Synergism through combination of chemotherapy and oxidative stress-induced autophagy in A549 lung cancer cells using redox-responsive nanohybrids: A new strategy for cancer therapy

A combination of various therapeutic approaches has emerged as a promising strategy for cancer treatment. A safe and competent nano-delivery system is thus in urgent demand to facilitate the simultaneous transport of various therapeutic agents to cancer cells and a tumor region to achieve synergistic effect. Gold nanoparticles (GNPs) and mesoporous silica nanoparticle (MSNs) were fabricated herein as potential candidates for drug delivery. Serving as gatekeepers, GNPs (5 nm in diameter) were attached onto the amino-functionalized MSNs (denoted as NMSNs) via a relatively weak gold–nitrogen bonding. The resulting nanohybrids (denoted as GCMSNs) were uptaken by cells, and the detachment of GNPs and subsequent intracellular drug release from NMSNs were achieved by competitive binding of intracellular glutathione to GNPs. In addition to the function of gatekeeping, GNPs also play another role as the oxidative stress elicitor. Our in vitro studies revealed that GCMSNs induced higher oxidative stress in lung cancer cells (A549) than in normal cells (3T3-L1). This growth inhibitory effect found in the cancer cells was likely induced by mitochondria dysfunction originated from the GCMSN-induced, oxidative stress-triggered mitochondria-mediated autophagy. The redox-responsive nanohybrids were further loaded with camptothecin and the intensified synergistic therapeutic effects were observed associated with combined chemotherapy and oxidative stress strategy. The results clearly demonstrate that such unique nanohybrids hold great promise for selective and effective cancer treatments.     

血液系统恶性肿瘤患者化疗后合并中性粒细胞减少性肠炎的诊治研究

目的分析成人血液系统恶性肿瘤患者接受强烈化疗后中性粒细胞减少性肠炎（NE）的发生率、危险因素及预后情况。方法收集2004至2013年接受化疗的1804例血液系统恶性肿瘤患者，记录患者血常规、凝血检测和血液生化检测结果，并记录患者年龄、性别、原发病、既往化疗次数、既往化疗方案中是否使用阿糖胞苷、临床症状、肠壁厚度、中性粒细胞最低计数、中性粒细胞缺乏持续时间、NE的治疗方法和预后等，探讨NE起病诱因、临床特征、腹部B超特点、症状的预后意义及化疗药物对发病的影响等。结果1804例患者中226例（12.5%）化疗后合并NE，化疗后10~19d起病，中位起病时间为化疗后第14天。发生NE后26例患者死亡，病死率11.5%。化疗药物包括阿糖胞苷、临床症状≥4项、中性粒细胞缺乏持续超过7d以及B超下肠壁厚度≥10mm的患者病死率相对较高。结论NE是接受强烈化疗的血液系统肿瘤患者的严重的并发症，发生NE后患者病死率较高。     

Chemotherapy and novel therapeutics before radical prostatectomy for high-risk clinically localized prostate cancer

Although both surgery and radiation are potential curative options for men with clinically localized prostate cancer, a significant proportion of men with high-risk and locally advanced disease will demonstrate biochemical and potentially clinical progression of their disease. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy before radical prostatectomy (RP) is a logical strategy to improve treatment outcomes for men with clinically localized high-risk prostate cancer. Furthermore, delivery of chemotherapy and other systemic agents before RP affords an opportunity to explore the efficacy of these agents with pathologic end points.Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, primarily with docetaxel (with or without androgen deprivation therapy), has demonstrated feasibility and safety in men undergoing RP, but no study to date has established the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapies. Other novel agents, such as those targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, clusterin, and immunomodulatory therapeutics, are currently under investigation.     

Patient Selection for Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Patients With Colorectal Cancer: Consensus on Decision Making Among International Experts

BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) treatment for patients with peritoneal metastases is complex. The use of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has continued to be debated. The aim of the present study was to assess the consensus among international experts for decision-making regarding the use of CRS and HIPEC for patients with CRC.Materials and MethodsOf 15 experts invited, 12 had provided their decision algorithms for CRS and HIPEC for patients with, or at high risk of, peritoneal metastases from CRC. Using the objective consensus method, the results were transformed into decision trees to provide information on the consensus and discordance.ResultsOnly 1 scenario was found for which the consensus on performing HIPEC had reached 100%. The scenario was the treatment of young patients with complete cytoreduction and a peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) of < 16 in the presence of certain risk factors. Five major decision criteria were identified: age, PCI, completeness of cytoreduction, extent of extraperitoneal metastases (EoMs), and, in the case of unverified EoMs, additional risk factors. Consensus was found regarding refraining from using HIPEC for older patients with a high PCI. The consensus further increased when addressing incomplete cytoreduction and an extensive extent of EoMs.ConclusionA definite consensus concerning the use of HIPEC was only determined for very selected scenarios. These findings can be used for general guidance; however, owing to the heterogeneity of each individual situation, the impracticality of presenting the information through decision trees, and the unclear future of the role of HIPEC in the adjuvant setting, a one-on-one transfer to daily clinical practice could not be achieved.     

Clinical Guidance for the Management of Patients with Urothelial Cancers During the COVID-19 Pandemic – Rapid Review

The current COVID-19 pandemic presents a substantial obstacle to cancer patient care. Data from China as well as risk models suppose that cancer patients, particularly those on active, immunosuppressive therapies are at higher risks of severe infection from the illness. In addition, staff illness and restructuring of services to deal with the crisis will inevitably place treatment capacities under significant strain. These guidelines aim to expand on those provided by NHS England regarding cancer care during the coronavirus pandemic by examining the known literature and provide guidance in managing patients with urothelial and rarer urinary tract cancers. In particular, they address the estimated risk and benefits of standard treatments and consider the alternatives in the current situation. As a result, it is recommended that this guidance will help form a framework for shared decision making with patients. Moreover, they do not advise a one-size-fits-all approach but recommend continual assessment of the situation with discussion within and between centres.