Hepatoprotection and neuroprotection induced by low doses of IGF-II in aging rats

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>GH and IGFs serum levels decline with age. Age-related changes appear to be associated to decreases in these anabolic hormones. We have previously demonstrated that IGF-I replacement therapy improves insulin resistance, lipid metabolism and reduces oxidative damage (in brain and liver) in aging rats. Using the same experimental model, the aim of this work was to study whether the exogenous administration of IGF-II, at low doses, acts analogous to IGF-I in aging rats.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Three experimental groups were included in this study: young healthy controls (yCO, 17 weeks old); untreated old rats (O, 103 weeks old); and aging rats treated with IGF-II (O+IGF-II, 2 μg * 100 g body weight^-1* day^-1) for 30 days. Analytical parameters were determined in serum by routine laboratory methods using an autoanalyzer (Cobas Mira; Roche Diagnostic System, Basel, Switzerland). Serum levels of hormones (testosterone, IGF-I and insulin) were assessed by RIA. Serum Total Antioxidant Status was evaluated using a colorimetric assay. Mitochondrial membrane potential was evaluated using rhodamine 123 dye (adding different substrates to determine the different states). ATP synthesis in isolated mitochondria was determined by an enzymatic method.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Compared with young controls, untreated old rats showed a reduction of IGF-I and testosterone levels with a decrease of serum total antioxidant status (TAS). IGF-II therapy improved serum antioxidant capability without modifying testosterone and IGF-I circulating concentrations. In addition, IGF-II treatment reduced oxidative damage in brain and liver, improving antioxidant enzyme activities and mitochondrial function. IGF-II was also able to reduce cholesterol and triglycerides levels increasing free fatty acids concentrations.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We demonstrate that low doses of IGF-II induce hepatoprotective, neuroprotective and metabolic effects, improving mitochondrial function, without affecting testosterone and IGF-I levels.</p

Circulating tumor cells criteria (CyCAR) versus standard RECIST criteria for treatment response assessment in metastatic colorectal cancer patients

The use of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) as indicators of treatment response in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) needs to be clarified. The objective of this study is to compare the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) with the Cytologic Criteria Assessing Response (CyCAR), based on the presence and phenotypic characterization of CTCs, as indicators of FOLFOX–bevacizumab treatment response. We observed a decrease of CTCs (42.8 vs. 18.2%) and VEGFR positivity (69.7% vs. 41.7%) after treatment. According to RECIST, 6.45% of the patients did not show any clinical benefit, whereas 93.55% patients showed a favorable response at 12 weeks. According to CyCAR, 29% had a non-favorable response and 71% patients did not. No significant differences were found between the response assessment by RECIST and CyCAR at 12 or 24 weeks. However, in the multivariate analysis, RECIST at 12 weeks and CyCAR at 24 weeks were independent prognostic factors for OS (HR: 0.1, 95% CI 0.02–0.58 and HR: 0.35, 95% CI 0.12–0.99 respectively). CyCAR results were comparable to RECIST in evaluating the response in mCRC and can be used as an alternative when the limitation of RECIST requires additional response analysis techniques.This work was supported by Roche Spain and a Ph.D. grant from the University of Granada

Biomarkers characterization of circulating tumour cells in breast cancer patients

Introduction: Increasing evidence supports the view that the detection of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) predicts outcomes of nonmetastatic breast cancer patients. CTCs differ genetically from the primary tumor and may contribute to variations in prognosis and response to therapy. As we start to understand more about the biology of CTCs, we can begin to address how best to treat this form of disease. Methods: Ninety-eight nonmetastatic breast cancer patients were included in this study. CTCs were isolated by immunomagnetic techniques using magnetic beads labelled with a multi-CK-specific antibody (CK3-11D5) and CTC detection through immunocytochemical methods. Estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) were evaluated by immunofluorescence experiments and HER2 and TOP2A by fluorescence in situ hybridization. We aimed to characterize this set of biomarkers in CTCs and correlate it with clinical-pathological characteristics. Results: Baseline detection rate was 46.9% ≥ 1 CTC/30 ml threshold. CTC-positive cells were more frequent in HER2-negative tumors (p = 0.046). In patients younger than 50 years old, HER2-amplified and G1-G2 tumors had a higher possibility of being nondetectable CTCs. Heterogeneous expression of hormonal receptors (HRs) in samples from the same patients was found. Discordances between HR expression, HER2 and TOP2A status in CTCs and their primary tumor were found in the sequential blood samples. Less that 35% of patients switched their CTC status after receiving chemotherapy. EGFR-positive CTCs were associated with Luminal tumors (p = 0.03). Conclusions: This is the largest exploratory CTC biomarker analysis in nonmetastatic BC patients. Our study suggests that CTC biomarkers profiles might be useful as a surrogate marker for therapeutic selection and monitoring since heterogeneity of the biomarker distribution in CTCs and the lack of correlation with the primary tumor biomarker status were found. Further exploration of the association between EGFR-positive CTCs and Luminal tumors is warranted