Investigating Cell Surface Markers and Differentiation Potential of Compact Bone-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells

Background: The differentiation potential of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) derived from the bone-tissue to multiple lineages is not clear. Objective: This study was conducted to investigate the surface antigen expression and multilineage stem cell potential of the cells derived from culture of collagenase digested marrow-free compact bones of C57BL/6 mouse. Materials & Methods: Long bones of C57BL/6 mouse (n=6) were collected aseptically and bone marrow was flushed out. Collagenase-digested bone fragments were washed and cultured in plastic flasks. The plastic-adherent fibroblast-like spindle-shaped cells were cultured sequentially in multiple passages in low-glucose DMEM (Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium) supplemented with 15% FBS (Foetal Bovine Serum) and antibiotics in a 37°C incubator with 5% CO2. Immunophenotyping for cell surface markers was done using flow cytometry. The cells were differentiated into the osteoblastic, adipogenic and chondrogenic lineages. Results: The culture of the adherent cells exhibited active proliferation and multiplication in consequent passages. The cultured cells revealed evidence of adipogenic and osteogenic differentiation confirmed by staining with oil red O and von Kossa stains. Under flow cytometry observation, a significant proportion of cultured cells expressed CD29 and stem cell antigen (Sca-1). Only 9.8% cells showed expression of CD105. These MSCs exhibited low ability in chondrogenic differentiation, which can potentially be attributed to their lack of CD105 expression. Lack of expression of CD45 showed evidence of absence of hematopoietic stem cells. Conclusion: This study showed that murine compact bone-chip culture can yield MSCs with significant proliferation capacity. The cells displayed the ability to differentiate into osteoblast and adipocyte lineages

Prognostic and therapeutic relevance of FLIP and procaspase-8 overexpression in non-small cell lung cancer

Non-small cell lung carcinoma remains by far the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Overexpression of FLIP, which blocks the extrinsic apoptotic pathway by inhibiting caspase-8 activation, has been identified in various cancers. We investigated FLIP and procaspase-8 expression in NSCLC and the effect of HDAC inhibitors on FLIP expression, activation of caspase-8 and drug resistance in NSCLC and normal lung cell line models. Immunohistochemical analysis of cytoplasmic and nuclear FLIP and procaspase-8 protein expression was carried out using a novel digital pathology approach. Both FLIP and procaspase-8 were found to be significantly overexpressed in tumours, and importantly, high cytoplasmic expression of FLIP significantly correlated with shorter overall survival. Treatment with HDAC inhibitors targeting HDAC1-3 downregulated FLIP expression predominantly via post-transcriptional mechanisms, and this resulted in death receptor- and caspase-8-dependent apoptosis in NSCLC cells, but not normal lung cells. In addition, HDAC inhibitors synergized with TRAIL and cisplatin in NSCLC cells in a FLIP- and caspase-8-dependent manner. Thus, FLIP and procaspase-8 are overexpressed in NSCLC, and high cytoplasmic FLIP expression is indicative of poor prognosis. Targeting high FLIP expression using HDAC1-3 selective inhibitors such as entinostat to exploit high procaspase-8 expression in NSCLC has promising therapeutic potential, particularly when used in combination with TRAIL receptor-targeted agents

The role of whole brain radiation therapy in the management of newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline

QUESTION: Should patients with newly-diagnosed metastatic brain tumors undergo open surgical resection versus whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) and/or other treatment modalities such as radiosurgery, and in what clinical settings? TARGET POPULATION: These recommendations apply to adults with a newly diagnosed single brain metastasis amenable to surgical resection. RECOMMENDATIONS: Surgical resection plus WBRT versus surgical resection alone Level 1 Surgical resection followed by WBRT represents a superior treatment modality, in terms of improving tumor control at the original site of the metastasis and in the brain overall, when compared to surgical resection alone. Surgical resection plus WBRT versus SRS + or - WBRT Level 2 Surgical resection plus WBRT, versus stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) plus WBRT, both represent effective treatment strategies, resulting in relatively equal survival rates. SRS has not been assessed from an evidence-based standpoint for larger lesions (\u3e3 cm) or for those causing significant mass effect (\u3e1 cm midline shift). Level 3 Underpowered class I evidence along with the preponderance of conflicting class II evidence suggests that SRS alone may provide equivalent functional and survival outcomes compared with resection + WBRT for patients with single brain metastases, so long as ready detection of distant site failure and salvage SRS are possible. Note The following question is fully addressed in the WBRT guideline paper within this series by Gaspar et al. Given that the recommendation resulting from the systematic review of the literature on this topic is also highly relevant to the discussion of the role of surgical resection in the management of brain metastases, this recommendation has been included below

