Search

Objective: To improve mechanistic understanding, this randomized controlled trial examined anxiety, mood, emotional support, and pain-related self-efficacy as mediators of music therapy for pain management in people with advanced cancer., Methods: People with advanced cancer who had chronic pain were randomized (1:1) to 6 weekly individual music therapy or social attention control sessions. We measured mediators and pain outcomes (pain interference and pain intensity) using self-report measures at baseline, session 4, and post-intervention. We included outcome expectancy/treatment credibility, music reward, adult playfulness, and baseline pain interference and pain intensity as moderators., Results: Participants (n = 92) had a mean age of 56 years. Most were female (71.7%), white (47.8%) or Black (39.1%), and had stage IV cancer (75%). Self-efficacy was found to be a significant mediator of music therapy for pain intensity (indirect effect ab = 0.79, 95% CI 0.01-1.82) and pain interference (indirect effect ab = 1.16, 95% CI 0.02-2.51), while anxiety, mood, and emotional support were not. The mediating effect of pain-related self-efficacy was significantly moderated by baseline pain interference but not by the other moderators., Conclusions: The findings suggest that the impact of music therapy on chronic pain is mediated by self-efficacy. This knowledge can help optimize music therapy interventions for chronic pain management for people with advanced cancer by capitalizing on teaching music-based self-management strategies., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03432247., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: This is an update of the review published on the Cochrane Library in 2016, Issue 8. Having cancer may result in extensive emotional, physical and social suffering. Music interventions have been used to alleviate symptoms and treatment side effects in people with cancer. This review includes music interventions defined as music therapy offered by trained music therapists, as well as music medicine, which was defined as listening to pre-recorded music offered by medical staff., Objectives: To assess and compare the effects of music therapy and music medicine interventions for psychological and physical outcomes in people with cancer., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, Science Citation Index, CancerLit, CAIRSS, Proquest Digital Dissertations, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, the RILM Abstracts of Music Literature, http://www.wfmt.info/Musictherapyworld/ and the National Research Register. We searched all databases, except for the last two, from their inception to April 2020; the other two are no longer functional, so we searched them until their termination date. We handsearched music therapy journals, reviewed reference lists and contacted experts. There was no language restriction., Selection Criteria: We included all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of music interventions for improving psychological and physical outcomes in adults and pediatric patients with cancer. We excluded patients undergoing biopsy and aspiration for diagnostic purposes., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. Where possible, we presented results in meta-analyses using mean differences and standardized mean differences. We used post-test scores. In cases of significant baseline difference, we used change scores. We conducted separate meta-analyses for studies with adult participants and those with pediatric participants. Primary outcomes of interest included psychological outcomes and physical symptoms and secondary outcomes included physiological responses, physical functioning, anesthetic and analgesic intake, length of hospitalization, social and spiritual support, communication, and quality of life (QoL) . We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence., Main Results: We identified 29 new trials for inclusion in this update. In total, the evidence of this review rests on 81 trials with a total of 5576 participants. Of the 81 trials, 74 trials included adult (N = 5306) and seven trials included pediatric (N = 270) oncology patients. We categorized 38 trials as music therapy trials and 43 as music medicine trials. The interventions were compared to standard care. Psychological outcomes The results suggest that music interventions may have a large anxiety-reducing effect in adults with cancer, with a reported average anxiety reduction of 7.73 units (17 studies, 1381 participants; 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.02 to -5.44; very low-certainty evidence) on the Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory scale (range 20 to 80; lower values reflect lower anxiety). Results also suggested a moderately strong, positive impact of music interventions on depression in adults (12 studies, 1021 participants; standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.41, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.15; very low-certainty evidence). We found no support for an effect of music interventions on mood (SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.97; 5 studies, 236 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Music interventions may increase hope in adults with cancer, with a reported average increase of 3.19 units (95% CI 0.12 to 6.25) on the Herth Hope Index (range 12 to 48; higher scores reflect greater hope), but this finding was based on only two studies (N = 53 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Physical outcomes We found a moderate pain-reducing effect of music interventions (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.26; 12 studies, 632 adult participants; very low-certainty evidence). In addition, music interventions had a small treatment effect on fatigue (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.10; 10 studies, 498 adult participants; low-certainty evidence). The results suggest a large effect of music interventions on adult participants' QoL, but the results were highly inconsistent across studies, and the pooled effect size was accompanied by a large confidence interval (SMD 0.88, 95% CI -0.31 to 2.08; 7 studies, 573 participants; evidence is very uncertain). Removal of studies that used improper randomization methods resulted in a moderate effect size that was less heterogeneous (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.88, P = 0.02, I 2 = 56%). A small number of trials included pediatric oncology participants. The findings suggest that music interventions may reduce anxiety but this finding was based on only two studies (SMD -0.94, 95% CI -1.9 to 0.03; very low-certainty evidence). Due to the small number of studies, we could not draw conclusions regarding the effects of music interventions on mood, depression, QoL, fatigue or pain in pediatric participants with cancer. The majority of studies included in this review update presented a high risk of bias, and therefore the overall certainty of the evidence is low. For several outcomes (i.e. anxiety, depression, pain, fatigue, and QoL) the beneficial treatment effects were consistent across studies for music therapy interventions delivered by music therapists. In contrast, music medicine interventions resulted in inconsistent treatment effects across studies for these outcomes., Authors' Conclusions: This systematic review indicates that music interventions compared to standard care may have beneficial effects on anxiety, depression, hope, pain, and fatigue in adults with cancer. The results of two trials suggest that music interventions may have a beneficial effect on anxiety in children with cancer. Too few trials with pediatric participants were included to draw conclusions about the treatment benefits of music for other outcomes. For several outcomes, music therapy interventions delivered by a trained music therapist led to consistent results across studies and this was not the case for music medicine interventions. Moreover, evidence of effect was found for music therapy interventions for QoL and fatigue but not for music medicine interventions. Most trials were at high risk of bias and low or very low certainty of evidence; therefore, these results need to be interpreted with caution., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Angiopoietin 2 (Ang2) is an important regulator of angiogenesis, blood vessel maturation and integrity of the vascular endothelium. The correlation between the dynamic expression of Ang2 in tumors with regions of high angiogenic activity and a poor prognosis in many tumor types makes Ang2 an ideal drug target. We have generated MEDI3617, a human anti-Ang2 monoclonal antibody that neutralizes Ang2 by preventing its binding to the Tie2 receptor in vitro, and inhibits angiogenesis and tumor growth in vivo. Treatment of mice with MEDI3617 resulted in inhibition of angiogenesis in several mouse models including: FGF2-induced angiogenesis in a basement extract plug model, tumor and retinal angiogenesis. In xenograft tumor models, treatment with MEDI3617 resulted in a reduction in tumor angiogenesis and an increase in tumor hypoxia. The administration of MEDI3617 as a single agent to mice bearing human tumor xenografts resulted in tumor growth inhibition against a broad spectrum of tumor types. Combining MEDI3617 with chemotherapy or bevacizumab resulted in a delay in tumor growth and no body weight loss was observed in the combination groups. These results, combined with pharmacodynamic studies, demonstrate that treatment of tumor-bearing mice with MEDI3617 significantly inhibited tumor growth as a single agent by blocking tumor angiogenesis. Together, these data show that MEDI3617 is a robust antiangiogenic agent and support the clinical evaluation and biomarker development of MEDI3617 in cancer patients.

Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is a serine/threonine kinase that regulates a variety of cellular functions such as growth, proliferation and autophagy. In a variety of cancer cells, overactivation of mTOR has been reported. In addition, mTOR inhibitors, such as rapamycin and its derivatives, are being evaluated in clinical trials as anticancer drugs. However, no active mutants of mTOR have been identified in human cancer. Here, we report that two different point mutations, S2215Y and R2505P, identified in human cancer genome database confer constitutive activation of mTOR signaling even under nutrient starvation conditions. S2215Y was identified in large intestine adenocarcinoma whereas R2505P was identified in renal cell carcinoma. mTOR complex 1 prepared from cells expressing the mutant mTOR after nutrient starvation still retains the activity to phosphorylate 4E-BP1 in vitro. The cells expressing the mTOR mutant show increased percentage of S-phase cells and exhibit resistance to cell size decrease by amino-acid starvation. The activated mutants are still sensitive to rapamycin. However, they show increased resistance to 1-butanol. Our study points to the idea that mTOR activating mutations can be identified in a wide range of human cancer.

The purpose of this study was to determine the PGE2 concentration in naturally-occurring cancer in pet dogs and in canine cancer cell lines in order to identify specific types of canine cancer with high PGE2 production which could serve as preclinical models to evaluate anticancer strategies targeting PGE2. PGE2 concentrations were measured by enzyme immunoassay in canine melanoma, soft tissue sarcoma, transitional cell carcinoma, osteosarcoma, and prostatic carcinoma cell lines; in 80 canine tumor tissue samples including oral melanoma (MEL), oral squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder (TCC), lymphoma (LSA), mammary carcinoma (MCA), osteosarcoma (OSA), prostatic carcinoma (PCA); and in corresponding normal organ tissues. High concentrations of PGE(2)(range 400-3300 pg/10(4)cells) were present in cell culture medium from the transitional cell carcinoma, prostatic carcinoma, and osteosarcoma cell lines. PGE2 concentrations in tumor tissues were elevated (tumor PGE2 concentration>mean+2X sd PGE(2)concentration of normal organ tissue) in 21/22 TCC, 5/6 PCA, 7/10 SCC, 5/10 MEL, 3/8 MCA, 4/15 OSA, and 0/9 LSA. Results of this study will help guide future investigations of anticancer therapies that target cyclooxygenase and PGE2., (Copyright 2001 Harcourt Publishers Ltd.)