Endothelial cells stimulate growth of normal and cancerous breast epithelial cells in 3D culture

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Epithelial-stromal interaction provides regulatory signals that maintain correct histoarchitecture and homeostasis in the normal breast and facilitates tumor progression in breast cancer. However, research on the regulatory role of the endothelial component in the normal and malignant breast gland has largely been neglected. The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of endothelial cells on growth and differentiation of human breast epithelial cells in a three-dimensional (3D) co-culture assay.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Breast luminal and myoepithelial cells and endothelial cells were isolated from reduction mammoplasties. Primary cells and established normal and malignant breast cell lines were embedded in reconstituted basement membrane in direct co-culture with endothelial cells and by separation of Transwell filters. Morphogenic and phenotypic profiles of co-cultures was evaluated by phase contrast microscopy, immunostaining and confocal microscopy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In co-culture, endothelial cells stimulate proliferation of both luminal- and myoepithelial cells. Furthermore, endothelial cells induce a subpopulation of luminal epithelial cells to form large acini/ducts with a large and clear lumen. Endothelial cells also stimulate growth and cloning efficiency of normal and malignant breast epithelial cell lines. Transwell and gradient co-culture studies show that endothelial derived effects are mediated - at least partially - by soluble factors.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Breast endothelial cells - beside their role in transporting nutrients and oxygen to tissues - are vital component of the epithelial microenvironment in the breast and provide proliferative signals to the normal and malignant breast epithelium. These growth promoting effects of endothelial cells should be taken into consideration in breast cancer biology.</p

Niraparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DNA repair gene defects (GALAHAD): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial

Background Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers are enriched for DNA repair gene defects (DRDs) that can be susceptible to synthetic lethality through inhibition of PARP proteins. We evaluated the anti-tumour activity and safety of the PARP inhibitor niraparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers and DRDs who progressed on previous treatment with an androgen signalling inhibitor and a taxane. Methods In this multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study, patients aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mixed histology accepted, with the exception of the small cell pure phenotype) and DRDs (assessed in blood, tumour tissue, or saliva), with progression on a previous next-generation androgen signalling inhibitor and a taxane per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 or Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, were eligible. Enrolled patients received niraparib 300 mg orally once daily until treatment discontinuation, death, or study termination. For the final study analysis, all patients who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analysis population; patients with germline pathogenic or somatic biallelic pathogenic alterations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA cohort) or biallelic alterations in other prespecified DRDs (non-BRCA cohort) were included in the efficacy analysis population. The primary endpoint was objective response rate in patients with BRCA alterations and measurable disease (measurable BRCA cohort). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02854436. Findings Between Sept 28, 2016, and June 26, 2020, 289 patients were enrolled, of whom 182 (63%) had received three or more systemic therapies for prostate cancer. 223 (77%) of 289 patients were included in the overall efficacy analysis population, which included BRCA (n=142) and non-BRCA (n=81) cohorts. At final analysis, with a median follow-up of 10·0 months (IQR 6·6–13·3), the objective response rate in the measurable BRCA cohort (n=76) was 34·2% (95% CI 23·7–46·0). In the safety analysis population, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were nausea (169 [58%] of 289), anaemia (156 [54%]), and vomiting (111 [38%]); the most common grade 3 or worse events were haematological (anaemia in 95 [33%] of 289; thrombocytopenia in 47 [16%]; and neutropenia in 28 [10%]). Of 134 (46%) of 289 patients with at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event, the most common were also haematological (thrombocytopenia in 17 [6%] and anaemia in 13 [4%]). Two adverse events with fatal outcome (one patient with urosepsis in the BRCA cohort and one patient with sepsis in the non-BRCA cohort) were deemed possibly related to niraparib treatment. Interpretation Niraparib is tolerable and shows anti-tumour activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DRDs, particularly in those with BRCA alterations

Single institution followed by national implementation of systematic surgical quality control and feedback for radical prostatectomy : a 20-year journey

Purpose: The demand for objective and outcome-based facts about surgical results after radical prostatectomy (RP) is increasing. Systematic feedback is also essential for each surgeon to improve his/her performance. Methods: RP outcome data (e.g., pT-stage and margin status) have been registered at Sahlgrenska University Hospital (SUH) since 1988 and patient-related outcome measures (PROM) have been registered since 2001. The National Prostate Cancer Registry (NPCR) has covered all Regions in Sweden since 1998 and includes PROM-data from 2008. Initially PROM was on-paper questionnaires but due since 2018 all PROMs are collected electronically. In 2014 an on-line “dashboard” panel was introduced, showing the results for ten quality-control variables in real-time. Since 2017 all RP data on hospital, regional, and national levels are publicly accessible on-line on “www.npcr.se/RATTEN”. Results: The early PROM-data from SUH have been used for internal quality control. As national clinical and PROM-data from the NPCR have been made accessible on-line and in real-time we have incorporated this into our pre-existing protocol. Our data are now internally available as real-time NPCR reports on the individual surgeons’ results, as well as ePROM data. We can compare the results of each surgeon internally and to other departments’ aggregated data. The public can access data and compare hospital level data on “RATTEN”. Conclusions: The process of quality control of RP locally at SUH, and nationally through the NPCR, has been long but fruitful. The online design, with direct real-time feedback to the institutions that report the data, is essential