9 research outputs found
Морфологическое обоснование применения интраоперационной лучевой терапии для профилактики локорегионального рецидива у больных с протоковой аденокарциномой поджелудочной железы
Background. It is well recognized that pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is associated with very poor prognosis, early locoregional invasion and distant metastases. One reason for this is the proliferation of tumor growth through perineural spaces.Aim. To evaluate the efficacy of intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) for the extrapancreatic perineural invasion (EPPI) in the development of locoregional recurrence in patients with PDAC. Results. In 14.5% (22/152) the tumor was pT1–2, pN0, extraPn 0, R0. R1 detected in 32.1% (49/152). ExtraPn was detected in 36.8% of cases (56/152). Metastases in regional lymph nodes was found in 62.5% (95/152) of cases. In the study of autopsybasic morphological parameters speakers include locoregional tumor progression and / or a distant progression. Locoregional recurrence was found in 85% of cases (29/34), which is manifested by the presence of perineural invasion. The mean time from surgery until locoregional recurrence without extraPn –14 months, with the presence of extraPn – 9 months.Conclusion. Thus, the absence of regional lymph nodes and/or with positive surgical margin does not preclude the development of locoregional recurrence in patients with PDAC. This is what necessitates a combined approach to the treatment of these patients, including surgery, supplemented by conducting IORT that effectively influences on tissues and reduces the number of local recurrence.Введение. Протоковая аденокарцинома поджелудочной железы ассоциируется с очень плохим прогнозом, ранней локорегиональной инвазией и быстрым развитием отдаленных метастазов. Одной из причин этого является высокая частота периневральной инвазии. Цель. В данном исследовании показана необходимость комбинированного подхода к лечению больных с протоковой аденокарциномой поджелудочной железы в видеприменения радикального хирургического вмешательства, дополненного ИОЛТ.Результаты. В 14,5% (22/152) можно утверждать об ограничении опухоли в пределах ПЖ, что соответствует рТ 1–2, pN0, extraPn 0, R0. Показатель R1 обнаружен в 32,1% случаев (49/152). Экстрапанкреатическая периневральная инвазия выявлена в 36,8% случаев (56/152). Метастазы в региональных лимфатических узлах бнаружили в 62,5% (95/152) случаев ПАК ПЖ. При исследовании аутопсийного материалаосновные морфологические параметры динамики опухоли включают локорегионарную прогрессию и/или дистантную прогрессию. Локорегионарный рецидив обнаружен в 85% случаев (29/34), проявляющийся наличием экстарпанкреатической периневральной инвазии в ложе удаленной опухоли. Среднее время от оперативного лечения до локорегионарного рецидива без extraPn – 14 месяцев, с наличием extraPn – 9 месяцев.Выводы. Локорегионарный рецидив у больных непосредственно cвязан с наличием именно экстрапериневральной инвазии. Выявленная субпопуляция больных без дистантной прогрессии, а только с наличием локорегионарного распространения, диктует необходимость применения комбинированного подхода с обязательным использованием ИОЛТ для достижения максимального эффекта от проведенного хирургического лечения и увеличения продолжительности жизни больных с протоковым раком поджелудочной железы
Cactus pear: a natural product in cancer chemoprevention
BACKGROUND: Cancer chemoprevention is a new approach in cancer prevention, in which chemical agents are used to prevent cancer in normal and/or high-risk populations. Although chemoprevention has shown promise in some epithelial cancers, currently available preventive agents are limited and the agents are costly, generally with side effects. Natural products, such as grape seed, green tea, and certain herbs have demonstrated anti-cancer effects. To find a natural product that can be used in chemoprevention of cancer, we tested Arizona cactus fruit solution, the aqueous extracts of cactus pear, for its anti-cancer effects in cultured cells and in an animal model. METHOD: Aqueous extracts of cactus pear were used to treat immortalized ovarian and cervical epithelial cells, as well as ovarian, cervical, and bladder cancer cells. Aqueous extracts of cactus pear were used at six concentrations (0, 0.5, 1, 5, 10 or 25%) to treat cells for 1, 3, or 5 days. Growth inhibition, apoptosis induction, and cell cycle changes were analyzed in the cultured cells; the suppression of tumor growth in nude mice was evaluated and compared with the effect of a synthetic retinoid N-(4-hydroxyphernyl) retinamide (4-HPR), which is currently used as a chemoprevention agent. Immunohistochemistry staining of tissue samples from animal tumors was performed to examine the gene expression. RESULTS: Cells exposed to cactus pear extracts had a significant increase in apoptosis and growth inhibition in both immortalized epithelial cells and cancer cells in a dose- and time-dependent manner. It also affected cell cycle of cancer cells by increasing G1 and decreasing G2 and S phases. Both 4-HPR and cactus pear extracts significantly suppressed tumor growth in nude mice, increased annexin IV expression, and decreased VEGF expression. CONCLUSION: Arizona cactus pear extracts effectively inhibited cell growth in several different immortalized and cancer cell cultures, suppressed tumor growth in nude mice, and modulated expression of tumor-related genes. These effects were comparable with those caused by a synthetic retinoid currently used in chemoprevention trials. The mechanism of the anti-cancer effects of cactus pear extracts needs to be further studied
Above and beyond superstition — western herbal medicine and the decriminalizing of placebo
Recommended from our members
Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context
Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health
Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context
Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health