Risk as a pattern over time: Delineation of time-dependent risk factors in biological,psychological, and social variables in cancer patients

Background

Survival in cancer patients is associated with a multitude of biological, social, and psychological factors. Although it is well established that all these factors add to overall mortality, it is not well understood how the predictive power of these parameters changes in a comprehensive model and over time.

Methods

Patients who attended the authors’ outpatient clinic were invited to participate. The authors followed 5180 mixed cancer patients (51.1% female; mean age, 59.1 years [SD = 13.8]) for up to 16 years and analyzed biological (age, sex, cancer site, anemia), psychological (anxiety, depression), and social variables (marital status, education, employment status) potentially predicting overall survival in a Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

The median survival time for the entire sample was 4.3 years (95% confidence interval, 4.0–4.7). The overall survival probabilities for 1 and 10 years were 76.8% and 38.0%, respectively. Following an empirical approach, the authors split the time interval into five periods: acute, subacute, short-term, medium-term, and long-term. A complex pattern of variables predicted overall survival differently in the five periods. Biological parameters were important throughout most of the time, social parameters were either time-independent predictors or tended to be more important in the longer term. Of the psychological parameters, only depression was a significant predictor and lost its predictive power in the long-term.

Conclusions

The findings of this study allow the development of comprehensive patient-specific models of risk and resilience factors addressing biopsychosocial needs of cancer patients, paving the way for a personalized treatment plan that goes beyond biomedical cancer care.     

Verbal insight revisited: fMRI evidence for early processing in bilateral insulae for solutions with AHA! experience shortly after trial onset

In insight problem solving solutions with AHA! experience have been assumed to be the consequence of restructuring of a problem which usually takes place shortly before the solution. However, evidence from priming studies suggests that solutions with AHA! are not spontaneously generated during the solution process but already relate to prior subliminal processing. We test this hypothesis by conducting an fMRI study using a modified compound remote associates paradigm which incorporates semantic priming. We observe stronger brain activity in bilateral anterior insulae already shortly after trial onset in problems that were later solved with than without AHA!. This early activity was independent of semantic priming but may be related to other lexical properties of attended words helping to reduce the amount of solutions to look for. In contrast, there was more brain activity in bilateral anterior insulae during solutions that were solved without than with AHA!. This timing (after trial start/during solution) x solution experience (with/without AHA!) interaction was significant. The results suggest that (a) solutions accompanied with AHA! relate to early solution‐relevant processing and (b) both solution experiences differ in timing when solution‐relevant processing takes place. In this context, we discuss the potential role of the anterior insula as part of the salience network involved in problem solving by allocating attentional resources.     

Proteasome inhibitors and Smac mimetics cooperate to induce cell death in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma by stabilizing NOXA and triggering mitochondrial apoptosis

Copy number gains and increased expression levels of cellular Inhibitor of Apoptosis protein (cIAP)1 and cIAP2 have been identified in primary diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) tissues. Second mitochondria-derived activator of caspases (Smac) mimetics were designed to antagonize IAP proteins. However, since their effect as single agents is limited, combination treatment represents a strategy for their clinical development. Therefore, we investigated the Smac mimetic BV6 in combination with proteasome inhibitors and analyzed the molecular mechanisms of action. We discovered that BV6 treatment sensitizes DLBCL cells to proteasome inhibition. We show a synergistic decrease in cell viability and induction of apoptosis by BV6/Carfilzomib (CFZ) treatment, which was confirmed by calculation of combination index (CI) and Bliss score. BV6 and CFZ acted together to trigger activation of BAX and BAK, which facilitated cell death, as knockdown of BAX and BAK significantly reduced BV6/CFZ-mediated cell death. Activation of BAX and BAK was accompanied by loss of mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP) and activation of caspases. Pretreatment with the caspase inhibitor N-benzyloxycarbonyl-Val-Ala-Asp-fluoromethylketone (zVAD.fmk) rescued BV6/CFZ-induced cell death, confirming caspase dependency. Treatment with CFZ alone or in combination with BV6 caused accumulation of NOXA, which was required for cell death, as gene silencing by siRNA or Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)/Cas9-mediated NOXA inactivation inhibited BV6/CFZ-induced cell death. Together, these experiments indicate that BV6 and CFZ cooperatively induce apoptotic cell death via the mitochondrial pathway. These findings emphasize the role of Smac mimetics for sensitizing DLBCL cells to proteasome inhibition with important implications for further (pre)clinical studies.     

Endometriosis and risk of ovarian cancer: what do we know?

Despite long and intensive research, endometriosis remains one of the leading causes of morbidity among premenopausal women. The majority of endometriosis-related ovarian carcinomas occur in the presence of atypical ovarian endometriosis. Nevertheless, despite the increased incidence of ovarian cancer in patients with endometriosis, our knowledge of the risk factors and mechanisms is still incomplete. Narrative overview, synthesizing the recent findings of literature retrieved from databases. Herein, we reviewed and summarized the most recent knowledge regarding endometriosis and ovarian cancer. The evidence showing that patients with endometriosis have a higher risk of developing ovarian cancer is compelling. However, the question of how much higher the absolute risk is, is not fully clear.