Agricultural resource and risk management with multiperiod stochastics: A case of the mixed crop-livestock production system in the drylands of Jordan

Generally, agricultural production involves several challenges. In the drylands, it is further complicated by weather-related risks and resource degradation. In this paper, we present a case study of the mixed crop-livestock production system in Jordan. To better capture the nature of response farming in the drylands, we develop a methodology for using crop simulation models to directly generate data for optimizing production practices of an integrated crop-livestock producing household in a dynamic stochastic context. The approach optimizes producer's adaptations to random events, such as weather, which are realized throughout the planning horizon. To ensure the sustainability of the optimized production decisions, long-term valuations of end of horizon soil attributes are included in the objective function. This approach endogenizes the tradeoff between short-and long-run productivity. Model results show that due to the limited natural resource endowments and financial liquidity constraints of the typical farm households in the study area, we find these households have limited options. To optimally respond to weather conditions during the production season, better manage risk, and achieve improvements in soil attributes, a typical household would need larger farm size, larger flock, and better financial liquidity than it currently commands. Like all such models, the farm household model used in this paper is not suitable for drawing policy implications. Therefore, targeted analysis using appropriate sectoral or economy-wide models will be needed in the future to identify and test the efficacy of different policy and institutional interventions including land consolidation, establishment of producer and marketing cooperatives, access to financial services including agricultural credit, and crop insurance in expanding the resource base of farmers-thereby positioning them for higher earnings, ensuring soil conservation, and enhancing the sustainability of the production system

Hallmarks of the tumour microenvironment of gliomas and Its interaction with emerging immunotherapy modalities

Gliomas are aggressive, primary central nervous system tumours arising from glial cells. Glioblastomas are the most malignant. They are known for their poor prognosis or median overall survival. The current standard of care is overwhelmed by the heterogeneous, immunosuppressive tumour microenvironment promoting immune evasion and tumour proliferation. The advent of immunotherapy with its various modalities—immune checkpoint inhibitors, cancer vaccines, oncolytic viruses and chimeric antigen receptor T cells and NK cells—has shown promise. Clinical trials incorporating combination immunotherapies have overcome the microenvironment resistance and yielded promising survival and prognostic benefits. Rolling these new therapies out in the real-world scenario in a low-cost, high-throughput manner is the unmet need of the hour. These will have practice-changing implications to the glioma treatment landscape. Here, we review the immunobiological hallmarks of the TME of gliomas, how the TME evades immunotherapies and the work that is being conducted to overcome this interplay

Exosomes in the diagnosis and treatment of renal cell cancer

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most prevalent type of kidney cancer originating from renal tubular epithelial cells, with clear cell RCC comprising approximately 80% of cases. The primary treatment modalities for RCC are surgery and targeted therapy, albeit with suboptimal efficacies. Despite progress in RCC research, significant challenges persist, including advanced distant metastasis, delayed diagnosis, and drug resistance. Growing evidence suggests that extracellular vesicles (EVs) play a pivotal role in multiple aspects of RCC, including tumorigenesis, metastasis, immune evasion, and drug response. These membrane-bound vesicles are released into the extracellular environment by nearly all cell types and are capable of transferring various bioactive molecules, including RNA, DNA, proteins, and lipids, aiding intercellular communication. The molecular cargo carried by EVs renders them an attractive resource for biomarker identification, while their multifarious role in the RCC offers opportunities for diagnosis and targeted interventions, including EV-based therapies. As the most versatile type of EVs, exosomes have attracted much attention as nanocarriers of biologicals, with multi-range signaling effects. Despite the growing interest in exosomes, there is currently no widely accepted consensus on their subtypes and properties. The emerging heterogeneity of exosomes presents both methodological challenges and exciting opportunities for diagnostic and clinical interventions. This article reviews the characteristics and functions of exosomes, with a particular reference to the recent advances in their application to the diagnosis and treatment of RCC

Combining PARP Inhibition with Platinum, Ruthenium or Gold Complexes for Cancer Therapy

Platinum drugs are heavily used first-line chemotherapeutic agents for many solid tumours and have stimulated substantial interest in the biological activity of DNA-binding metal complexes. These complexes generate DNA lesions which trigger the activation of DNA damage response (DDR) pathways that are essential to maintain genomic integrity. Cancer cells exploit this intrinsic DNA repair network to counteract many types of chemotherapies. Now, advances in the molecular biology of cancer has paved the way for the combination of DDR inhibitors such as poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) and agents that induce high levels of DNA replication stress or single-strand break damage for synergistic cancer cell killing. In this review, we summarise early-stage, preclinical and clinical findings exploring platinum and emerging ruthenium anti-cancer complexes alongside PARPi in combination therapy for cancer and also describe emerging work on the ability of ruthenium and gold complexes to directly inhibit PARP activity

