The new cardioprotector Monohydroxyethylrutoside protects against doxorubicin-induced inflammatory effects in vitro

The new cardioprotector Monohydroxyethylrutoside protects against doxorubicin-induced inflammatory effects in vitro. Abou El Hassan MA, Verheul HM, Jorna AS, Schalkwijk C, van Bezu J, van der Vijgh WJ, Bast A. Department of Medical Oncology, Free University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [email protected] Besides its cardiotoxic effect, doxorubicin also elicits inflammatory effects in vivo. 7-Monohydroxyethylrutoside (monoHER) has recently been used as a protector against doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity in vivo. It is not known yet whether monoHER can also protect against doxorubicin-induced inflammatory effects. The aim of the present study was (1) to illustrate the inflammatory effects of doxorubicin in vitro and (2) to evaluate a possibly protective effect of monoHER. In order to demonstrate the inflammatory effects of doxorubicin and the possible protection of monoHER, proliferating human umbilical cord vascular endothelial cells (HUVECs) were incubated with different concentrations of doxorubicin ranging from 12.5 to 600 nM with(out) 200 micro M monoHER. Resting (confluent) HUVECs were incubated with (0.5-25 micro M) doxorubicin with(out) monoHER (0.2-1.2 mM) and the viability of endothelial cells and their propensity to adhere to neutrophils were measured 24 h after treatment. The localisation of adhered neutrophils was determined with immunofluorescence microscopy. To further characterise the mechanism of doxorubicin-induced neutrophil adhesion, the expression of the HUVECs surface adhesion molecules was determined after doxorubicin treatment. Doxorubicin decreased the viability and proliferation capacity of HUVECs in a concentration-dependent manner. The proliferating HUVECs were much more sensitive to doxorubicin (IC(50)=60.0+/-20.8 nM) than resting cells (LC(50)=4.0+/-0.3 micro M). Doxorubicin also increased the adhesion of neutrophils reaching a plateau value at a doxorubicin concentration of > or =0.4 micro M (P=0.0113). The induced neutrophil adhesion was accompanied by overexpression of VCAM and E-selectin but not ICAM. Although monoHER did not reverse the effect of doxorubicin on the proliferation of endothelial cells, it significantly protected resting HUVECs against the cytotoxic effect of doxorubicin (< or =25 micro M, P<0.0015). In addition, monoHER completely protected against the stimulatory effect of doxorubicin on neutrophil adhesion, and inhibited the doxorubin-induced expression of VCAM and E-selectin on the surface of treated HUVECs. This study illustrates that monoHER, which protects against doxorubicin's cardiotoxic effect, can also protect against doxorubicin-induced inflammatory effects. These data prompt further investigation about the possible link between doxorubicin-induced inflammatory effects and its cardiotoxicity in viv

Anti-inflammatory agents and monoHER protect against DOX-induced cardiotoxicity and accumulation of CML in mice

Cardiac damage is the major limiting factor for the clinical use of doxorubicin (DOX). Preclinical studies indicate that inflammatory effects may be involved in DOX-induced cardiotoxicity. Nɛ-(carboxymethyl) lysine (CML) is suggested to be generated subsequent to oxidative stress, including inflammation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether CML increased in the heart after DOX and whether anti-inflammatory agents reduced this effect in addition to their possible protection on DOX-induced cardiotoxicity. These effects were compared with those of the potential cardioprotector 7-monohydroxyethylrutoside (monoHER)

A comparative study between catalase gene therapy and the cardioprotector monohydroxyethylrutoside (MonoHER) in protecting against doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity in vitro

50) limited the possibility to increase catalase activity more than 3.5-fold, which was not enough to protect infected NeRCaMs against doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity and (2) confirms the efficacy of monoHER as a cardioprotector. Thus, the use of monoHER proves more suitable for the prevention of doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity than catalase gene transfer employing adenovirus vectors

Expression of RFC/SLC19A1 is Associated with Tumor Type in Bladder Cancer Patients

Urinary bladder cancer (UBC) ranks ninth in worldwide cancer. In Egypt, the pattern of bladder cancer is unique in that both the transitional and squamous cell types prevail. Despite much research on the topic, it is still difficult to predict tumor progression, optimal therapy and clinical outcome. The reduced folate carrier (RFC/SLC19A1) is the major transport system for folates in mammalian cells and tissues. RFC is also the primary means of cellular uptake for antifolate cancer chemotherapeutic drugs, however, membrane transport of antifolates by RFC is considered as limiting to antitumor activity. The purpose of this study was to compare the mRNA expression level of RFC/SLC19A1 in urothelial and non-urothelial variants of bladder carcinomas. Quantification of RFC mRNA in the mucosa of 41 untreated bladder cancer patients was performed using RT-qPCR. RFC mRNA steady-state levels were ∼9-fold higher (N = 39; P<0.0001) in bladder tumor specimens relative to normal bladder mRNA. RFC upregulation was strongly correlated with tumor type (urothelial vs. non-urothelial; p<0.05) where median RFC mRNA expression was significantly (p<0.05) higher in the urothelial (∼14-fold) compared to the non-urothelial (∼4-fold) variant. This may account for the variation in response to antifolate-containing regimens used in the treatment of either type. RFC mRNA levels were not associated with tumor grade (I, II and III) or stage (muscle-invasive vs. non-muscle invasive) implying that RFC cannot be used for prognostic purposes in bladder carcinomas and its increased expression is an early event in human bladder tumors pathogenesis. Further, RFC can be considered as a potential marker for predicting response to antifolate chemotherapy in urothelial carcinomas

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

Background Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide.Methods A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study-a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital.Findings Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.85 [95% CI 2.58-5.75]; p&lt;0.0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63.0% vs 82.7%; OR 0.35 [0.23-0.53]; p&lt;0.0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer.Interpretation Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised

Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease