METHODS: A total of 108 pleural, peritoneal, and pericardial effusions/washings diagnosed as unequivocally reactive (n = 41) and metastatic carcinoma (n = 67) by cytomorphology over 18 months were reviewed. Among the metastatic carcinoma cases, 54 were adenocarcinoma and others were squamous cell carcinoma (n = 1), carcinosarcoma (n = 1), and carcinoma of undefined histological subtypes (n = 11). Cell block sections were immunostained by EZH2 (Cell Marque, USA). The percentages of EZH2-immunolabeled cells over the total cells of interest were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to determine the optimal cut-off score to define EZH2 immunopositivity.
RESULTS: A threshold of 8% EZH2-immunolabeled cells allows distinction between malignant and reactive mesothelial cells, with 95.5% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100% positive predictive value, and 93.2% negative predictive value (p < 0.0001). The area under the curve was 0.988.
CONCLUSION: EZH2 is a promising diagnostic biomarker for malignancy in effusion cytology which is inexpensive yet trustworthy and could potentially be used routinely in countries under considerable economic constraints.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Contrast enhanced computed tomography (CT) images of 194 multi-racial NSCLC patients (79 EGFR mutants and 115 wildtypes) were collected from three different countries using 5 manufacturers' scanners with a variety of scanning parameters. Ninety-nine cases obtained from the University of Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) in Malaysia were used for training and validation procedures. Forty-one cases collected from the Kyushu University Hospital (KUH) in Japan and fifty-four cases obtained from The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA) in America were used for a test procedure. Radiomic features were obtained from BN maps, which represent topologically invariant heterogeneous characteristics of lung cancer on CT images, by applying histogram- and texture-based feature computations. A BN-based signature was determined using support vector machine (SVM) models with the best combination of features that maximized a robustness index (RI) which defined a higher total area under receiver operating characteristics curves (AUCs) and lower difference of AUCs between the training and the validation. The SVM model was built using the signature and optimized in a five-fold cross validation. The BN-based model was compared to conventional original image (OI)- and wavelet-decomposition (WD)-based models with respect to the RI between the validation and the test.
RESULTS: The BN-based model showed a higher RI of 1.51 compared with the models based on the OI (RI: 1.33) and the WD (RI: 1.29).
CONCLUSION: The proposed model showed higher robustness than the conventional models in the identification of EGFR mutations among NSCLC patients. The results suggested the robustness of the BN-based approach against variations in image scanner/scanning parameters.
METHODOLOGY: A retrospective study of 865 patients was performed at Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital to investigate the feasibility of selective ND (SND). All patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the pharynx and larynx who received primary radiation and underwent salvage ND were included in the study.
RESULT: A total of 29 NDs were analyzed. In 17 neck sides, viable metastases were found (58%), whereas in the other 12 specimens there were no viable metastases. In 16 of the 17 necks (94%), the metastases were located either in level II, III, or IV or in a combination of these 3 levels. Level V was involved in only 1 case (6%).
CONCLUSION: It is well justified to perform a salvage SND (levels II, III, and IV) for pharyngeal and laryngeal carcinoma after primary radiation. In carefully selected cases of supraglottic and oropharyngeal carcinoma, a superselective ND also appears as an efficient option.
Aim: This study was carried out in order to propose a model to predict regional lymph node metastasis of OSCC using histological parameters such as tumour stage, tumour size, pattern of invasion (POI), differentiation of tumour, and host immune response, together with the expression levels of six biomarkers (periostin, HIF-1α, MMP-9, β-catenin, VEGF-C, and EGFR), and, furthermore, to compare the impact of all these parameters on recurrence and 3 yr and 5 yr survival rates. Materials and Method. Histological materials collected from the archives were used to evaluate histological parameters and immunohistochemical profiles. Standard methods were used for immunohistochemistry and for evaluation of results. Data related to recurrence and survival (3 and 5 years) was also recorded. Clinical data was collected from patients' records.
Results: Male to female ratio was 3 : 1. The commonest site of OSCC was the buccal mucosa, and majority of them were T3 or T4 tumours presented at stage 4. 62.5% of the tumours were well differentiated. Three-year and 5-year survival rates were significantly associated with lymph node metastasis and recurrence. POI was significantly correlated with tumour size, stage, 3-year survival, EGFR, HIF-1α, periostin, and MMP-9 (p < 0.05). Expression of EGFR showed a direct association with metastasis (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: POI, level of differentiation, and expression of EGFR are independent prognostic markers for lymph node metastasis. Therefore, these parameters may help in treatment planning of a clinically negative neck.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the cytotoxic effects of betel quid and areca nut extracts on the fibroblast (L929), mouth-ordinary-epithelium 1 (MOE1) and oral squamous cell carcinoma (HSC-2) cell lines.
METHODS: L929, MOE1 and HSC-2 cells were treated with 0.1, 0.2 and 0.4 g/ml of betel quid and areca nut extracts for 24, 48 and 72 h. MTT assay was performed to assess the cell viability.
RESULTS: Both extracts, regardless of concentration, significantly reduced the cell viability of L929 compared with the control (P<0.05). Cell viability of MOE1 was significantly enhanced by all betel quid concentrations compared with the control (P<0.05). By contrast, 0.4 g/ml of areca nut extract significantly reduced the cell viability of MOE1 at 48 and 72 h of incubation. Cell viability of HSC-2 was significantly lowered by all areca nut extracts, but 0.4 g/ml of betel quid significantly increased the cell viability of HSC-2 (P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: Areca nut extract is cytotoxic to L929 and HSC-2, whereas the lower concentrations of areca nut extract significantly increased the cell viability of MOE1 compared to the higher concentration and control group. Although betel quid extract is cytotoxic to L929, the same effect is not observed in MOE1 and HSC-2 cell lines. Further investigations are needed to clarify the mechanism of action.