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: final results from two randomised phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (herein referred to as abiraterone) or enzalutamide added at the start of androgen deprivation therapy improves outcomes for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes and test whether combining enzalutamide with abiraterone and androgen deprivation therapy improves survival. METHODS: We analysed two open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol, with no overlapping controls, conducted at 117 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restriction) had metastatic, histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; a WHO performance status of 0–2; and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised algorithm and a minimisation technique to either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy; docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously for six cycles with prednisolone 10 mg orally once per day allowed from Dec 17, 2015) or standard of care plus abiraterone acetate 1000 mg and prednisolone 5 mg (in the abiraterone trial) orally or abiraterone acetate and prednisolone plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once a day (in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial). Patients were stratified by centre, age, WHO performance status, type of androgen deprivation therapy, use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pelvic nodal status, planned radiotherapy, and planned docetaxel use. The primary outcome was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started treatment. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of individual patient data was used to compare differences in survival between the two trials. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN78818544). FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2011, and Jan 17, 2014, 1003 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=502) or standard of care plus abiraterone (n=501) in the abiraterone trial. Between July 29, 2014, and March 31, 2016, 916 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=454) or standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide (n=462) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. Median follow-up was 96 months (IQR 86–107) in the abiraterone trial and 72 months (61–74) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. In the abiraterone trial, median overall survival was 76·6 months (95% CI 67·8–86·9) in the abiraterone group versus 45·7 months (41·6–52·0) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·53–0·73]; p<0·0001). In the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, median overall survival was 73·1 months (61·9–81·3) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide group versus 51·8 months (45·3–59·0) in the standard of care group (HR 0·65 [0·55–0·77]; p<0·0001). We found no difference in the treatment effect between these two trials (interaction HR 1·05 [0·83–1·32]; pinteraction=0·71) or between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·70). In the first 5 years of treatment, grade 3–5 toxic effects were higher when abiraterone was added to standard of care (271 [54%] of 498 vs 192 [38%] of 502 with standard of care) and the highest toxic effects were seen when abiraterone and enzalutamide were added to standard of care (302 [68%] of 445 vs 204 [45%] of 454 with standard of care). Cardiac causes were the most common cause of death due to adverse events (five [1%] with standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide [two attributed to treatment] and one (<1%) with standard of care in the abiraterone trial). INTERPRETATION: Enzalutamide and abiraterone should not be combined for patients with prostate cancer starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Clinically important improvements in survival from addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy are maintained for longer than 7 years. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas

Combined PARP and ATR inhibition potentiates genome instability and cell death in ATM-deficient cancer cells.

The poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib is FDA approved for the treatment of BRCA-mutated breast, ovarian and pancreatic cancers. Olaparib inhibits PARP1/2 enzymatic activity and traps PARP1 on DNA at single-strand breaks, leading to replication-induced DNA damage that requires BRCA1/2-dependent homologous recombination repair. Moreover, DNA damage response pathways mediated by the ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM) and ataxia-telangiectasia mutated and Rad3-related (ATR) kinases are hypothesised to be important survival pathways in response to PARP-inhibitor treatment. Here, we show that olaparib combines synergistically with the ATR-inhibitor AZD6738 (ceralasertib), in vitro, leading to selective cell death in ATM-deficient cells. We observe that 24 h olaparib treatment causes cells to accumulate in G2-M of the cell cycle, however, co-administration with AZD6738 releases the olaparib-treated cells from G2 arrest. Selectively in ATM-knockout cells, we show that combined olaparib/AZD6738 treatment induces more chromosomal aberrations and achieves this at lower concentrations and earlier treatment time-points than either monotherapy. Furthermore, single-agent olaparib efficacy in vitro requires PARP inhibition throughout multiple rounds of replication. Here, we demonstrate in several ATM-deficient cell lines that the olaparib and AZD6738 combination induces cell death within 1-2 cell divisions, suggesting that combined treatment could circumvent the need for prolonged drug exposure. Finally, we demonstrate in vivo combination activity of olaparib and AZD6738 in xenograft and PDX mouse models with complete ATM loss. Collectively, these data provide a mechanistic understanding of combined PARP and ATR inhibition in ATM-deficient models, and support the clinical development of AZD6738 in combination with olaparib

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: final results from two randomised phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol

Background: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (herein referred to as abiraterone) or enzalutamide added at the start of androgen deprivation therapy improves outcomes for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes and test whether combining enzalutamide with abiraterone and androgen deprivation therapy improves survival. Methods: We analysed two open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol, with no overlapping controls, conducted at 117 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restriction) had metastatic, histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; a WHO performance status of 0–2; and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised algorithm and a minimisation technique to either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy; docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously for six cycles with prednisolone 10 mg orally once per day allowed from Dec 17, 2015) or standard of care plus abiraterone acetate 1000 mg and prednisolone 5 mg (in the abiraterone trial) orally or abiraterone acetate and prednisolone plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once a day (in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial). Patients were stratified by centre, age, WHO performance status, type of androgen deprivation therapy, use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pelvic nodal status, planned radiotherapy, and planned docetaxel use. The primary outcome was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started treatment. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of individual patient data was used to compare differences in survival between the two trials. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN78818544). Findings: Between Nov 15, 2011, and Jan 17, 2014, 1003 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=502) or standard of care plus abiraterone (n=501) in the abiraterone trial. Between July 29, 2014, and March 31, 2016, 916 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=454) or standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide (n=462) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. Median follow-up was 96 months (IQR 86–107) in the abiraterone trial and 72 months (61–74) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. In the abiraterone trial, median overall survival was 76·6 months (95% CI 67·8–86·9) in the abiraterone group versus 45·7 months (41·6–52·0) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·53–0·73]; p&lt;0·0001). In the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, median overall survival was 73·1 months (61·9–81·3) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide group versus 51·8 months (45·3–59·0) in the standard of care group (HR 0·65 [0·55–0·77]; p&lt;0·0001). We found no difference in the treatment effect between these two trials (interaction HR 1·05 [0·83–1·32]; pinteraction=0·71) or between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·70). In the first 5 years of treatment, grade 3–5 toxic effects were higher when abiraterone was added to standard of care (271 [54%] of 498 vs 192 [38%] of 502 with standard of care) and the highest toxic effects were seen when abiraterone and enzalutamide were added to standard of care (302 [68%] of 445 vs 204 [45%] of 454 with standard of care). Cardiac causes were the most common cause of death due to adverse events (five [1%] with standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide [two attributed to treatment] and one (&lt;1%) with standard of care in the abiraterone trial). Interpretation: Enzalutamide and abiraterone should not be combined for patients with prostate cancer starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Clinically important improvements in survival from addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy are maintained for longer than 7 years. Funding: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas