Search

Purpose: In our previous study, we found that AKR1C3 was a radioresistance gene in KY170R cells. Downregulating the expression of AKR1C3 could enhance the radiosensitivity of esophageal carcinoma cells. In this study, we investigated whether methyl jasmonate (MeJ), an inhibitor of Aldo-keto reductase family1 member C3 (AKR1C3), could overcome radiation resistance in AKR1C3 highly expressed cells.Patients and methods: We used clone formation assays to detect radiosensitivity effects. Flow cytometry assays were used to detect reactive oxygen species (ROS) accumulation and apoptosis. Enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) were used to detect the concentrations of prostaglandin F2 (PGF2) and prostaglandin D2 (PGD2) in the cells after incubation with MeJ. Western blotting was used to detect AKR1C3 and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) expression.Results: We found that AKR1C3 was highly expressed in radioresistant esophageal carcinoma cells. MeJ inhibited the expression of AKR1C3 and enhanced the radiation sensitivity of esophageal carcinoma cells expressing high levels of AKR1C3 (P [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Bulky non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is difficult to achieve effective local control by conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CRT). The present work aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of partial stereotactic ablative boost radiotherapy (P-SABR) in bulky NSCLC. Patients and methods: From December 2012 through August 2017, 30 patients with bulky NSCLC treated with P-SABR technique were analyzed. The P-SABR plan consisted of one partial SABR plan (5–9 Gy/f, 3–6 fractions) to gross tumor boost (GTVb), followed by one CRT plan to the planning target volume (PTV). GTVb was the max volume receiving SABR to guarantee the dose of organs-at-risks (OARs) falloff to about 3 Gy/f. The total dose of PTV margin was planned to above 60 Gy. The simply CRT plans were created using the same planning parameters as the original plan, with the goal to achieve comparable OARs doses and PTV margin dose to the P-SABR plan. Dosimetric variables were acquired in both P-SABR and compared CRT plans. Toxicity, local control, and survival were also evaluated. Results: Median follow-up in survivors was 10.3 months (range=2.3–39.4 months). Eleven patients (36.7%) had partial response (PR) and ten patients (33.3%) had stable disease (SD). Two-year overall survival was 55.6%. Two-year local control rate was 85.7%. No severe acute side effects.CTCAE Grade III were observed. Compared to the simply CRT plan, P-SABR plans achieved similar doses to the OARs and Dmin, but increased dose at the isocenter, Dmean, Dmax, and biological equivalent dose (BED) significantly (P<0.05). BED in the tumor center could reach 107.3 Gy (93.2–132 Gy). Patients with B90≥65% achieved a higher local control rate than those with B90<65% (P=0.010). Conclusion: This retrospective study suggests that P-SABR is feasible and well tolerated in bulky NSCLC. Local control rate is encouraging, especially for the B90≥65% group, which may due to the ability of P-SABR to optimize BED with equivalent toxicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract, Results section, "Two-year overall survival was 55.6%. Two-year local control rate was  85.7%" should read "One-year overall survival was  64.9%. One-year local control rate was 100%".On page 2574, Response and survival outcomes section, 3rd and 4th sentences, "One-year over-all survival was 88.2%. Two-year overall survival was 55.6% (Figure 2A)." should read "One-year over-all survival was 64.9%. Two-year overall survival was 44.5% (Figure 2A)."On page 2574, Response and survival outcomes section, 10th sentence, "Two-year local control rate was 85.7%. (Figure  2B)." should read "Two-year local control rate was 57.1%. (Figure 2B)."On page 2575, Figure 2 legend, "(A) Kaplan–Meier plots of overall survival for all patients. One-year overall survival was  88.2%. Two-year overall survival was 55.6%. (B) Kaplan–Meier plots of local control for all patients. One-year local control rate was 100%. Two-year local control rate was 85.7%. (C) Patients with B90≥ 65% (n=19) achieved a higher local control rate than those with B90< 65% (n=11) (median survival=15.2 months vs 3.5 months, CI=6.8– 23.6 and 2.2– 4.9 months, respectively; P=0.010). (D) Patients with B80≥ 90% (n=20) achieved a higher local control rate than those with B80< 90% (n=10) (median survival=14.9 months vs 3.5 months, CI=3.4– 26.3 and 1.8– 5.2 months, respectively; P=0.045)." should read "(A) Kaplan–Meier plots of overallsurvival for all patients. One-year overall survival was 64.9%. Two-year overall survival was 44.5%. (B) Kaplan–Meier plots of local control for all patients. One-year local control rate was  100%. Two-year local control rate was 57.1%. (C) Patients with B90≥ 65% (n=19) achieved a higher local control rate than those with B90< 65% (n=11) (median survival=15.2 months vs 3.5 months, CI=6.8– 23.6 and 2.2– 4.9 months, respectively; P=0.010). (D) Patients with B80≥ 90% (n=20) achieved a higher local control rate than those with B80< 90% (n=10) (median survival=14.9 months vs 3.5 months, CI=3.4– 26.3 and 1.8– 5.2 months, respectively; P=0.045)."On page 2576, Discussion section, last sentence "Therefore, daily SABR was applied in our article and the 2-year local control rate was as high as 85.7%, even stage IV NSCLC were 40%." should read "Therefore, daily SABR was applied in our article and the 1-year local control rate was as high as 100%, even stage IV NSCLC were 40%."Despite the correction in the text list as above, the Figures of Kaplan–Meier plots of overall survival and local control are correct, and the error doesn't the change the overall findings reported in the paper. We can still conclude that "This retrospective study suggests that P-SABR is feasible and well tolerated in bulky NSCLC. Local control rate is encouraging, especially for the B90≥ 65% group, which may due to the ability of P-SABR to optimize BED with equivalent toxicity". The authors apologize for this error. Read the original article [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]