| 1. |
- Abdollahi, Maryam, et al.
(author)
-
Anti-tumor effect of berberine on chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells
- 2022
-
In: Medical Oncology. - : Springer. - 1357-0560 .- 1559-131X. ; 39:12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a blood malignancy that is characterized by remarkable expression of CD69 and Ki67 in CLL cells. Elevated levels of Cleaved-Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 (PARP1) and microRNA-155 (MiR-155) are related to poor prognosis of disease. Berberine as a natural isoquinoline alkaloid, has shown an anti-tumor potential in tumor cells. The objective of present study was to explore some aspects of molecular mechanisms of berberine effect in CLL cells. To analyze the expression of CD69 and Ki67 using flow cytometry, 16 peripheral blood samples and seven bone marrow aspirates were collected from CLL patients. Isolated peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and bone marrow mononuclear cells (BMMCs) were treated with 25 mu M of berberine for 24 h. The level of miR-155 expression was subsequently evaluated by real-time PCR. Furthermore, western blot was used for assessment of cleaved PARP1. Our results demonstrated a significant reduction in CD69 and Ki67 expression on CD19(+) cells when the cells were treated by berberine. Interestingly, the expression level of miR-155 was reduced after berberine treatment in compare to the control group. Furthermore, western blotting revealed an increased level of cleaved PARP1 in dose-dependently manner in CLL cells. The results confirmed the anti-tumor impact of berberine on CLL cells through reducing CD69, Ki67, and miR-155 expression and increasing cleaved PARP1 may be considered as an option for future clinical studies.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Afram, Gabriel, et al.
(author)
-
Reduced intensity conditioning increases risk of severe cGVHD : identification of risk factors for cGVHD in a multicenter setting
- 2018
-
In: Medical Oncology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1357-0560 .- 1559-131X. ; 35:6
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Aim is to identify risk factors for the development of cGVHD in a multicenter setting. Patients transplanted between 2000 and 2006 were analyzed (n = 820). Donors were HLA-identical siblings (57%), matched unrelated donors (30%), and HLA-A, B or DR antigen mismatched (13%). Reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) was given to 65% of patients. Overall incidence of cGVHD was 46% for patients surviving more than 100 days after HSCT (n = 747). Older patient age [HR 1.15, p < 0.001], prior acute GVHD [1.30, p = 0.024], and RIC [1.36, p = 0.028] increased overall cGVHD. In addition, RIC [4.85, p < 0.001], prior aGVHD [2.14, p = 0.001] and female donor to male recipient [1.80, p = 0.008] increased the risk of severe cGVHD. ATG had a protective effect for both overall [0.41, p < 0.001] and severe cGVHD [0.20, p < 0.001]. Relapse-free survival (RFS) was impaired in patients with severe cGVHD. RIC, prior aGVHD, and female-to-male donation increase the risk of severe cGVHD. ATG reduces the risk of all grades of cGVHD without hampering RFS. GVHD prophylaxis may be tailored according to the risk profile of patients.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Ahlqvist-Rastad, Jane, et al.
(author)
-
Erythropoietin therapy and cancer related anaemia : updated Swedish recommendations
- 2007
-
In: Medical Oncology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1357-0560 .- 1559-131X. ; 24:3, s. 267-272
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Due to concerns related to treatment with erythropoietin (EPO) and possible negative effects on tumour control, a workshop was organised by the Medical Products Agency of Sweden with the aim to revise national treatment guidelines if needed. In patients with solid tumours, conflicting results have been reported with respect to tumour control and survival. Until further notice it is therefore recommended that EPO should be used restrictively in the treatment of patients with cancer and that the anticipated improvement in quality of life should be evaluated against potential risks.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Albertsson, Maria, et al.
