Violaxanthin and Zeaxanthin May Replace Lutein at the L1 Site of LHCII, Conserving the Interactions with Surrounding Chlorophylls and the Capability of Triplet–Triplet Energy Transfer

Carotenoids represent the first line of defence of photosystems against singlet oxygen (1O2) toxicity, because of their capacity to quench the chlorophyll triplet state (3Chl) through a physical mechanism based on the transfer of triplet excitation (triplet–triplet energy transfer, TTET). In previous works, we showed that the antenna LHCII is characterised by a robust photoprotective mechanism, able to adapt to the removal of individual chlorophylls while maintaining a remarkable capacity for 3Chl quenching. In this work, we investigated the effects on this quenching induced in LHCII by the replacement of the lutein bound at the L1 site with violaxanthin and zeaxanthin. We studied LHCII isolated from the Arabidopsis thaliana mutants lut2—in which lutein is replaced by violaxanthin—and lut2 npq2, in which all xanthophylls are replaced constitutively by zeaxanthin. We characterised the photophysics of these systems via optically detected magnetic resonance (ODMR) and time-resolved electron paramagnetic resonance (TR-EPR). We concluded that, in LHCII, lutein-binding sites have conserved characteristics, and ensure efficient TTET regardless of the identity of the carotenoid accommodated

Multimodal treatment for high-risk prostate cancer with high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy preceded or not by radical prostatectomy, concurrent intensified-dose docetaxel and long-term androgen deprivation therapy: results of a prospective phase II trial.

BACKGROUND The optimal management of high-risk prostate cancer remains uncertain. In this study we assessed the safety and efficacy of a novel multimodal treatment paradigm for high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS This was a prospective phase II trial including 35 patients with newly diagnosed high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer treated with high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy preceded or not by radical prostatectomy, concurrent intensified-dose docetaxel-based chemotherapy and long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Primary endpoint was acute and late toxicity evaluated with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. Secondary endpoint was biochemical and clinical recurrence-free survival explored with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS Acute gastro-intestinal and genito-urinary toxicity was grade 2 in 23% and 20% of patients, and grade 3 in 9% and 3% of patients, respectively. Acute blood/bone marrow toxicity was grade 2 in 20% of patients. No acute grade ≥ 4 toxicity was observed. Late gastro-intestinal and genito-urinary toxicity was grade 2 in 9% of patients each. No late grade ≥ 3 toxicity was observed. Median follow-up was 63 months (interquartile range 31-79). Actuarial 5-year biochemical and clinical recurrence-free survival rate was 55% (95% confidence interval, 35-75%) and 70% (95% confidence interval, 52-88%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS In our phase II trial testing a novel multimodal treatment paradigm for high-risk prostate cancer, toxicity was acceptably low and mid-term oncological outcome was good. This treatment paradigm, thus, may warrant further evaluation in phase III randomized trials

Multimodal treatment for high-risk prostate cancer with high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy preceded or not by radical prostatectomy, concurrent intensified-dose docetaxel and long-term androgen deprivation therapy: results of a prospective phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal management of high-risk prostate cancer remains uncertain. In this study we assessed the safety and efficacy of a novel multimodal treatment paradigm for high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: This was a prospective phase II trial including 35 patients with newly diagnosed high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer treated with high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy preceded or not by radical prostatectomy, concurrent intensified-dose docetaxel-based chemotherapy and long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Primary endpoint was acute and late toxicity evaluated with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. Secondary endpoint was biochemical and clinical recurrence-free survival explored with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Acute gastro-intestinal and genito-urinary toxicity was grade 2 in 23% and 20% of patients, and grade 3 in 9% and 3% of patients, respectively. Acute blood/bone marrow toxicity was grade 2 in 20% of patients. No acute grade ≥ 4 toxicity was observed. Late gastro-intestinal and genito-urinary toxicity was grade 2 in 9% of patients each. No late grade ≥ 3 toxicity was observed. Median follow-up was 63 months (interquartile range 31-79). Actuarial 5-year biochemical and clinical recurrence-free survival rate was 55% (95% confidence interval, 35-75%) and 70% (95% confidence interval, 52-88%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In our phase II trial testing a novel multimodal treatment paradigm for high-risk prostate cancer, toxicity was acceptably low and mid-term oncological outcome was good. This treatment paradigm, thus, may warrant further evaluation in phase III randomized trials

Predicting Local Failure after Partial Prostate Re-Irradiation Using a Dosiomic-Based Machine Learning Model

The aim of this study is to predict local failure after partial prostate re-irradiation for the treatment of isolated locally recurrent prostate cancer by using a machine learning classifier based on radiomic features from pre-treatment computed tomography (CT), positron-emission tomography (PET) and biological effective dose distribution (BED) of the radiotherapy plan. The analysis was conducted on a monocentric dataset of 43 patients with evidence of isolated intraprostatic recurrence of prostate cancer after primary external beam radiotherapy. All patients received partial prostate re-irradiation delivered by volumetric modulated arc therapy. The gross tumor volume (GTV) of each patient was manually contoured from planning CT, choline-PET and dose maps. An ensemble machine learning pipeline including unbalanced data correction and feature selection was trained using the radiomic and dosiomic features as input for predicting occurrence of local failure. The model performance was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and area under receiver operating characteristic curves of the score function in 10-fold cross validation repeated 100 times. Local failure was observed in 13 patients (30%), with a median time to recurrence of 36.7 months (range = 6.1–102.4 months). A four variables ensemble machine learning model resulted in accuracy of 0.62 and AUC 0.65. According to our results, a dosiomic machine learning classifier can predict local failure after partial prostate re-irradiation

Impact of DNA repair gene polymorphisms on the risk of biochemical recurrence after radiotherapy and overall survival in prostate cancer

The identification of biomarkers of biochemical recurrence (BCR) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) represents an unanswered clinical issue. The primary aim of this study was the definition of new genetic prognostic biomarkers in DNA repair genes (DRGs), considering both BCR and overall survival (OS) as clinical end-points. The secondary aim was to explore the potential clinical impact of these genetic variants with the decision curve analysis (DCA) and the sensitivity analysis. We analyzed 22 germline polymorphisms in 14 DRGs on 542 Caucasian PCa patients treated with RT as primary therapy. Significant associations were further tested with a bootstrapping technique. According to our analyses, ERCC2-rs1799793 and EXO1-rs4149963 were significantly associated with BCR (p = 0.01 and p = 0.01, respectively). Moreover, MSH6-rs3136228 was associated with a worse OS (p = 0.04). Nonetheless, the DCA and the sensitivity analyses gave no ultimate response about the clinical impact of such variants. This study highlights the potential prognostic role of polymorphisms in DRGs for PCa, paving the way to the introduction of not invasive tools for the personalization of patients management. Nonetheless, other prospective studies are necessary to ultimately clarify the clinical impact of pharmacogenetics in PCa