Sensitization of U937 leukemia cells to doxorubicin by the MG132 proteasome inhibitor induces an increase in apoptosis by suppressing NF-kappa B and mitochondrial membrane potential loss

Background: The resistance of cancerous cells to chemotherapy remains the main limitation for cancer treatment at present. Doxorubicin (DOX) is a potent antitumor drug that activates the ubiquitin-proteasome system, but unfortunately it also activates the Nuclear factor kappa B (NF-k{cyrillic}B) pathway leading to the promotion of tumor cell survival. MG132 is a drug that inhibits I kappa B degradation by the proteasome-avoiding activation of NF-k{cyrillic}B. In this work, we studied the sensitizing effect of the MG132 proteasome inhibitor on the antitumor activity of DOX. Methods: U937 human leukemia cells were treated with MG132, DOX, or both drugs. We evaluated proliferation, viability, apoptosis, caspase-3, -8, and -9 activity and cleavage, cytochrome c release, mitochondrial membrane potential, the Bcl-2 and Bcl-XL antiapoptotic proteins, senescence, p65 phosphorylation, and pro- and antiapoptotic genes. Results: The greatest apoptosis percentage in U937 cells was obtained with a combination of MG132 + DOX. Likewise, employing both drugs, we observed a decrease in tumor cell proliferation and important caspase-3 activation, as well as mitochondrial membrane potential loss. Therefore, MG132 decreases senescence, p65 phosphorylation, and the DOX-induced Bcl-2 antiapoptotic protein. The MG132 + DOX treatment induced upregulation of proapoptotic genes BAX, DIABLO, NOXA, DR4, and FAS. It also induced downregulation of the antiapoptotic genes BCL-XL and SURVIVIN. Conclusion: MG132 sensitizes U937 leukemia cells to DOX-induced apoptosis, increasing its anti-leukemic effectiveness. © 2014 Ortiz-Lazareno et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Evaluation of factors leading to poor outcomes for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Mexico: a multi-institutional report of 2,116 patients

Background and aimsPediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) survival rates in low- and middle-income countries are lower due to deficiencies in multilevel factors, including access to timely diagnosis, risk-stratified therapy, and comprehensive supportive care. This retrospective study aimed to analyze outcomes for pediatric ALL at 16 centers in Mexico.MethodsPatients <18 years of age with newly diagnosed B- and T-cell ALL treated between January 2011 and December 2019 were included. Clinical and biological characteristics and their association with outcomes were examined.ResultsOverall, 2,116 patients with a median age of 6.3 years were included. B-cell immunophenotype was identified in 1,889 (89.3%) patients. The median white blood cells at diagnosis were 11.2.5 × 103/mm3. CNS-1 status was reported in 1,810 (85.5%), CNS-2 in 67 (3.2%), and CNS-3 in 61 (2.9%). A total of 1,488 patients (70.4%) were classified as high-risk at diagnosis. However, in 52.5% (991/1,889) of patients with B-cell ALL, the reported risk group did not match the calculated risk group allocation based on National Cancer Institute (NCI) criteria. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and PCR tests were performed for 407 (19.2%) and 736 (34.8%) patients, respectively. Minimal residual disease (MRD) during induction was performed in 1,158 patients (54.7%). The median follow-up was 3.7 years. During induction, 191 patients died (9.1%), and 45 patients (2.1%) experienced induction failure. A total of 365 deaths (17.3%) occurred, including 174 deaths after remission. Six percent (176) of patients abandoned treatment. The 5-year event-free survival (EFS) was 58.9% ± 1.7% for B-cell ALL and 47.4% ± 5.9% for T-cell ALL, while the 5-year overall survival (OS) was 67.5% ± 1.6% for B-cell ALL and 54.3% ± 0.6% for T-cell ALL. The 5-year cumulative incidence of central nervous system (CNS) relapse was 5.5% ± 0.6%. For the whole cohort, significantly higher outcomes were seen for patients aged 1–10 years, with DNA index >0.9, with hyperdiploid ALL, and without substantial treatment modifications. In multivariable analyses, age and Day 15 MRD continued to have a significant effect on EFS.ConclusionOutcomes in this multi-institutional cohort describe poor outcomes, influenced by incomplete and inconsistent risk stratification, early toxic death, high on-treatment mortality, and high CNS relapse rate. Adopting comprehensive risk-stratification strategies, evidence-informed de-intensification for favorable-risk patients and optimized supportive care could improve outcomes

Development of EPAT:An assessment tool for pediatric hematology/oncology training programs

PURPOSE: In the absence of a standardized tool to assess the quality of pediatric hematology/oncology training programs, the Education Program Assessment Tool (EPAT) was conceptualized as a user-friendly and adaptable tool to evaluate and identify areas of opportunity, pinpoint needed modifications, and monitor progress for training programs around the world.METHODS: The development of EPAT consisted of three main phases: operationalization, consensus, and piloting. After each phase, the tool was iteratively modified based on feedback to improve its relevance, usability, and clarity.RESULTS: The operationalization process led to the development of 10 domains with associated assessment questions. The two-step consensus phase included an internal consensus phase to validate the domains and a subsequent external consensus phase to refine the domains and overall function of the tool. EPAT domains for programmatic evaluation are hospital infrastructure, patient care, education infrastructure, program basics, clinical exposure, theory, research, evaluation, educational culture, and graduate impact. EPAT was piloted in five training programs in five countries, representing diverse medical training and patient care contexts for proper validation of the tool. Face validity was confirmed by a correlation between the perceived and calculated scores for each domain (r = 0.78, p &lt; .0001).CONCLUSIONS: EPAT was developed following a systematic approach, ultimately leading to a relevant tool to evaluate the different core elements of pediatric hematology/oncology training programs across the world. With EPAT, programs will have a tool to quantitatively evaluate their training, allowing for benchmarking with centers at the local, regional, and international level.</p