Oncology reports最新文献

Collagen type X α1 chain (COL10A1), a gene encoding the α‑1 chain of type X collagen, serves a key role in conferring tensile strength and structural integrity to tissues. Upregulation of COL10A1 expression has been observed in different malignancies, including lung, gastric and pancreatic cancer, and is associated with poor prognosis. The present review provides an updated synthesis of the evolving biological understanding of COL10A1, with a particular focus on its mechanisms of action and regulatory functions within the context of tumorigenesis. For example, it has been established that increased COL10A1 expression promotes cancer progression by activating multiple signaling pathways, including the TGF‑β1/Smad, MEK/ERK and focal adhesion kinase signaling pathways, thereby inducing proliferation, invasion and migration. Additionally, COL10A1 has been demonstrated to induce epithelial‑mesenchymal transition and reshapes the extracellular matrix within tumor tissues. Furthermore, on the basis of methyltransferase‑like 3‑mediated N6‑methyladenosine methylation, COL10A1 intricately regulates the epitranscriptomic machinery, thereby augmenting its oncogenic role. However, although COL10A1 serves a pivotal role in gene transcription and the orchestration of tumor growth, the question of whether COL10A1 would serve as a viable therapeutic target remains a subject of scientific hypothesis requiring rigorous examination. Variables such as distinct tumor microenvironments and treatment associations necessitate further experimental validation. Therefore, a comprehensive assessment and understanding of the functional and mechanistic roles of COL10A1 in cancer may pave the way for the development of innovative cancer treatment strategies.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is distinguished by its varied metabolic reprogramming driven by tumor suppressor gene dysregulation and oncogene activation. Tumors can adapt nutrient uptake and metabolism pathways to meet the altered biosynthetic, bioenergetic and redox demands of cancer cells, whereas conventional chemotherapeutics and molecular inhibitors predominantly target individual metabolic pathways without addressing this adaptability. Flavonoids, which are well‑known for their antioxidant and anti‑inflammatory properties, offer a unique approach by influencing multiple metabolic targets. The present comprehensive review reveals the intricate processes of RCC metabolic reprogramming, encompassing glycolysis, mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation and fatty acid biosynthesis. The insights derived from the present review may contribute to the understanding of the specific anticancer mechanisms of flavonoids, potentially paving the way for the development of natural antitumor drugs focused on the metabolic reprogramming of RCC.

Cancer is one of the most prevalent diseases and the leading cause of death worldwide. Despite the improved survival rates of cancer in recent years, the current available treatments often face resistance and side effects. Drug repurposing represents a cost‑effective and efficient alternative to cancer treatment. Recent studies revealed that penfluridol (PF), an antipsychotic drug, is a promising anticancer agent. In the present study, a scoping review was conducted to ascertain the anticancer properties of PF. For this, a literature search was performed using the Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science databases with the search string 'penfluridol' AND 'cancer'. A total of 23 original articles with in vivo and/or in vitro studies on the effect of PF on cancer were included in the scoping review. The outcome of the analysis demonstrated the anticancer potential of PF. PF significantly inhibited cell proliferation, metastasis and invasion while inducing apoptosis and autophagy in vivo and across a spectrum of cancer cell lines, including breast, lung, pancreatic, glioblastoma, gallbladder, bladder, oesophageal, leukaemia and renal cancers. However, research on PF derivatives with high anticancer activities and reduced neurological side effects may be necessary.

Subsequently to the publication of the above paper, an interested reader drew to the authors' attention that the pair of data panels shown for the invasion experiments in Fig. 2D on p. 1826 were strikingly similar to the 'Control' data panels shown for the Transwell assay experiments in Fig. 5C on p. 1829. After having re‑examined their original data files, the authors realized that Fig. 5C had been inadvertently assembled incorrectly. The revised version of Fig. 5, now featuring the correct data for the '231‑control/Control' and '231‑BMP‑6/Control' experiments in Fig. 5C, is shown below. Note that the corrections made to this figure do not affect the overall conclusions reported in the paper. The authors are grateful to the Editor of Oncology Reports for allowing them the opportunity to publish this Corrigendum, and apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 35: 1823‑1830, 2016; DOI: 10.3892/or.2015.4540].

The homeobox (HOX) gene family encodes a number of highly conserved transcription factors and serves a crucial role in embryonic development and tumorigenesis. Homeobox D1 (HOXD1) is a member of the HOX family, whose biological functions in lung cancer are currently unclear. The University of Alabama at Birmingham Cancer data analysis Portal of HOXD1 expression patterns demonstrated that HOXD1 was downregulated in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) patient samples compared with adjacent normal tissue. Western blotting analysis demonstrated low HOXD1 protein expression levels in lung LUAD cell lines. The Kaplan‑Meier plotter database demonstrated that reduced HOXD1 expression levels in LUAD correlated with poorer overall survival. Meanwhile, an in vitro study showed that HOXD1 overexpression suppressed LUAD cell proliferation, migration and invasion. In a mouse tumor model, upregulated HOXD1 was demonstrated to inhibit tumor growth. In addition, targeted bisulfite sequencing and chromatin immunoprecipitation assays demonstrated that DNA hypermethylation occurred in the promoter region of the HOXD1 gene and was associated with the action of DNA methyltransferases. Moreover, upregulated HOXD1 served as a transcriptional factor and increased the transcriptional expression of bone morphogenic protein (BMP)2 and BMP6. Taken together, the dysregulation of HOXD1 mediated by DNA methylation inhibited the initiation and progression of LUAD by regulating the expression of BMP2/BMP6.

