137 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Is participation in a clinical trial associated with a survival benefit in patients with bladder cancer?
Bladder cancer that is unresponsive to intravesical therapies is difficult to treat. Patients with this disease usually have to try salvage therapies, partial cystectomy, or radical cystectomy. Unfortunately, the population afflicted by bladder cancer is older and frailer than those afflicted by other cancers with mortality approaching 1.5% and readmission rates approaching 64%. These patients are left with no other options aside from participating in a clinical trial to delay or avoid surgery. We hypothesized that participation in a clinical trial provides survival benefits when controlling for tumor stage and pathology in the case of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer that is refractory to intravesical Bacillus Calmette-GueÌrin (BCG). Using our Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved Columbia Urologic Oncology Database, 55 patients with BCG-refractory NMIBC (29 clinical trial patients, 26 non-clinical trial patients) were identified between 2008 and 2012. Clinical characteristics, demographics, and outcomes were obtained from the medical records. Non-clinical trial patients had fewer mean BCG instillations than their clinical trial counterparts (7.8 versus 11.5 doses, p < .01). Kaplan Meier (KP) curves for Overall Survival (OS) and Cancer Specific Survival (CSS) indicate an increased survival benefit for patients enrolled in a clinical trial (OS: Ï2 = 8.802, p< 0.01, median of 6.68 years versus 3.15 years; CSS: Ï2 = 10.205, p < 0.01, mean 5.6 years versus 2.65 years). The data support the notion that there may be an inherent survival benefit gained by virtue of being included in a clinical trial. The drivers of this survival benefit may include more interactions with the hospitals and clinics, greater patient involvement in their health care, and increased surveillance by clinicians
Recommended from our members
Immunohistochemical Analysis for Cytokeratin 7, KIT, and PAX2 Value in the Differential Diagnosis of Chromophobe Cell Carcinoma
Immunohistochemical staining for cytokeratin 7 (CK7), KIT, and PAX2 expression was performed on 91 renal neoplasms, 37 conventional (clear cell) renal cell carcinomas (CRCCs), 20 papillary RCCs (PRCCs), 11 chromophobe RCCs (ChCs), and 23 oncocytomas, with available karyotypes. All ChCs, 19 PRCCs, 2 CRCCs, and 1 oncocytoma were CK7+; all ChCs, 22 oncocytomas, 2 CRCCs, and no PRCCs expressed KIT; PAX2 was positive in 31 CRCCs, 17 PRCCs, 20 oncocytomas, and 1 ChC. The predominant expression profiles were as follows: CRCC, CK7â/KITâ/PAX2+ (26/37); PRCC, CK7+/KITâ/PAX2+ (17/20); ChC, CK7+/KIT+/PAX2â (10/11); and oncocytoma, CK7â/KIT+/PAX2+ (19/23). Cytogenetic analysis showed that the sole PAX2+ ChC had a retained chromosome 10, and all ChCs with chromosome 10 loss were PAX2â. These results identify specific staining patterns of the 4 major histologic subtypes of renal neoplasms and raise the question of a relationship between chromosome 10 loss and loss of PAX2 expression in ChC
Transcriptional response of polycomb group genes to status epilepticus in mice is modified by prior exposure to epileptic preconditioning.
