Citations

Mitochondrial injury contributes to renal dysfunction in several models of renal disease, but its involvement in human hypertension remains unknown. Fragments of the mitochondrial genome released from dying cells are considered surrogate markers of mitochondrial injury. We hypothesized that hypertension would be associated with increased urine mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) copy numbers. We prospectively measured systemic and urinary copy number of the mtDNA genes cytochrome-c oxidase-3 and NADH dehydrogenase subunit-1 by quantitative polymerase chain reaction in essential (n=25) and renovascular (RVH, n=34) hypertensive patients and compared them with healthy volunteers (n=22). Urinary kidney injury molecule-1 and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin served as indices of renal injury. Renal blood flow and oxygenation were assessed by multidetector computed tomography and blood oxygen level–dependent magnetic resonance imaging. Blood pressure, urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, and kidney injury molecule-1 were similarly elevated in essential hypertension and RVH, and estimated glomerular filtration rate was lower in RVH versus healthy volunteers and essential hypertension. Renal blood flow was lower in RVH compared with essential hypertension. Urinary mtDNA copy number was higher in hypertension compared with healthy volunteers, directly correlated with urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin and kidney injury molecule-1 and inversely with estimated glomerular filtration rate. In RVH, urinary mtDNA copy number correlated directly with intrarenal hypoxia. Furthermore, in an additional validation cohort, urinary mtDNA copy number was higher in RVH compared with healthy volunteers (n=10 each). The change in serum creatinine levels and estimated glomerular filtration rate 3 months after medical therapy without or with revascularization correlated with the change in urinary mtDNA. Therefore, elevated urinary mtDNA copy numbers in hypertensive patients correlated with markers of renal injury and dysfunction, implicating mitochondrial injury in kidney damage in human hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Objectives were to determine whether the use of ultrasound guidance offers any clinical advantage in the performance of neuraxial or peripheral nerve blocks in children in terms of increasing the success rate or decreasing the rate of complications. METHODS: We searched the following databases to March 2015: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), and Scopus (to January 2015). We included all parallel randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of ultrasound guidance to perform a regional blockade technique in children. We assessed the selected studies for risk of bias with the Cochrane collaboration tool. We graded the level of evidence for each outcome according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group scale. RESULTS: We included 20 studies (1241 participants). Ultrasound guidance increases the success rate by decreasing the occurrence of a failed block: risk difference −0.11 (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.17 to −0.05); I 2 64%; number needed for additional beneficial outcome for peripheral nerve blocks 6 (95% CI, 5–8). The younger the child, the greater the benefit. From 8 studies (414 participants), pain scores at 1 hour in the postanesthesia care unit were reduced when ultrasound guidance was used; however, the clinical relevance of the difference was unclear (equivalent to −0.2 on a scale from 0 to 10). From 8 studies (358 participants), block duration was longer when ultrasound guidance was used: standardized mean difference (SMD) 1.21 (95% CI, 0.76–1.65: I 2 73%; equivalent to 62 minutes). Here again, younger children benefited the most from ultrasound guidance. Time to perform the procedure was reduced when ultrasound guidance was used for prescanning before a neuraxial block (SMD −1.97; 95% CI, −2.41 to −1.54; I 2 0%; equivalent to 2.4 minutes) or as an out-of-plane technique (SMD −0.68; 95% CI, −0.96 to −0.40; I 2 0%; equivalent to 94 seconds). From 2 studies (122 participants), ultrasound guidance reduced the number of needle passes required to perform the block: SMD −0.90 (95% CI, −1.27 to −0.52; I 2 0%; equivalent to 0.6 needle pass per participant). From 2 studies (204 participants), we could not demonstrate a difference in the incidence of bloody puncture when ultrasound guidance was used for neuraxial blockade, but we found that the number of participants was well below the optimal information size (risk difference −0.07, 95% CI, −0.19 to 0.04). No major complications were reported for any of the 1241 participants. We rated the quality of evidence as high for success, pain scores at 1 hour, block duration, time to perform the block, and number of needle passes. We rated the quality of evidence as low for bloody punctures. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound guidance seems advantageous, particularly in young children, for whom it improves the success rate and increases block duration. Additional data are required before conclusions can be drawn on the effect of ultrasound guidance in reducing the rate of bloody puncture.

SummaryThe rituximab extended schedule or retreatment trial (RESORT; E4402) was a phase 3 randomized prospective trial comparing maintenance rituximab (MR) versus a retreatment (RR) dosing strategy in asymptomatic, low tumour burden indolent lymphoma. A planned exploratory sub‐study compared the two strategies for small lymphocytic (SLL) and marginal zone lymphomas (MZL). Patients responding to rituximab weekly × 4 were randomized to MR (single dose rituximab every 3 months until treatment failure) or RR (rituximab weekly × 4) at the time of each progression until treatment failure. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTTF). Patients with SLL (n = 57), MZL (n = 71) and unclassifiable small B‐cell lymphoma (n = 3) received induction rituximab. The overall response rate (ORR) was 40% [95% confidence interval (CI) 31–49%; SLL ORR 22·8%; MZL ORR 52·1%]; all 52 responders were randomized. At a median of 4·3 years from randomization, treatment failure occurred in 18/23 RR and 15/29 MR. The median TTTF was 1·4 years for RR and 4·8 years for MR (P = 0·012); median time to first cytotoxic therapy was 6·3 years for RR and not reached for MR (P = 0·0002). Survival did not differ (P = 0·72). In low tumour burden SLL and MZL patients responding to rituximab induction, MR significantly improved TTTF as compared with RR.

