Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment最新文献

Background: This is a retrospective study aimed at comparing the clinical efficacy and safety between drug-eluting bead transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE) and conventional TACE (C-TACE) in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods: From July 2019 to April 2021, we enrolled 282 patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who were admitted to our hospital, of which 179 and 103 were in the DEB-TACE and C-TACE groups, respectively. General information was collected, and treatment effects were evaluated following the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. To compare the indexes of liver and kidney function, routine blood and coagulation were collected before treatment, and 1 day, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively. Postoperative adverse reactions (ie, fever, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, abdominal pain) were recorded to evaluate the safety of treatment. The two groups' progression-free survival and overall survival were also calculated to assess the treatment effect. Results: Preoperatively, the bilirubin, transaminase, and absolute neutrophil values between the two groups were not statistically significant (P > .05). At 1 month postoperatively, the absolute neutrophil values were significantly higher in the DEB-TACE group than those in the C-TACE group (P < .05). At 3 months postoperatively, AST, total bilirubin, and direct bilirubin levels were significantly elevated in the DEB-TACE group (P < .05), compared with the C-TACE group. However, at 6 months postoperatively, total and direct bilirubin levels in the C-TACE group were higher than those in the DEB-TACE group, showing a statistically significant difference (P < .05). For patients undergoing DEB-TACE, the survival risk was lower compared to those undergoing C-TACE. The survival risk of patients undergoing DEB-TACE was lower than that of C-TACE within 20 months postoperatively. The survival risk of patients undergoing DEB-TACE was lower than that of patients undergoing C-TACE. Conclusion: DEB-TACE may be superior to C-TACE in terms of safety and efficacy in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Background: Colon adenocarcinoma (COAD) has increasing incidence and is one of the most common malignant tumors. The mitochondria involved in cell energy metabolism, oxygen free radical generation, and cell apoptosis play important roles in tumorigenesis and progression. The relationship between mitochondrial genes and COAD remains largely unknown. Methods: COAD data including 512 samples were set out from the UCSC Xena database. The nuclear mitochondrial-related genes (NMRGs)-related risk prognostic model and prognostic nomogram were constructed, and NMRGs-related gene mutation and the immune environment were analyzed using bioinformatics methods. Then, a liver metastasis model of colorectal cancer was constructed and protein expression was detected using Western blot assay. Results: A prognostic model for COAD was constructed. Comparing the prognostic model dataset and the validation dataset showed considerable correlation in both risk grouping and prognosis. Based on the risk score (RS) model, the samples of the prognostic dataset were divided into high risk group and low risk group. Moreover, pathologic N and T stage and tumor recurrence in the two risk groups were significantly different. The four prognostic factors, including age and pathologic T stage in the nomogram survival model also showed excellent predictive performance. An optimal combination of nine differentially expressed NMRGs was finally obtained, including LARS2, PARS2, ETHE1, LRPPRC, TMEM70, AARS2, ACAD9, VARS2, and ATP8A2. The high-RS group had more inflamed immune features, including T and CD4⁺ memory cell activation. Besides, mitochondria-associated LRPPRC and LARS2 expression levels were increased in vivo xenograft construction and liver metastases assays. Conclusion: This study established a comprehensive prognostic model for COAD, incorporating nine genes associated with nuclear-mitochondrial functions. This model demonstrates superior predictive performance across four prognostic factors: age, pathological T stage, tumor recurrence, and overall prognosis. It is anticipated to be an effective model for enhancing the prognosis and treatment of COAD.

Background: Severe delayed diarrhea and hematological toxicity limit the use of irinotecan. Uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1) is a critical enzyme in irinotecan metabolism. The study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of irinotecan under the guidance of the pre-treatment UGT1A1 genotype in the second-line treatment of gastric cancer. Methods: This study involved 110 patients. Irinotecan was injected intravenously every 3 weeks, and the dose of irinotecan was determined by polymorphism of the UGT1A1 gene, which was divided into three groups (125 mg/m²: GG type; 100 mg/m²: GA type; 75 mg/m²: AA type). The primary end point was overall survival (OS), the secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Results: One hundred and seven patients received irinotecan treatment and three patients with AA type received paclitaxel treatment. Among 107 patients, there were no significant differences in PFS (4.8 m vs 4.9 m vs 4.4 m; p = 0.5249) and OS (9.3 m vs 9.3 m vs NA; p = 0.6821) among patients with GG/GA/AA subtypes after dose adjustment. For the patient with homozygosity mutation, treatment was switched to paclitaxel. There were no significant differences in PFS and OS among patients with different alleles or after dose adjustment (p > 0.05). There was a significant difference in the risk of delayed diarrhea (p = 0.000), leukopenia (p = 0.003) and neutropenia (p = 0.000) in patients with different UGT1A1*6 genotypes, while no difference in patients with different UGT1A1*28 genotypes. Additionally, grade 3/4 diarrhea, neutropenia, and leukopenia were significantly more common in AA genotype patients compared to GG (2%, 19%, 24%) or GA (23%, 31%, 31%) genotype patients. Conclusion: Individual irinotecan treatment shows encouraging survival and tolerability outcomes in patients with GG/GA subtype. Irinotecan may be not suitable for patients with AA subtype.

