Search

Circular RNA (circRNA) abnormal expression and regulation are involved in the occurrence and development of a variety of tumors. However, the role of circRNAs still remains unknown in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). In the present study, the differential circRNA expression profile of GISTs was screened by human circRNAs chip and verified by qRT-PCR. The circRNA–miRNA–mRNA regulatory network was constructed using the cytoHubba plugin based on the Cytoscape software. Gene ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analyses were performed to explore circRNA functions. Six significantly differential circRNAs were also verified in 20 pairs of GISTs and adjacent tissues by qRT-PCR. The result showed that a total of 543 differentially expressed circRNAs were identified in GISTs, of which 242 were up-regulated and 301 were down-regulated. Additionally, the circRNA–miRNA–mRNA network contained six circRNAs, 30 miRNAs, and 308 mRNAs, and the targeted mRNAs were associated with "regulation of biological process," "intracellular organelle," "protein binding," and enriched in Wnt signaling pathway. Furthermore, qRT-PCR demonstrated that hsa_circRNA_061346, hsa_circRNA_103114, and hsa_circRNA_103870 were significantly up-regulated in GISTs (n = 20), and hsa_ circRNA_405324, hsa_circRNA_406821, and hsa_circRNA_000361 were dramatically down-regulated in GISTs (n = 20). In addition, all of these circRNAs were shown to have high diagnostic values, and most of them were significantly associated with tumor size, mitotic figure, and malignant degrees in GISTs (P < 0.05). Therefore, we concluded that circRNAs were abnormally expressed in GISTs, and the circRNA–miRNA–mRNA regulatory network plays an important role in the occurrence and development of GISTs. Also, the identified six candidate circRNAs might be critical circRNAs and may present as potential diagnostic biomarkers for GISTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following the publication of the above article, the authors have realized that certain intended corrections were not carried over to the published version of the article. First, the description of the results of Figs. 5 and 6 did not match the figures; Edu and Transwell invasion assays were intended to have been excluded from the manuscript during the proofreading stage, although these data were presented in the description of the results for Figs. 5 and 6. Consequently, the text for the "circRNA&#95;001275 promotes cell proliferation" subsection of the Results section towards the end of p. 153 should have read as follows: "MTT assay was used to detect the effects of circRNA&#95;001275 on cell proliferation. The results showed that cell viability was significantly increased in the circRNA&#95;001275 OE group, and significantly decreased in the si circRNA&#95;001275 group (both P<0.05, Fig. 5A and B), compared with the corresponding control groups." Furthermore, the text in the subsequent subsection ("circRNA&#95;001275 inhibits cell apoptosis") should have read as follows: "Hoechst 33258 staining was used to detect the effects of circRNA&#95;001275 on apoptosis. The apoptosis rate was significantly decreased in the circRNA&#95;001275 OE group, and significantly increased in the si circRNA&#95;001275 group (both P<0.05; Fig. 6), compared with the corresponding control group. Secondly, Fig. 5B was omitted from Fig. 5 in the published article; and thirdly, a higher‑resolution version of Fig. 6 was submitted during the revision stages, although the version of this figure that was deemed to have been too low in quality was the one that appeared in the final proofs. The corrected / updated versions of Figs. 5 and 6 are shown opposite. The Editor of International Journal of Oncology regrets that certain of these errors were introduced into the article during the production stages, and apologizes both to the authors and to the readership. [the original article was published in International Journal of Oncology 57: 151‑160, 2020; DOI: 10.3892/ijo.2020.5050].

Watson for Oncology (WFO) is a artificial intelligence clinical decision-support system with evidence-based treatment options for oncologists. WFO has been gradually used in China, but limited reports on whether WFO is suitable for Chinese patients. This study aims to investigate the concordance of treatment options between WFO and real clinical practice for Cervical cancer patients retrospectively. We retrospectively enrolled 300 cases of cervical cancer patients. WFO provides treatment options for 246 supported cases. Real clinical practice were defined as concordant if treatment options were designated "recommended" or "for consideration" by WFO. Concordance of treatment option between WFO and real clinical practice was analyzed statistically. The treatment concordance between WFO and real clinical practice occurred in 72.8% (179/246) of cervical cancer cases. Logistic regression analysis showed that rural registration residences, advanced age, poor ECOG performance status, stages II-IV disease have a remarkable impact on consistency. The main reasons attributed to the 27.2% (67/246) of the discordant cases were the substitution of nedaplatin for cisplatin, reimbursement plan of bevacizumab, surgical preference, and absence of neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy and PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies recommendations. WFO recommendations were in 72.8% of concordant with real clinical practice for cervical cancer patients in China. However, several localization and individual factors limit its wider application. So, WFO could be an essential tool but it cannot currently replace oncologists. To be rapidly and fully apply to cervical cancer patients in China, accelerate localization and improvement were needed for WFO., (Copyright © 2020 Zou, Tang, Liu, Ma and Hu.)