(author)
-
Phase II studies on docetaxel alone every third week, or weekly in combination with gemcitabine in patients with primary locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent esophageal cancer
- 2007
-
In: Medical Oncology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1357-0560 .- 1559-131X. ; 24:4, s. 407-412
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The purpose of these studies was to compare efficacy and toxicity of docetaxel alone with the combination of gemcitabine and docetaxel for treatment of metastatic esophageal carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: These studies enrolled patients with histopathologically verified squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or cardia. Between March 1997 and June 1999, 52 patients were enrolled in the initial Phase II study (Study 1). They were scheduled for treatment with docetaxel 100 mg/m2 every third week as a 1-h infusion. The second Phase II study between September 2000 and March 2003 included 65 patients (Study II). They were given docetaxel 30 mg/m2, administered as a 30-min i.v. infusion weekly for four times, followed by 2 weeks of rest, and gemcitabine starting with a dose of 750 mg/m2 (if well-tolerated 1,000 mg/m2) on days 1 and 15, followed by 3 weeks of rest. A new cycle began on day 36. Patients were premedicated with betamethasone 8 mg p.o. on the evening before, and 8 mg i.v. 30-60 min before the docetaxel infusion. Response was confirmed by computed tomography and assessed at 12 and 24 weeks. Toxicity was assessed according to WHO scales. RESULTS: In study I, 38 out of the 52 enrolled patients were valuable. Two patients experienced complete remission (CR) (5%), 10 patients partial remission (PR) (26%), nine patients stable disease (SD) (24%), and 17 patients showed progressive disease (PD) (45%). Toxicity mainly involved leukopenia, which in some cases required hospitalization and treatment with antibiotics. In Study II, 46 out of the 65 enrolled patients (70%) were assessable. Out of these, three patients (7%) had CR, eight patients (17%) had PR, 10 patients (22%) had SD, and 25 (54%) PD. Overall response was 24% while an additional 22% showed stable disease. Toxicity mainly consisted of leucopenia and pain. CONCLUSION: Docetaxel as a single agent is active in esophageal cancer, both in treatment naive and in previously treated patients with recurrent disease. The overall response rate was 31%, with a good-safety profile. The addition of gemcitabine is well tolerated, but adds no efficacy. Weekly administration of docetaxel may be less effective. It demonstrates moderate efficacy and the doses used provide an acceptable safety profile.
|
|
| 8. |
- Ali, Abir Salwa, et al.
(author)
-
Intravenous versus oral etoposide : efficacy and correlation to clinical outcome in patients with high-grade metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (WHO G3)
- 2018
-
In: Medical Oncology. - : Springer. - 1357-0560 .- 1559-131X. ; 35:4
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- High-grade gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs, G3) are aggressive cancers of the digestive system with poor prognosis and survival. Platinum-based chemotherapy (cisplatin/carboplatin + etoposide) is considered the first-line palliative treatment. Etoposide is frequently administered intravenously; however, oral etoposide may be used as an alternative. Concerns for oral etoposide include decreased bioavailability, inter-and intra-patient variability and patient compliance. We aimed to evaluate possible differences in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients treated with oral etoposide compared to etoposide given as infusion. Patients (n = 236) from the Nordic NEC study were divided into three groups receiving etoposide as a long infusion (24 h, n = 170), short infusion (= 5 h, n = 33) or oral etoposide (n = 33) according to hospital tradition. PFS and OS were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier (log-rank), cox proportional hazard ratios and confidence intervals. No statistical differences were observed in PFS or OS when comparing patients receiving long infusion (median PFS 3.8 months, median OS 14.5 months), short infusion (PFS 5.6 months, OS 11.0 months) or oral etoposide (PFS 5.4 months, OS 11.3 months). We observed equal efficacy for the three administration routes suggesting oral etoposide may be safe and efficient in treating high-grade GEP-NEN, G3 patients scheduled for cisplatin/carboplatin + etoposide therapy.
|
|
| 9. |
- Ambring, Anneli, 1964, et al.
(author)
-
Treatment with sorafenib and sunitinib in renal cell cancer: a Swedish register-based study.
- 2013
-
In: Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England). - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1559-131X .- 1357-0560. ; 30:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Sorafenib and sunitinib are used for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The objective was to study the treatment duration and time to death in Swedish RCC patients on sorafenib or sunitinib as first-line or monotherapy or as sequential therapy. Patients with an RCC diagnosis were identified in the Swedish Cancer Register. Information on treatment with sorafenib and sunitinib was collected from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register, and time of death from the Cause of Death Register. Outcome measures were duration of treatment and time to death on sorafenib or sunitinib as first-line or monotherapy and sequential therapy (sorafenib-sunitinib versus sunitinib-sorafenib). Poisson regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). No difference was observed for sorafenib (n=123 patients) versus sunitinib (n=261 patients) in treatment duration (HR 1.00; CI 0.80-1.24) or risk for death (HR 1.30; CI 0.91-1.85) when used as first-line or monotherapy. The same applied for sequential therapy with sorafenib-sunitinib (n=43 patients) versus sunitinib-sorafenib (n=54 patients), HR 1.47 (CI 0.71-3.02) and HR 2.01 (CI 0.86-4.68), respectively. There was a difference between the two treatments in how the duration of first-line treatment influenced the duration of second-line treatment and time to death, in favor of starting with sorafenib. In conclusion, no difference was detected between sorafenib and sunitinib in the duration of treatment or time to death when used as first-line or monotherapy. The impact of the duration of first-line treatment differed between the two sequences, and the results indicated that sorafenib as first-line treatment is a favorable choice.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
