| 3. |
- van Eerden, Ruben A. G., et al.
(author)
-
Tissue Type Differences in ABCB1 Expression and Paclitaxel Tissue Pharmacokinetics in Patients With Esophageal Cancer
- 2021
-
In: Frontiers in Pharmacology. - : Frontiers Media S.A.. - 1663-9812. ; 12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Data from previous work suggests that there is no correlation between systemic (plasma) paclitaxel exposure and efficacy in patients treated for esophageal cancer. In this trial, we investigated ATP-binding cassette efflux transporter expression and intratumoral pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel to identify changes which could be a first sign of chemoresistance.Methods: Patients with esophageal cancer treated with paclitaxel and carboplatin (+/- concomitant radiotherapy) were included. During the first and last cycle of weekly paclitaxel, blood samples and biopsies of esophageal mucosa and tumor tissue were taken. Changes in paclitaxel exposure and expression of ABCB1 (P-glycoprotein) over time were studied in both tumor tissue and normal appearing esophageal mucosa.Results: ABCB1 was significantly higher expressed in tumor tissue compared to esophageal tissue, during both the first and last cycle of paclitaxel (cycle 1: p < 0.01; cycle 5/6: p = 0.01). Interestingly, ABCB1 expression was significantly higher in adenocarcinoma than in squamous cell carcinoma (p < 0.01). During the first cycle, a trend towards a higher intratumoral paclitaxel concentration was observed compared to the esophageal mucosa concentration (RD:43%; 95%CI: -3% to 111% p = 0.07). Intratumoral and plasma paclitaxel concentrations were significantly correlated during the first cycle (AUC(0-48 h): r = 0.72; p < 0.01).Conclusion: Higher ABCB1 expression in tumor tissue, and differences between histological tumor types might partly explain why tumors respond differently to systemic treatment. Resistance by altered intratumoral paclitaxel concentrations could not be demonstrated because the majority of the biopsies taken at the last cycle of paclitaxel did contain a low amount of tumor cells or no tumor.
|
|
| 4. |
- Wynants, Laure, et al.
(author)
-
The Risk of Endometrial Malignancy and Other Endometrial Pathology in Women with Abnormal Uterine Bleeding : An Ultrasound-Based Model Development Study by the IETA Group
- 2022
-
In: Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation. - : S. Karger AG. - 0378-7346 .- 1423-002X. ; 87:1, s. 54-61
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop a model that can discriminate between different etiologies of abnormal uterine bleeding. Design: The International Endometrial Tumor Analysis 1 study is a multicenter observational diagnostic study in 18 bleeding clinics in 9 countries. Consecutive women with abnormal vaginal bleeding presenting for ultrasound examination (n = 2,417) were recruited. The histology was obtained from endometrial sampling, D&C, hysteroscopic resection, hysterectomy, or ultrasound follow-up for >1 year. Methods: A model was developed using multinomial regression based on age, body mass index, and ultrasound predictors to distinguish between: (1) endometrial atrophy, (2) endometrial polyp or intracavitary myoma, (3) endometrial malignancy or atypical hyperplasia, (4) proliferative/secretory changes, endometritis, or hyperplasia without atypia and validated using leave-center-out cross-validation and bootstrapping. The main outcomes are the model's ability to discriminate between the four outcomes and the calibration of risk estimates. Results: The median age in 2,417 women was 50 (interquartile range 43-57). 414 (17%) women had endometrial atrophy; 996 (41%) had a polyp or myoma; 155 (6%) had an endometrial malignancy or atypical hyperplasia; and 852 (35%) had proliferative/secretory changes, endometritis, or hyperplasia without atypia. The model distinguished well between malignant and benign histology (c-statistic 0.88 95% CI: 0.85-0.91) and between all benign histologies. The probabilities for each of the four outcomes were over- or underestimated depending on the centers. Limitations: Not all patients had a diagnosis based on histology. The model over- or underestimated the risk for certain outcomes in some centers, indicating local recalibration is advisable. Conclusions: The proposed model reliably distinguishes between four histological outcomes. This is the first model to discriminate between several outcomes and is the only model applicable when menopausal status is uncertain. The model could be useful for patient management and counseling, and aid in the interpretation of ultrasound findings. Future research is needed to externally validate and locally recalibrate the model.
|
|