The role of retreatment in the management of recurrent/progressive brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline

QUESTION: What evidence is available regarding the use of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), surgical resection or chemotherapy for the treatment of recurrent/progressive brain metastases? TARGET POPULATION: This recommendation applies to adults with recurrent/progressive brain metastases who have previously been treated with WBRT, surgical resection and/or radiosurgery. Recurrent/progressive brain metastases are defined as metastases that recur/progress anywhere in the brain (original and/or non-original sites) after initial therapy. RECOMMENDATION: Level 3 Since there is insufficient evidence to make definitive treatment recommendations in patients with recurrent/progressive brain metastases, treatment should be individualized based on a patient\u27s functional status, extent of disease, volume/number of metastases, recurrence or progression at original versus non-original site, previous treatment and type of primary cancer, and enrollment in clinical trials is encouraged. In this context, the following can be recommended depending on a patient\u27s specific condition: no further treatment (supportive care), re-irradiation (either WBRT and/or SRS), surgical excision or, to a lesser extent, chemotherapy. Question If WBRT is used in the setting of recurrent/progressive brain metastases, what impact does tumor histopathology have on treatment outcomes? No studies were identified that met the eligibility criteria for this question

Clinical Characteristics, Racial Inequities, and Outcomes in Patients with Breast Cancer and COVID-19: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) Cohort Study

BACKGROUND: Limited information is available for patients with breast cancer (BC) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially among underrepresented racial/ethnic populations. METHODS: This is a COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry-based retrospective cohort study of females with active or history of BC and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosed between March 2020 and June 2021 in the US. Primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on a five-level ordinal scale, including none of the following complications, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression model identified characteristics associated with COVID-19 severity. RESULTS: 1383 female patient records with BC and COVID-19 were included in the analysis, the median age was 61 years, and median follow-up was 90 days. Multivariable analysis revealed higher odds of COVID-19 severity for older age (aOR per decade, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.32-1.67]); Black patients (aOR 1.74; 95 CI 1.24-2.45), Asian Americans and Pacific Islander patients (aOR 3.40; 95 CI 1.70-6.79) and Other (aOR 2.97; 95 CI 1.71-5.17) racial/ethnic groups; worse ECOG performance status (ECOG PS ≥2: aOR, 7.78 [95% CI, 4.83-12.5]); pre-existing cardiovascular (aOR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.63-3.15])/pulmonary comorbidities (aOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.20-2.29]); diabetes mellitus (aOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.66-3.04]); and active and progressing cancer (aOR, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.89-22.6]). Hispanic ethnicity, timing, and type of anti-cancer therapy modalities were not significantly associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. The total all-cause mortality and hospitalization rate for the entire cohort was 9% and 37%, respectively however, it varied according to the BC disease status. CONCLUSIONS: Using one of the largest registries on cancer and COVID-19, we identified patient and BC-related factors associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, underrepresented racial/ethnic patients experienced worse outcomes compared to non-Hispanic White patients. FUNDING: This study was partly supported by National Cancer Institute grant number P30 CA068485 to Tianyi Sun, Sanjay Mishra, Benjamin French, Jeremy L Warner; P30-CA046592 to Christopher R Friese; P30 CA023100 for Rana R McKay; P30-CA054174 for Pankil K Shah and Dimpy P Shah; KL2 TR002646 for Pankil Shah and the American Cancer Society and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research (MRSG-16-152-01-CCE) and P30-CA054174 for Dimpy P Shah. REDCap is developed and supported by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH). The funding sources had no role in the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: CCC19 registry is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701