.
METHODS: DNA methylation profiling was utilized to screen the differentially hypermethylated genes in OSCC. Three selected differentially-hypermethylated genes of p16, DDAH2 and DUSP1 were further validated for methylation status and protein expression. The correlation between demographic, clinicopathological characteristics, and survival rate of OSCC patients with hypermethylation of p16, DDAH2 and DUSP1 genes were analysed in the study.
RESULTS: Methylation profiling demonstrated 33 promoter hypermethylated genes in OSCC. The differentially-hypermethylated genes of p16, DDAH2 and DUSP1 revealed positivity of 78%, 80% and 88% in methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction and 24% and 22% of immunoreactivity in DDAH2 and DUSP1 genes, respectively. Promoter hypermethylation of p16 gene was found significantly associated with tumour site of buccal, gum, tongue and lip (P=0.001). In addition, DDAH2 methylation level was correlated significantly with patients' age (P=0.050). In this study, overall five-year survival rate was 38.1% for OSCC patients and was influenced by sex difference.
CONCLUSIONS: The study has identified 33 promoter hypermethylated genes that were significantly silenced in OSCC, which might be involved in an important mechanism in oral carcinogenesis. Our approaches revealed signature candidates of differentially hypermethylated genes of DDAH2 and DUSP1 which can be further developed as potential biomarkers for OSCC as diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic targets in the future.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing either treatment was carried out from January 2009 to December 2014. Tumour response to the procedures was evaluated according to the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess and compare the overall survival in the two groups.
RESULTS: A total of 79 patients were analysed (34 had c-TACE, 45 had DEB-TACE) with a median follow-up of 11.8 months. A total of 20 patients in the c-TACE group (80%) and 12 patients in the DEB-TACE group (44%) died during the follow up period. The median survival durations in the c-TACE and DEB-TACE groups were 4.9 ± 3.2 months and 8.3 ± 2.0 months respectively (p=0.008). There was no statistically significant difference noted among the two groups with respect to mRECIST criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: DEB-TACE demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival rates for patients with unresectable HCC when compared to c-TACE. It is a safe and promising approach and should potentially be considered as a standard of care in the management of unresectable HCC.
METHODS: Eligible Asian patients (enrolled at Asian sites) who were at least 18 years of age (≥20 years in Japan) and had untreated EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to receive osimertinib (80 mg, orally once daily) or an SoC EGFR TKI (gefitinib, 250 mg, or erlotinib, 150 mg, orally once daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). The key secondary end points were overall survival, objective response rate, central nervous system efficacy, and safety.
RESULTS: The median PFS was 16.5 versus 11.0 months for the osimertinib and SoC EGFR TKI groups, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.54, 95% confidence interval: 0.41-0.72, p < 0.0001). The overall survival data were immature (24% maturity). The objective response rates were 80% for osimertinib and 75% for an SoC EGFR TKI. The median central nervous system PFS was not calculable for the osimertinib group and was 13.8 months for the SoC EGFR TKI group (hazard ratio = 0.55, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-1.17, p = 0.118). Fewer adverse events of grade 3 or higher (40% versus 48%) and fewer adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (15% versus 21%) were reported with osimertinib versus with an SoC EGFR TKI, respectively.
CONCLUSION: In this Asian population, first-line osimertinib demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in PFS over an SoC EGFR TKI, with a safety profile consistent with that for the overall FLAURA study population.
METHODS: A multi-center, prospective colonoscopy study involving 16 Asia-Pacific regions was performed from 2008 to 2015. Consecutive self-referred CRC screening participants aged 40-70 years were recruited, and each subject received one direct optical colonoscopy. The prevalence of CRC, ACN, and colorectal adenoma was compared among subjects with different FDRs affected using Pearson's χ2 tests. Binary logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the risk of these lesions, controlling for recognized risk factors including age, gender, smoking habits, alcohol drinking, body mass index, and the presence of diabetes mellitus.
RESULTS: Among 11,797 asymptomatic subjects, the prevalence of CRC was 0.6% (none: 0.6%; siblings: 1.1%; mother: 0.5%; father: 1.2%; ≥2 members: 3.1%, P<0.001), that of ACN was 6.5% (none: 6.1%; siblings: 8.3%; mother: 7.7%; father: 8.7%; ≥2 members: 9.3%, P<0.001), and that of colorectal adenoma was 29.3% (none: 28.6%; siblings: 33.5%; mother: 31.8%; father: 31.1%; ≥2 members: 38.1%, P<0.001). In multivariate regression analyses, subjects with at least one FDR affected were significantly more likely to have CRC (adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=2.02-7.89), ACN (AOR=1.55-2.06), and colorectal adenoma (AOR=1.31-1.92) than those without a family history. The risk of CRC (AOR=0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-2.35, P=0.830), ACN (AOR=1.07, 95% CI 0.75-1.52, P=0.714), and colorectal adenoma (AOR=0.96, 95% CI 0.78-1.19, P=0.718) in subjects with either parent affected was similar to that of subjects with their siblings affected.
CONCLUSIONS: The risk of colorectal neoplasia was similar among subjects with different FDRs affected. These findings do not support the need to discriminate proband identity in screening participants with affected FDRs when their risks of colorectal neoplasia were estimated.