). Potato varieties which are sensitive to the tomato strains of Pepino mosaic virus (PepMV). Phytoma Défence Végétaux, 552, 26–28.Mehle, N., Gutierrez-Aguirre, I., Prezelj, N., Delić, D., Vidic, U., & Ravnikar, M. (2014). Survival and transmission of potato virus Y, pepino mosaic virus, and potato spindle tuber viroid in water. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 80(4), 1455–1462.Moreno-Pérez, M. G., Pagán, I., Aragón-Caballero, L., Cáceres, F., Aurora Fraile, A., & García-Arenal, F. (2014). Ecological and genetic determinants of Pepino mosaic virus emergence. Journal of Virology, 88(6), 3359–3368.Noël, P., Hance, T., & Bragard, C. (2014). Transmission of the pepino mosaic virus by whitefly. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 138, 23–27.Pagan, I., Cordoba-Selles, M. D., Martinez-Priego, L., Fraile, A., Malpica, J. M., Jorda, C., & Garcia-Arenal, F. (2006). Genetic structure of the population of pepino mosaic virus infecting tomato crops in Spain. Phytopathology, 96, 274–279.Papayiannis, L. C., Kokkinos, C. D., & Alfaro-Fernández, A. (2012). Detection, characterization and host range studies of Pepino mosaic virus in Cyprus. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 132, 1–7.Pospieszny, H., Haslow, B., & Borodynko, N. (2008). Characterization of two Polish isolates of Pepino mosaic virus. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 122, 443–445.Salomone, A., & Roggero, P. (2002). Host range, seed transmission and detection by ELISA and lateral flow of an Italian isolate of Pepino mosaic virus. Journal of Plant Pathology, 84, 65–68.Samson, R. G., Allen, T. C., & Whitworth, J. L. (1993). Evaluation of direct tissue blotting to detect potato viruses. American Potato Journal, 70, 257–265.Schwarz, D., Beuch, U., Bandte, M., Fakhro, A., Büttner, C., & Obermeier, C. (2010). Spread and interaction of pepino mosaic virus (PepMV) and pythium aphanidermatum in a closed nutrient solution recirculation system: effects on tomato growth and yield. Plant Pathology, 59(3), 443–452.Shipp, J. L., Buitenhuis, R., Stobbs, L., Wang, K., Kim, W. S., & Ferguson, G. (2008). Vectoring of pepino mosaic virus by bumble-bees in tomato greenhouses. Annals of Applied Biology, 153, 149–155.Van der Vlugt, R. A. A. (2009). Pepino mosaic virus (review). Hellenic Plant Protection Journal, 2, 47–56.Van der Vlugt, R. A. A., & Stijger, C. C. M. M. (2008). Pepino mosaic virus. In B. W. J. Mahy & M. H. V. Van Regenmortel (Eds.), Encyclopedia of virology (5th ed., pp. 103–108). Wageningen: Oxford Elsevier.Van der Vlugt, R. A. A., Stijger, C. C. M. M., Verhoeven, J. T. J., & Lesemann, D.-E. (2000). First report of Pepino mosaic virus on tomato. Plant Disease, 84, 103.Van der Vlugt, R. A. A., Cuperus, C., Vink, J., Stijger, I. C. M. M., Lesemann, D.-E., Verhoeven, J. T. J., & Roenhorst, J. W. (2002). Identification and characterization of Pepino mosaic potexvirus in tomato. Bulletin EPPO/EPPO Bulletin, 32, 503–508.Verchot-Lubicz, J., Chang-Ming, Y., & Bamunusinghe, D. (2007). Molecular biology of potexviruses: recent advances. Journal of General Virology, 88(6), 1643–1655.Verhoeven, J. T. H. J., van der Vlugt, R., & Roenhorst, J. W. (2003). High similarity between tomato isolates of pepino mosaic virus suggests a common origin. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 109, 419–425.Werkman, A.W., & Sansford, C.E. (2010). Pest risk analysis for pepino mosaic virus for the EU. Deliverable Report 4.3. EU Sixth Framework project PEPEIRA. http:// www.pepeira.com .Wright, D., & Mumford, R. (1999). Pepino mosaic potexvirus (PepMV): first records in tomato in the United Kingdom. Plant disease notice (89th ed.). York, UK: Central Science Laboratory