Bone metastasis (BM) is a common complication of cancer and contributes to a higher mortality rate in patients with cancer. The treatment of BM remains a significant challenge for oncologists worldwide. The colony‑stimulating factor (CSF) has an important effect on the metastasis of multiple cancers. In vitro studies have shown that CSF acts as a cytokine, promoting the colony formation of hematopoietic cells by activating granulocytes and macrophages. Other studies have shown that CSF not only promotes cancer aggressiveness but also correlates with the development and prognosis of various types of cancer. In recent years, the effect of CSF on BM has been primarily investigated using cellular and animal models, with limited clinical studies available. The present review discussed the composition and function of CSF, as well as its role in the progression of BM across various types of cancer. The mechanisms by which osteoclast‑ and osteoblast‑mediated BM occur are comprehensively described. In addition, the mechanisms of action of emerging therapeutic agents are explored for their potential clinical applications. However, further clinical studies are required to validate these findings.

Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer among women worldwide, characterized by a high mortality rate and propensity for metastasis. Although surgery is the standard treatment for breast cancer, there is still no effective method to inhibit tumor metastasis and improve the prognosis of patients with breast cancer after surgery. Propofol, one of the most widely used intravenous anesthetics in surgery, has exhibited a positive association with improved survival outcomes in patients with breast cancer post‑surgery. However, the underlying molecular mechanism remains to be elucidated. The present study revealed that triple negative breast cancer cells, MDA‑MB‑231 and 4T1, exposed to propofol exhibited a significant decrease in cell viability. Notably, propofol exhibited minimal cytotoxic effects on HUVECs under the same conditions. Furthermore, propofol significantly inhibited the migration and invasion ability of MDA‑MB‑231 and 4T1 cells. Propofol promoted apoptosis in 4T1 cells through upregulation of Bax and cleaved caspase 3, while downregulating B‑cell lymphoma‑extra large. Concomitantly, propofol induced cell cycle arrest of 4T1 cells by downregulating cyclin E2 and phosphorylated cell division cycle 6. Furthermore, propofol exhibited excellent anticancer efficacy in a 4T1 breast cancer allograft mouse model. The present study sheds light on the potential of propofol as an old medicine with a novel use for breast cancer treatment.

Chemotherapy remains a prevalent treatment for a wide range of tumors; however, the majority of patients undergoing conventional chemotherapy experience varying levels of chemoresistance, ultimately leading to suboptimal outcomes. The present article provided an in‑depth review of chemotherapy resistance in tumors, emphasizing the underlying factors contributing to this resistance in tumor cells. It also explored recent advancements in the identification of key molecules and molecular mechanisms within the primary chemoresistant pathways.

The global obesity epidemic, attributed to sedentary lifestyles, unhealthy diets, genetics and environmental factors, has led to over 1.9 billion adults being classified as overweight and 650 million living with obesity. Despite advancements in early detection and treatment, lung cancer prognosis remains poor due to late diagnoses and limited therapies. The obesity paradox challenges conventional thinking by suggesting that individuals with obesity and certain diseases, including cancer, may have an improved prognosis compared with their counterparts of a normal weight. This observation has prompted investigations to understand protective mechanisms, including potentially favorable adipokine secretion and metabolic reserves that contribute to tolerating cancer treatments. However, understanding the association between obesity and lung cancer is complex. While smoking is the primary risk factor of lung cancer, obesity may independently impact lung cancer risk, particularly in non‑smokers. Adipose tissue dysfunction, including low‑grade chronic inflammation, and hormonal changes contribute to lung cancer development and progression. Obesity‑related factors may also influence treatment responses and survival outcomes in patients with lung cancer. The impact of obesity on treatment modalities such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery is still under investigation. Challenges in managing patients with obesity and cancer include increased surgical complexity, higher rates of postoperative complications and limited treatment options due to comorbidities. Targeted interventions aimed at reducing obesity prevalence and promoting healthy lifestyles are crucial for lung cancer prevention. The impact of obesity on lung cancer is multifaceted and requires further research to elucidate the underlying mechanisms and develop personalized interventions for prevention and treatment.

Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by a concerned reader that certain of the western blotting data shown in Fig. 2D, the cell migration and invasion assay data in Fig. 3C, the mouse imaging pictures in Fig. 4C and D, and the H&E‑stained images in Fig. 4E and F were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles written by different authors at different research institutes that had already been submitted or published elsewhere prior to the submission of this paper to Oncology Reports. Given that the abovementioned data had already apparently been submitted or published prior to the receipt of this paper at Oncology Reports, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. After having been in contact with the authors, they accepted the decision to retract the paper. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 45: 706‑716, 2021; DOI: 10.3892/or.2020.7880].