Exposure of the brain to brief, non-harmful seizures can activate protective mechanisms that temporarily generate a damage-refractory state. This process, termed epileptic tolerance, is associated with large-scale down-regulation of gene expression. Polycomb group (PcG) proteins are master controllers of gene silencing during development that are re-activated by injury to the brain. Here, we explored the transcriptional response of genes associated with polycomb repressive complex (PRC) 1 (Ring1A, Ring1B, and Bmi1) and PRC2 (Ezh1, Ezh2, and Suz12), as well as additional transcriptional regulators Sirt1, Yy1, and Yy2, in a mouse model of status epilepticus (SE). Findings were contrasted to changes after SE in mice previously given brief seizures to evoke tolerance. Real-time quantitative PCR showed SE prompted an early (1 h) increase in expression of several genes in PRC1 and PRC2 in the hippocampus, followed by down-regulation of many of the same genes at later times points (4, 8, and 24 h). Spatio-temporal differences were found among PRC2 genes in epileptic tolerance, including increased expression of Ezh2, Suz12, and Yy2 relative to the normal injury response to SE. In contrast, PRC1 complex genes including Ring 1B and Bmi1 displayed differential down-regulation in epileptic tolerance. The present study characterizes PcG gene expression following SE and shows prior seizure exposure produces select changes to PRC1 and PRC2 composition that may influence differential gene expression in epileptic tolerance
Characteristic promoter hypermethylation signatures in male germ cell tumors
BACKGROUND: Human male germ cell tumors (GCTs) arise from undifferentiated primordial germ cells (PGCs), a stage in which extensive methylation reprogramming occurs. GCTs exhibit pluripotentality and are highly sensitive to cisplatin therapy. The molecular basis of germ cell (GC) transformation, differentiation, and exquisite treatment response is poorly understood. RESULTS: To assess the role and mechanism of promoter hypermethylation, we analyzed CpG islands of 21 gene promoters by methylation-specific PCR in seminomatous (SGCT) and nonseminomatous (NSGCT) GCTs. We found 60% of the NSGCTs demonstrating methylation in one or more gene promoters whereas SGCTs showed a near-absence of methylation, therefore identifying distinct methylation patterns in the two major histologies of GCT. DNA repair genes MGMT, RASSF1A, and BRCA1, and a transcriptional repressor gene HIC1, were frequently methylated in the NSGCTs. The promoter hypermethylation was associated with gene silencing in most methylated genes, and reactivation of gene expression occured upon treatment with 5-Aza-2' deoxycytidine in GCT cell lines. CONCLUSIONS: Our results, therefore, suggest a potential role for epigenetic modification of critical tumor suppressor genes in pathways relevant to GC transformation, differentiation, and treatment response
Recommended from our members
Cytogenetic analysis of 130 renal oncocytomas identify three distinct and mutually exclusive diagnostic classes of chromosome aberrations
The cytogenetic alterations in renal oncocytoma (RO) are poorly understood. We analyzed 130 consecutive RO for karyotypic alterations. Clonal chromosome abnormalities were identified in 63 (49%) cases, which could be categorized into three classes of mutually exclusive cytogenetic categories. Class 1 (N = 20) RO had diploid karyotypes with characteristic 11q13 rearrangement in balanced translocations with 10 or more different chromosome partners in all cases. We identified recurrent translocation partners at 5q35, 6p21, 9p24, 11p13-14, and 11q23, and confirmed that CCND1 gene rearrangement at 11q13 utilizing fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Class 2 RO (N = 25) exhibited hypodiploid karyotypes with loss of chromosome 1 and/or losses of Y in males and X in females in all cases. The class 3 tumors comprising of 18 cases showed diverse types of abnormalities with the involvement of two or more chromosomes exclusive of abnormalities seen in classes 1 and 2 tumors. Furthermore, karyotypically uninformative cases were subjected to FISH analysis to identify classes 1 and 2 abnormalities. In this group, we found similar frequencies of CCND1 rearrangement, loss of chromosome 1 or Y as with karyotypically abnormal cases. We validated our results against 91 tumors from the Mitelman database. Correlation of clinical data with all the three classes of ROs showed no clear evidence of overall patient survival. Our findings support the hypothesis that RO exhibit three principal cytogenetic categories, which may have different roles in initiation and/or progression. These cytogenetic markers provide a key tool in the diagnostic evaluation of RO
Role of promoter hypermethylation in Cisplatin treatment response of male germ cell tumors
BACKGROUND: Male germ cell tumor (GCT) is a highly curable malignancy, which exhibits exquisite sensitivity to cisplatin treatment. The genetic pathway(s) that determine the chemotherapy sensitivity in GCT remain largely unknown. RESULTS: We studied epigenetic changes in relation to cisplatin response by examining promoter hypermethylation in a cohort of resistant and sensitive GCTs. Here, we show that promoter hypermethylation of RASSF1A and HIC1 genes is associated with resistance. The promoter hypermethylation and/or the down-regulated expression of MGMT is seen in the majority of tumors. We hypothesize that these epigenetic alterations affecting MGMT play a major role in the exquisite sensitivity to cisplatin, characteristic of GCTs. We also demonstrate that cisplatin treatment induce de novo promoter hypermethylation in vivo. In addition, we show that the acquired cisplatin resistance in vitro alters the expression of specific genes and the highly resistant cells fail to reactivate gene expression after treatment to demethylating and histone deacetylase inhibiting agents. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that promoter hypermethylation of RASSF1A and HIC1 genes play a role in resistance of GCT, while the transcriptional inactivation of MGMT by epigenetic alterations confer exquisite sensitivity to cisplatin. These results also implicate defects in epigenetic pathways that regulate gene transcription in cisplatin resistant GCT
