In cancer patients treated with radiotherapy to the abdominopelvic region, dietary modifications and the use of functional foods (fortified food with added ingredients to provide specific health improving benefits, such as antioxidants, omega-3 fatty acids, and glutamine), may contribute to the improvement of the toxic effects of treatment, including nausea, diarrhea, and constipation, among others. With the aim of analyzing which coadjuvant foods benefit these patients, scientific evidence was gathered by a group of experts. For these patients, the authors recommend a diet that includes sufficient foods rich in antioxidants and polyphenols instead of supplements. Docosahexaenoic and eicosapentaenoic acids have proven useful for the management of anorexia/cachexia in pancreatic cancer patients. Probiotics composed of Lactobacillus spp. and Bifidobacterium spp. are regarded as safe even in patients with neutropenia and have been proven to decrease gastrointestinal symptoms. Several factors should be considered before probiotic supplementation, these include the stage of the disease, radiation dose, and symptomatology of each patient. There is no demonstrated clear benefit to the use of glutamine, so it is not recommended due to its high cost.

BackgroundMetaplastic carcinoma of the breast (MCB) is a rare histological type of breast cancer. This study aimed to determine whether MCB exhibits shorter overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) compared with other histologies that are considered unfavorable.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 157 clinical file records of the Mexico City-based National Institute of Cancerology and compared the clinical characteristics and treatment of 24 patients with MCB, 37 patients with triple-negative invasive lobular carcinoma (TN-ILC), 48 patients with high-grade invasive ductal carcinoma (HG-IDC), and 48 patients with triple-negative invasive ductal carcinoma (TN-IDC), paired by clinical stage and age. We performed a comparative analysis and analyzed OS and DFS using a log-rank test.ResultsIn patients with MCB, the 5-year DFS was 52.1% (mean, 48.52 months; 95%: 35.32-61.72), and the 5-year OS was 72.2% (mean, 59.77 months; 95% CI: 48.55-71.00). No differences were observed in the DFS of MCB compared with each of the other histologies (MCB vs. HG-IDC, p = 0.865; MCB vs. TN-IDC, p = 0.966, and MCB vs. TN-ILC, p = 0.132). Moreover, no differences were observed when comparing the OS of MCB with that of each of the other histologies (MCB vs. HG-IDC, p = 0.246; MCB vs. TN-IDC, p = 0.255, and MCB vs. TN-ILC, p = 0.387).ConclusionsNeither OS nor DFS differ between patients with MCB and those with other histologies with unfavorable immunohistochemical factors.

Cervical cancer (CC) mortality is a major public health concern since it is the second cause of cancer-related deaths among women. Patients diagnosed with locally advanced CC (LACC) have an important rate of recurrence and treatment failure. Conventional treatment for LACC is based on chemotherapy and radiotherapy; however, up to 40% of patients will not respond to conventional treatment; hence, we searched for a prognostic gene signature able to discriminate patients who do not respond to the conventional treatment employed to treat LACC. Tumor biopsies were profiled with genome-wide high-density expression microarrays. Class prediction was performed in tumor tissues and the resultant gene signature was validated by quantitative reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction. A 27-predictive gene profile was identified through its association with pathologic response. The 27-gene profile was validated in an independent set of patients and was able to distinguish between patients diagnosed as no response versus complete response. Gene expression analysis revealed two distinct groups of tumors diagnosed as LACC. Our findings could provide a strategy to select patients who would benefit from neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy-based treatment.

The most frequently diagnosed histological types of cervical cancer (CC) are squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and adenocarcinoma (ADC). Clinically, the prognosis of both types is controversial. A molecular profile that distinguishes each histological subtype and predicts the prognosis would be of great benefit to CC patients. Methods: The transcriptome of CC patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) was analyzed using the DESeq2 package to obtain the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between ADC and SCC. The DEGs were validated on a publicly available Mexican-Mestizo patient transcriptome dataset (GSE56303). The global biological pathways involving the DEGs were obtained using the Webgestalt platform. The associations of the DEGs with Overall Survival (OS) were assessed. Finally, three DEGs were validated by RT-qPCR in an independent cohort of Mexican patients. Results. The molecular profiles of ADC and SCC of the CC patients of the TCGA database and the Mexican-Mestizo cohort (GSE56303) were determined obtaining 1768 and 88 DEGs, respectively. Strikingly, 70 genes were concordant—with similar Log2FoldChange values—in both cohorts. The 70 DEGs were involved in IL-17, JAK/STAT, and Ras signaling. Kaplan-Meier OS analysis from the Mexican-Mestizo cohort showed that higher GABRB2 and TSPAN8 and lower TMEM40 expression were associated with better OS. Similar results were found in an independent Mexican cohort. Conclusions: Molecular differences were detected between the ADC and SCC subtypes; however, further studies are required to define the appropriate prognostic biomarker for each histological type.