5 research outputs found

    Effects of intervention with sulindac and inulin/VSL#3 on mucosal and luminal factors in the pouch of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis

    Get PDF
    Contains fulltext : 97862.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND/AIM: In order to define future chemoprevention strategies for adenomas or carcinomas in the pouch of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), a 4-weeks intervention with (1) sulindac, (2) inulin/VSL#3, and (3) sulindac/inulin/VSL#3 was performed on 17 patients with FAP in a single center intervention study. Primary endpoints were the risk parameters cell proliferation and glutathione S-transferase (GST) detoxification capacity in the pouch mucosa; secondary endpoints were the short chain fatty acid (SCFA) contents, pH, and cytotoxicity of fecal water. METHODS: Before the start and at the end of each 4-week intervention period, six biopsies of the pouch were taken and feces was collected during 24 h. Cell proliferation and GST enzyme activity was assessed in the biopsies and pH, SCFA contents, and cytotoxicity were assessed in the fecal water fraction. The three interventions (sulindac, inulin/VSL#3, sulindac/inulin/VSL#3) were compared with the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Cell proliferation was lower after sulindac or VSL#3/inulin, the combination treatment with sulindac/inulin/VSL#3 showed the opposite. GST enzyme activity was increased after sulindac or VSL#3/inulin, the combination treatment showed the opposite effect. However, no significance was reached in all these measures. Cytotoxicity, pH, and SCFA content of fecal water showed no differences at all among the three treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed non-significant decreased cell proliferation and increased detoxification capacity after treatment with sulindac or VSL#3/inulin; however, combining both regimens did not show an additional effect

    Microcalcification crystallography as a potential marker of DCIS recurrence

    Get PDF
    Ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) accounts for 20-25% of all new breast cancer diagnoses. DCIS has an uncertain risk of progression to invasive breast cancer and a lack of predictive biomarkers may result in relatively high levels (~ 75%) of overtreatment. To identify unique prognostic biomarkers of invasive progression, crystallographic and chemical features of DCIS microcalcifications have been explored. Samples from patients with at least 5-years of follow up and no known recurrence (174 calcifications in 67 patients) or ipsilateral invasive breast cancer recurrence (179 microcalcifications in 57 patients) were studied. Significant differences were noted between the two groups including whitlockite relative mass, hydroxyapatite and whitlockite crystal maturity and, elementally, sodium to calcium ion ratio. A preliminary predictive model for DCIS to invasive cancer progression was developed from these parameters with an AUC of 0.797. These results provide insights into the differing DCIS tissue microenvironments, and how these impact microcalcification formation. [Abstract copyright: © 2023. The Author(s).

    Prediction Models and Decision Aids for Women with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Systematic Literature Review

    No full text
    Even though Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS) can potentially be an invasive breast cancer (IBC) precursor, most DCIS lesions never will progress to IBC if left untreated. Because we cannot predict yet which DCIS lesions will and which will not progress, almost all women with DCIS are treated by breast-conserving surgery +/− radiotherapy, or even mastectomy. As a consequence, many women with non-progressive DCIS carry the burden of intensive treatment without any benefit. Multiple decision support tools have been developed to optimize DCIS management, aiming to find the balance between over- and undertreatment. In this systematic review, we evaluated the quality and added value of such tools. A systematic literature search was performed in Medline(ovid), Embase(ovid), Scopus and TRIP. Following the PRISMA guidelines, publications were selected. The CHARMS (prediction models) or IPDAS (decision aids) checklist were used to evaluate the tools’ methodological quality. Thirty-three publications describing four decision aids and six prediction models were included. The decision aids met at least 50% of the IPDAS criteria. However, most lacked tools to facilitate discussion of the information with healthcare providers. Five prediction models quantify the risk of an ipsilateral breast event after a primary DCIS, one estimates the risk of contralateral breast cancer, and none included active surveillance. Good quality and external validations were lacking for all prediction models. There remains an unmet clinical need for well-validated, good-quality DCIS risk prediction models and decision aids in which active surveillance is included as a management option for low-risk DCIS

    Genomic analysis defines clonal relationships of ductal carcinoma in situ and recurrent invasive breast cancer.

    Get PDF
    Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is the most common form of preinvasive breast cancer and, despite treatment, a small fraction (5-10%) of DCIS patients develop subsequent invasive disease. A fundamental biologic question is whether the invasive disease arises from tumor cells in the initial DCIS or represents new unrelated disease. To address this question, we performed genomic analyses on the initial DCIS lesion and paired invasive recurrent tumors in 95 patients together with single-cell DNA sequencing in a subset of cases. Our data show that in 75% of cases the invasive recurrence was clonally related to the initial DCIS, suggesting that tumor cells were not eliminated during the initial treatment. Surprisingly, however, 18% were clonally unrelated to the DCIS, representing new independent lineages and 7% of cases were ambiguous. This knowledge is essential for accurate risk evaluation of DCIS, treatment de-escalation strategies and the identification of predictive biomarkers
    corecore