Objective: To compare the ability of gadolinium ethoxybenzyl dimeglumine (Gd-EOB-DTPA) and gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) to display the 3 major features recommended by the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS 2018v) for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Materials and methods: In this retrospective study, we included 98 HCC lesions that were scanned with either Gd-EOB-DTPA-MR or Gd-BOPTA-M.For each lesion, we collected multiple variables, including size and enhancement pattern in the arterial phase (AP), portal venous phase (PVP), transitional phase (TP), delayed phase (DP), and hepatobiliary phase (HBP). The lesion-to-liver contrast (LLC) was measured and calculated for each phase and then compared between the 2 contrast agents. A P value < .05 was considered statistically significant. The display efficiency of the LLC between Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA for HCC features was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

Results: Between Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA, significant differences were observed regarding the display efficiency for capsule enhancement and the LLC in the AP/PVP/DP (P < .05), but there was no significant difference regarding the LLC in the TP/HBP. Both Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA had good display efficiency in each phase (AUC_min> 0.750). When conducting a total evaluation of the combined data across the 5 phases, the display efficiency was excellent (AUC > 0.950).

Conclusion: Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA are liver-specific contrast agents widely used in clinical practice. They have their own characteristics in displaying the 3 main signs of HCC. For accurate noninvasive diagnosis, the choice of agent should be made according to the specific situation.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) plus chemotherapy is effective in advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer. This study aims to evaluate the clinical effect of first-line immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy for advanced G/GEJ cancer. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane databases were systematically searched from the inception of the databases to December 2021. Randomized trials comparing ICI plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy in first-line treatment for advanced G/GEJ cancer were included. The outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Analyses were performed in Stata 14.0 software. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42022300907. Results: Five trials were included for analysis, involving 2, 814 patients. ICI plus chemotherapy can significantly improve OS (hazards ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI 0.78-0.94; P = .002), PFS (HR, 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-0.99; P ＜ .001) and ORR (relative ratio [RR], 1.20; 95% CI 1.11-1.30; P < .001). In safety analyses, there were no significant differences in incidence of all AEs, treatment-related adverse event (TRAE), TRAE of grade 3 or higher, serious TRAE and TRAE leading to death between two arms (P > .05). Conclusions: ICI plus chemotherapy is more effective first-line treatment for advanced G/GEJ cancer in contrast to chemotherapy regrading to improving OS, PFS and ORR, without increasing TRAE risk. This study will redefine the role of ICI in combination with chemotherapy in the first-line setting for G/GEJ cancer, and provide reference for clinical treatment.

Purpose: Radiotherapy (RT) is commonly used in the treatment of breast cancer and often, despite advances in fractionated dosing schedules, produces undesirable skin toxicity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using a keratin-based topical cream, KeraStat® Cream (KC; KeraNetics, Inc., Winston Salem, NC, USA) to manage the symptoms of radiation dermatitis (RD) in breast cancer patients undergoing RT. Materials and Methods: A total of 24 subjects were enrolled on this single-center, randomized, open-label study. Participants were randomly assigned to KC or standard of care (SOC, patient's choice of a variety of readily available creams or moisturizers). Patients were asked to apply the assigned treatment to the irradiated area twice daily, beginning with day 1 of RT, through 30 days post-RT. The primary outcome was compliance of use. Secondary outcomes included safety and tolerability of KC, as well as RD severity assessed using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scale and the patient-reported Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). Results: All subjects in the KC group were assessed as compliant with no adverse events. The rate of RTOG Grade 2 RD was lower in the KC group (30.8%) compared to the SOC group (54.5%, P = .408). At the final RT visit, the mean RTOG RD score was lower in the KC group (1.0) versus the SOC group (1.4). Similarly, patient-reported quality of life measured by the DLQI at the end of RT was improved in the KC group (mean 4.25, small effect) versus the SOC group (mean 6.18, moderate effect, P = .412). Conclusions: KC was safe and well tolerated with no adverse events. Though efficacy measures were not powered to draw definitive conclusions, trends and clinical assessments suggest that there is a benefit of using KC compared to SOC for breast cancer patients treated with RT, and a larger powered study for efficacy is warranted. Trial Registry: This clinical trial is registered as NCT03374995 titled KeraStat(R) Cream for Radiation Dermatitis.

Background: This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of Endostar in the management of locally advanced cervical cancer.

Methods: This retrospective, 2-center study enrolled 41 patients with locally advanced cervical cancer between June 2017 and December 2020. The patients were subjected to a combination of Endostar and chemoradiotherapy until they experienced disease progression or an unacceptable level of toxicity. The patients in the Endostar combined chemoradiotherapy (E + CRT) and CRT groups were matched 1:1 based on clinical features, including age, disease stage, and pathological type. The therapeutic efficacy and safety outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.

Results: Early treatment response: the CR rates in E + CRT and CRT groups were 48.8% and 26.8%, respectively (χ² = 4.20, P < .05). The ORR and DCR were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Long-term efficacy: there was no significant difference in the 1-year and 2-year PFS rates and OS rates between 2 groups. However, in patients with stage IIB, subgroup analyses revealed a significant difference in PFS between the 2 groups (P < .05). Prognostic factors: stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score, and tumor size were independent predictive factors for PFS, while ECOG score and tumor size were those of OS in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Safety: The incidence of grade III-IV myelosuppression was significantly lower in E + CRT group than in CRT group (P < .05).

Conclusions: The combination of Endostar and concurrent CRT exhibited greater efficacy in treating locally advanced cervical cancer with no severe adverse reactions, when compared to simple CRT. It is expected that this approach will evolve into a new treatment alternative for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer.