Posttranscriptional Regulation of the Plasminogen Activation System by Non-Coding RNA in Cancer

Various species of non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) may act as functional molecules regulating diverse biological processes. In cancer cell biology, ncRNAs include RNAs that regulate the expression of oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes through various mechanisms. The urokinase (uPA)-mediated plasminogen activation system (PAS) includes uPA, its inhibitors PAI-1 and PAI-2 and its specific cellular receptor uPAR; their increased expression represents a negative prognostic factor in several cancers. Here, we will briefly describe the main uPA-mediated PAS components and ncRNA species; then, we will review more recent evidence of the roles that ncRNAs may play in regulating the expression and functions of uPA-mediated PAS components in cancer

Identification of uPAR Variants Acting as ceRNAs in Leukaemia Cells

The 3′untranslated region (3′UTR) of the urokinase (uPA) receptor (uPAR) mRNA can act as a competitive endogenous RNA (ceRNA) in acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) cells, promoting the expression of pro-tumoral targets, including uPAR. Here, we identified three variants of uPAR mRNA containing the 3′UTR, in KG1 and U937 leukaemia cells expressing low and high uPAR levels, respectively. Identified variants lack exon 5 (uPAR Δ5) or exon 6 (uPAR Δ6) or part of exon 6, exon 7 and part of 3′UTR (uPAR Δ6/7). uPAR Δ5 and uPAR Δ6 transcript levels were higher in U937 cells compared to KG1 cells. Both uPAR variants were expressed also in AML blasts, at higher levels as compared to CD34 hematopoietic cells from healthy donors. The presence of the 3′UTR conferred high instability to the uPAR Δ5 variant transcript, preventing its translation in protein. Overexpression of the uPAR Δ5-3′UTR variant regulated the expression of some pro-tumoral factors previously reported to be regulated by the 3′UTR of uPAR and increased KG1 cell adhesion, migration and proliferation. These results demonstrate the expression of uPAR mRNA variants containing the 3′UTR in AML cells and the ceRNA activity and the biological effects of the uPAR Δ5-3′UTR variant

Clinical nutrition in surgical oncology: Young AIOM-AIRO-SICO multidisciplinary national survey on behalf of NutriOnc research group

Malnutrition is a common condition in cancer patients which is usually associated with functional limitations, as well as increased morbidity and mortality. Based on the support of the young sections of Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) and Italian Society of Surgical Oncology (SICO) merged into the NutriOnc Research Group, we performed a multidisciplinary national survey with the aim to define the awareness of nutritional issues among healthcare professionals delivering anticancer care. The questionnaire was organized in four sections, as follows: Knowledge and practices regarding Nutritional Management of cancer patients; Timing of screening and assessment of Nutritional Status; Nutritional Treatment and prescription criteria; Immunonutrition and educational topics. The modules focused on esophagogastric, hepato-bilio-pancreatic and colorectal malignancies. Overall, 215 physicians completed the survey. As regards the management of Nutritional Status of cancer patients, many responders adopted the ERAS program (49.3%), while a consistent number of professionals did not follow a specific validated nutritional care protocol (41.8%), mainly due to lack of educational courses (14.5%) and financial support (15.3%). Nearly all the included institutions had a multidisciplinary team (92%) to finalize the treatment decision-making. Cancer patients routinely underwent nutritional screening according to 57.2% of interviewed physicians. The timing of nutritional assessment was at diagnosis (37.8%), before surgery (25.9%), after surgery (16.7%), before radiochemotherapy (13.5%) and after radiochemotherapy (7%). Most of the responders reported that nutritional status was assessed throughout the duration of cancer treatments (55.6%). An important gap between current delivery and need of nutritional assessment persists. The development of specific and defined care protocols and the adherence to these tools may be the key to improving nutritional support management in clinical practice