Radiochemotherapy in the Treatment of Breast Cancer

Radiotherapy and chemotherapy have established roles in the multidisciplinary management of early breast cancer. The optimal integration of these treatment modalities is controversial. The most common approach is to deliver each treatment modality sequentially. For patients with close surgical margins or with other risk factors for local recurrences, initiation of adjuvant treatment with radiotherapy is recommended. A sandwich regimen is not the preferred schedule because of a decreased dose density for anthracyline- and taxane-based regimens. However, it can be an option for patients receiving adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil (CMF). Concomitant radio- and chemotherapy remain in principle an attractive treatment schedule to provide an additive interaction of tumour control and shortening the duration of the overall treatment of time. However, it should be avoided due to the potential risk of augmented cardiac and skin toxicity for anthracyclines. Recent studies revealed an increased locoregional control and a slight toxicity when radiotherapy was given concurrently with cyclophosphamide, mitoxantrone and fluorouracil (CNF). On the other hand, CNF is no longer considered as standard adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer because of reports of secondary acute myeloid leukaemias. Bese, N. S. (2009). Clinical Oncology 21, 532-535 (C) 2009 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Extensive pelvic endometriosis with malignant change in tamoxifen-treated postmenopausal women

The aim of this study was to document a case of tamoxifen-associated extensive pelvic endometriosis and attract the attention to this side effect of tamoxifen use in the postmenopausal patient. A 74-year-old woman with a history of breast carcinoma who received tamoxifen therapy for 2 years was admitted with uterine bleeding. Hysteroscopic polypectomy revealed a hyperplastic polyp. Extensive pelvic endometriosis was detected at the operation and due to dense adhesions, subtotal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy were performed. The patient continued to use tamoxifen. A supracervical pelvic mass was detected 14 months later. The cervix, rectum, and the accompanying mass were resected. Histopathologic examination revealed endocervical adenocarcinoma and endometriosis involving cervix uteri and the rectal muscular wall. The patient had two normal cervical smears within the last 3 years and no abnormal appearance was detected within the cervical canal in the hysteroscopic examination. As cervical cancer occurred in a short period, it might be speculated that tamoxifen might have stimulated the proliferative and mitotic activity of cervical endometrial tissue which has progressed into invasive cancer in time

The impact of treatment interruptions on locoregional control during postoperative breast irradiation

Purpose: Patients treated in the years 1990-2003 with breast conserving surgery and postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy were retrospectively analyzed in order to determine the impact of radiotherapy interruptions on the treatment outcome

The impact of trastuzumab on radiation-induced pulmonary fibrosis: results of an experimental study

There are no data regarding the late toxicity of trastuzumab (T) administration with radiotherapy (RT). In this experimental study, we aimed to asses if concurrent or sequential administration of T has any impact for the development of radiation-induced pulmonary fibrosis in rats. Fifty-four female Wistar-albino rats were divided into 6 groups. First group of rats (Group 1; concurrent T) had irradiation to whole thoracic region concurrently with T. Second group (Group 2: sequential T-RT) received thoracic irradiation, 1 week after T. Third group (Group 3: sequential RT-T) had thoracic irradiation first and they had T injection 1 week after RT. Fourth group (Group 4: T only) had only T application. Fifth group (Group 5: RT) had only RT. The last group (Group 6: sham) of rats were observed without any application. A single dose of 12 Gy was given to both lungs with an anterior field at 2 cm depth. T dose which was equivalent to 6 mg/kg adult dose was calculated for each rat, and injected by the tail vein. As an end point the extent of pulmonary fibrosis for each field was graded on a scale from 0 (normal lung or minimal fibrous thickening) to 4 (total fibrous obliteration of the field) at histopathological examination. The mean value of fibrosis scores were 1.44, 1.77, 1.75 and 1.62 for Group 1, 2, 3 and 5, respectively, without any statistically significant differences among them (P > 0.05). The mean value of fibrosis scores for Group 4 and 6 were 0.25 and 0.33, respectively (P > 0.05). When the mean value of fibrosis scores of the groups which had RT with or without T, compared with the observation and the T only groups, the difference was significant (P < 0.05) (one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD post hoc tests) As a conclusion: addition of T to thoracic irradiation either sequentially or concomitantly did not increase radiation-induced pulmonary fibrosis in rats