Brain size and brain/intracranial volume ratio in major mental illness

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This paper summarizes the findings of a long term study addressing the question of how several brain volume measure are related to three major mental illnesses in a Colorado subject group. It reports results obtained from a large N, collected and analyzed by the same laboratory over a multiyear period, with visually guided MRI segmentation being the primary initial analytic tool.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Intracerebral volume (ICV), total brain volume (TBV), ventricular volume (VV), ventricular/brain ratio (VBR), and TBV/ICV ratios were calculated from a total of 224 subject MRIs collected over a period of 13 years. Subject groups included controls (C, N = 89), and patients with schizophrenia (SZ, N = 58), bipolar disorder (BD, N = 51), and schizoaffective disorder (SAD, N = 26).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>ICV, TBV, and VV measures compared favorably with values obtained by other research groups, but in this study did not differ significantly between groups. TBV/ICV ratios were significantly decreased, and VBR increased, in the SZ and BD groups compared to the C group. The SAD group did not differ from C on any measure.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In this study TBV/ICV and VBR ratios separated SZ and BD patients from controls. Of interest however, SAD patients did not differ from controls on these measures. The findings suggest that the gross measure of TBV may not reliably differ in the major mental illnesses to a degree useful in diagnosis, likely due to the intrinsic variability of the measures in question; the differences in VBR appear more robust across studies. Differences in some of these findings compared to earlier reports from several laboratories finding significant differences between groups in VV and TBV may relate to phenomenological drift, differences in analytic techniques, and possibly the "file drawer problem".</p

Prolactin receptor is a negative prognostic factor in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

Background: The influence of human prolactin (hPRL) on the development of breast and other types of cancer is well established. Little information, however, exists on the effects of hPRL on squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck (SCCHNs). Methods: In this study, we evaluated prolactin receptor (PRLR) expression in SCCHN cell lines and assessed by immunohistochemistry the expression in 89 patients with SCCHNs. The PRLR expression was correlated with clinicopathological characteristics as well as clinical outcome. The effect of hPRL treatment on tumour cell growth was evaluated in vitro. Results: Immunoreactivity for PRLR was observed in 85 out of 89 (95%) tumours. Multivariate COX regression analysis confirmed high levels of PRLR expression (>25% of tumour cells) to be an independent prognostic factor with respect to overall survival (HR=3.70, 95% CI: 1.14–12.01; P=0.029) and disease-free survival (P=0.017). Growth of PRLR-positive cancer cells increased in response to hPRL treatment. Conclusion: Our data indicate that hPRL is an important growth factor for SCCHN. Because of PRLR expression in a vast majority of tumour specimens and its negative impact on overall survival, the receptor represents a novel prognosticator and a promising drug target for patients with SCCHNs

Reply to “Noncancer comparators in cancer survivorship studies”

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/173094/1/cncr34254.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/173094/2/cncr34254_am.pd

Prolactin confers resistance against cisplatin in breast cancer cells by activating glutathione-S-transferase

Resistance to chemotherapy is a major obstacle for successful treatment of breast cancer patients. Given that prolactin (PRL) acts as an anti-apoptotic/survival factor in the breast, we postulated that it antagonizes cytotoxicity by chemotherapeutic drugs. Treatment of breast cancer cells with PRL caused variable resistance to taxol, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin. PRL prevented cisplatin-induced G2/M cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. In the presence of PRL, significantly less cisplatin was bound to DNA, as determined by mass spectroscopy, and little DNA damage was seen by γ-H2AX staining. PRL dramatically increased the activity of glutathione-S-transferase (GST), which sequesters cisplatin in the cytoplasm; this increase was abrogated by Jak and mitogen-activated protein kinase inhibitors. PRL upregulated the expression of the GSTμ, but not the π, isozyme. A GST inhibitor abrogated antagonism of cisplatin cytotoxicity by PRL. In conclusion, PRL confers resistance against cisplatin by activating a detoxification enzyme, thereby reducing drug entry into the nucleus. These data provide a rational explanation for the ineffectiveness of cisplatin in breast cancer, which is characterized by high expression of both PRL and its receptor. Suppression of PRL production or blockade of its actions should benefit patients undergoing chemotherapy by allowing for lower drug doses and expanded drug options