Abstract There is strong evidence that cigarette smoking causes adverse outcomes in people with cancer. However, more research is needed regarding those effects and the effects of alternative tobacco products and of secondhand smoke, the effects of cessation (before diagnosis, during treatment, or during survivorship), the biologic mechanisms, and optimal strategies for tobacco dependence treatment in oncology. Fundamentally, tobacco is an important source of variation in clinical treatment trials. Nevertheless, tobacco use assessment has not been uniform in clinical trials. Progress has been impeded by a lack of consensus regarding tobacco use assessment suitable for cancer patients. The NCI-AACR Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Assessment Task Force identified priority research areas and developed recommendations for assessment items and timing of assessment in cancer research. A cognitive interview study was conducted with 30 cancer patients at the NIH Clinical Center to evaluate and improve the measurement items. The resulting Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) includes “Core” items for minimal assessment of tobacco use at initial and follow-up time points, and an “Extension” set. Domains include the following: cigarette and other tobacco use status, intensity, and past use; use relative to cancer diagnosis and treatment; cessation approaches and history; and secondhand smoke exposure. The Task Force recommends that assessment occur at study entry and, at a minimum, at the end of protocol therapy in clinical trials. Broad adoption of the recommended measures and timing protocol, and pursuit of the recommended research priorities, will help us to achieve a clearer understanding of the significance of tobacco use and cessation for cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res; 22(8); 1907–13. ©2016 AACR.

Abstract We aimed to investigate the mechanistic, functional, and therapeutic role of glycogen synthase kinase 3β (GSK-3β) in the regulation and activation of the proinflammatory oncogenic transcription factor nuclear factor of activated T cells (NFATc2) in pancreatic cancer. IHC, qPCR, immunoblotting, immunofluorescence microscopy, and proliferation assays were used to analyze mouse and human tissues and cell lines. Protein–protein interactions and promoter regulation were analyzed by coimmunoprecipitation, DNA pulldown, reporter, and ChIP assays. Preclinical assays were performed using a variety of pancreatic cancer cells lines, xenografts, and a genetically engineered mouse model (GEMM). GSK-3β–dependent SP2 phosphorylation mediates NFATc2 protein stability in the nucleus of pancreatic cancer cells stimulating pancreatic cancer growth. In addition to protein stabilization, GSK-3β also maintains NFATc2 activation through a distinct mechanism involving stabilization of NFATc2–STAT3 complexes independent of SP2 phosphorylation. For NFATc2–STAT3 complex formation, GSK-3β–mediated phosphorylation of STAT3 at Y705 is required to stimulate euchromatin formation of NFAT target promoters, such as cyclin-dependent kinase-6, which promotes tumor growth. Finally, preclinical experiments suggest that targeting the NFATc2–STAT3–GSK-3β module inhibits proliferation and tumor growth and interferes with inflammation-induced pancreatic cancer progression in KrasG12D mice. In conclusion, we describe a novel mechanism by which GSK-3β fine-tunes NFATc2 and STAT3 transcriptional networks to integrate upstream signaling events that govern pancreatic cancer progression and growth. Furthermore, the therapeutic potential of GSK-3β is demonstrated for the first time in a relevant Kras and inflammation-induced GEMM for pancreatic cancer. Mol Cancer Ther; 15(3); 491–502. ©2016 AACR.

BACKGROUNDAlthough colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines recommend initiating screening at age 50 years, the percentage of cancer cases in younger patients is increasing. To the authors' knowledge, the national treatment patterns and outcomes of these patients are largely unknown.METHODSThe current study was a population‐based, retrospective cohort study of the nationally representative Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry for patients diagnosed with CRC from 1998 through 2011. Patients were categorized as being younger or older than the recommended screening age. Differences with regard to stage of disease at diagnosis, patterns of therapy, and disease‐specific survival were compared between age groups using multinomial regression, multiple regression, Cox proportional hazards regression, and Weibull survival analysis.RESULTSOf 258,024 patients with CRC, 37,847 (15%) were aged <50 years. Young patients were more likely to present with regional (relative risk ratio, 1.3; P<.001) or distant (relative risk ratio, 1.5; P<.001) disease. Patients with CRC with distant metastasis in the younger age group were more likely to receive surgical therapy for their primary tumor (adjusted probability: 72% vs 63%; P<.001), and radiotherapy also was more likely in younger patients with CRC (adjusted probability: 53% vs 48%; P<.001). Patients younger than the recommended screening age had better overall disease‐specific survival (hazards ratio, 0.77; P<.001), despite a larger percentage of these individuals presenting with advanced disease.CONCLUSIONSPatients with CRC diagnosed at age <50 years are more likely to present with advanced‐stage disease. However, they receive more aggressive therapy and achieve longer disease‐specific survival, despite the greater percentage of patients with advanced‐stage disease. These findings suggest the need for improved risk assessment and screening decisions for younger adults. Cancer 2016;122:929–34. © 2016 American Cancer Society.