Prognostic importance of lymphovascular invasion in urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis
Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144274/1/cncr31372_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144274/2/cncr31372.pd
Liver transplantation in ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency: A retrospective multicentre cohort study
Ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency (OTCD) is an X-linked defect of ureagenesis and the most common urea cycle disorder. Patients present with hyperammonemia causing neurological symptoms, which can lead to coma and death. Liver transplantation (LT) is the only curative therapy, but has several limitations including organ shortage, significant morbidity and requirement of lifelong immunosuppression. This study aims to identify the characteristics and outcomes of patients who underwent LT for OTCD. //
We conducted a retrospective study for OTCD patients from 5 UK centres receiving LT in 3 transplantation centres between 2010 and 2022. Patients' demographics, family history, initial presentation, age at LT, graft type and pre- and post-LT clinical, metabolic, and neurocognitive profile were collected from medical records.//
A total of 20 OTCD patients (11 males, 9 females) were enrolled in this study. 6/20 had neonatal and 14/20 late-onset presentation. 2/20 patients had positive family history for OTCD and one of them was diagnosed antenatally and received prospective treatment. All patients were managed with standard of care based on protein-restricted diet, ammonia scavengers and supplementation with arginine and/or citrulline before LT. 15/20 patients had neurodevelopmental problems before LT. The indication for LT was presence (or family history) of recurrent metabolic decompensations occurring despite standard medical therapy leading to neurodisability and quality of life impairment. Median age at LT was 10.5 months (6â24) and 66 months (35â156) in neonatal and late onset patients, respectively. 15/20 patients had deceased donor LT (DDLT) and 5/20 had living related donor LT (LDLT). Overall survival was 95% with one patient dying 6 h after LT. 13/20 had complications after LT and 2/20 patients required re-transplantation. All patients discontinued dietary restriction and ammonia scavengers after LT and remained metabolically stable. Patients who had neurodevelopmental problems before LT persisted to have difficulties after LT. 1/5 patients who was reported to have normal neurodevelopment before LT developed behavioural problems after LT, while the remaining 4 maintained their abilities without any reported issues. //
LT was found to be effective in correcting the metabolic defect, eliminates the risk of hyperammonemia and prolongs patients' survival
Suitability Of Nitisinone In Alkaptonuria 1 (SONIA 1): an international, multicentre, randomised, open-label, no-treatment controlled, parallel-group, dose-response study to investigate the effect of once daily nitisinone on 24-h urinary homogentisic acid excretion in patients with alkaptonuria after 4â weeks of treatment.
BACKGROUND: Alkaptonuria (AKU) is a serious genetic disease characterised by premature spondyloarthropathy. Homogentisate-lowering therapy is being investigated for AKU. Nitisinone decreases homogentisic acid (HGA) in AKU but the dose-response relationship has not been previously studied. METHODS: Suitability Of Nitisinone In Alkaptonuria 1 (SONIA 1) was an international, multicentre, randomised, open-label, no-treatment controlled, parallel-group, dose-response study. The primary objective was to investigate the effect of different doses of nitisinone once daily on 24-h urinary HGA excretion (u-HGA24) in patients with AKU after 4â
weeks of treatment. Forty patients were randomised into five groups of eight patients each, with groups receiving no treatment or 1 mg, 2 mg, 4 mg and 8â
mg of nitisinone. FINDINGS: A clear dose-response relationship was observed between nitisinone and the urinary excretion of HGA. At 4â
weeks, the adjusted geometric mean u-HGA24 was 31.53 mmol, 3.26 mmol, 1.44 mmol, 0.57 mmol and 0.15â
mmol for the no treatment or 1 mg, 2 mg, 4 mg and 8â
mg doses, respectively. For the most efficacious dose, 8â
mg daily, this corresponds to a mean reduction of u-HGA24 of 98.8% compared with baseline. An increase in tyrosine levels was seen at all doses but the dose-response relationship was less clear than the effect on HGA. Despite tyrosinaemia, there were no safety concerns and no serious adverse events were reported over the 4â
weeks of nitisinone therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In this study in patients with AKU, nitisinone therapy decreased urinary HGA excretion to low levels in a dose-dependent manner and was well tolerated within the studied dose range. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT number: 2012-005340-24. Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCTO1828463
- âŠ