There are many studies on biomarkers for prognosis in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.Neutrophil-lymphocyte radio (NLR) and Platelet-lymphocyte radio (PLR) are of interest with studies revealing the relationship between in ammatory biomarkers and cancer. Our study is a retrospective le study and the contribution of NLR and PLR to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival(OS) before rst line chemotherapy was investigated regardless treatment. The cut off values of NLR and TLR were determined using ROC curve analysis. NLR and PLR was divided into two groups according to the cut-off points. OS and PFS associated with NLR and TLR were performed by Kaplan-Meier method. In our study, we could not demonstrate the prognostic potential of pre-treatment NLR and PLR in patients with mCRC treated with rst-line chemotherapy. Our study was showed that the use of these biomarkers in mCRC is limited. Introduction:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide. While the incidence and the mortality rate of colorectal cancer has decreased due to effective cancer screening, CRC is still the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths in the Western world (1) and 20% of patients with CRC have metastases at time of diagnosis (2).Advances in CRC therapy as combination of chemotherapy with targeted agents and supportive care have led to signi cant improvement in survival rates for CRC patients. However, metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains to have poor prognosis with with an approximately 2-year survival (3). A multitude of factors at diagnosis, including clinical parameters (age, performance status, comorbidities), biological properties of the tumor (local growth, distant metastasis, sidedness), molecular factors (KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutations) and biochemical markers such as carcinoembryonic antigen, lactate dehydrogenase, platelets, leucocytes, hemoglobin, alkaline phosphatase, albumin have important prognostic impact for outcome in mCRC (4,5). In recent decades, studies provided de nitive evidence about the association between in ammation and cancer development (6,7).The in ammation is essential for tumor microenvironment, and in ammatory cells can affect tumor proliferation, angiogenesis, metastasis, and genetic instability. Lymphocytes, macrophages, and granulocytes are involved in the anti-cancer battle (8). The main cell population in anti-cancer immune response is the population of cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) (9). Neutrophils may play a crucial role in in ammation driven tumorigenesis (10). Neutrophil population consists of pro-and antitumor subpopulations (11). It is controversy that neutrophil abundance correlates with a better prognosis. (12).Platelets release some tumor growth factors which play a signi cant role in cancer growth, progression, and metastasizing (13). In previous studies, elevated pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) in peripheral blood were identi ed as independent prognostic factors. As a resul...
Results: 72 patients were included: 52 received abemaciclib as first line, 20 as second line; in 49 patients abemaciclib was administer in combination with an aromatase inhibitor, in 23 with fulvestrant. 95.8% of patients experienced at least one adverse event. The most common was diarrhea (79.2%), mainly G1 (66.7% of cases). Other common toxicities were: neutropenia (56.9%), increased serum creatinine (38.9%), anemia (37.5%), nausea (34.7%), fatigue (23.6%) and hypertransaminasemia (22.2%). Toxicities were mainly low grade; 10.1% of adverse events where G3-4. 48.6% of patients required a temporary interruption of abemaciclib and 45.8% a dose reduction. All 17 patients aged 70 required a dose reduction. A concomitant palliative radiotherapy was administered in 16 patients: in all cases radiotherapy was regularly completed; a temporary interruption of abemaciclib was required in 3 patients due to hematologic toxicities. In patients with measurable disease, ORR was 55.7%, significantly higher in first line compared to second line (70.5% vs 17.7%, p<0.001). ORR was not significantly different between full and reduced dose (46.9% vs 65.5%, p¼0.143). At the time of the present analysis, 51 patients are still on therapy. Treatment discontinuations were due to disease progression in 17 patients, and to adverse events in 4 (G3 increased ALT in 1 patient and persistent G2-3 cutaneous toxicity in 3 patients).Conclusions: In a real-world population, abemaciclib was associated with a meaningful rate of objective response, with a favourable safety profile. Side effects were mostly low grade, manageable with temporary interruptions or dose reductions.Legal entity responsible for the study: The authors.
Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common type of cancer among males. Although survival rate of early-stage PCa is high, treatment options are very limited for recurrent disease. In this study, the possible synergistic cytotoxic and apoptotic effect of octreotide in combination with AT-101 was investigated in DU-145 hormone and drug refractory prostate cancer cell line. To enlighten the action mechanisms of the combination treatment, expression levels of somatostatin receptors 2 and 5 (SSTR2 and SSTR5) were also investigated. Cell viability was measured by XTT assay. Apoptosis was assessed through DNA fragmentation analysis and caspase 3/7 assay. mRNA and protein levels of SSTR2 and SSTR5 were evaluated by qRT-PCR and western blot analysis, respectively. Octreotide in combination with AT-101 inhibited cell viability and induced apoptosis synergistically in DU-145 cells as compared to any agent alone. Combination treatment increased both SSTR2 and SSTR5 mRNA and protein levels in DU-145 cells. The data suggest that this combination therapy may be a good candidate for patients with advanced metastatic PCa do not respond to androgen deprivation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.