Search

International audience; The International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) committee has been an interested observer of community interests in all matters related to MSC identity, mechanism of action, potency assessment and etymology, and it has regularly contributed to this conversation through a series of MSC pre-conferences and committee publications dealing with these matters. Arising from these reflections, the authors propose that an overlooked and potentially disruptive perspective is the impact of in vivo persistence on potency that is not predicted by surrogate cellular potency assays performed in vitro and how this translates to in vivo outcomes. Systemic delivery or extravascular implantation at sites removed from the affected organ system seems to be adequate in affecting clinical outcomes in many pre-clinical murine models of acute tissue injury and inflammatory pathology, including the recent European Medicines Agency-approved use of MSCs in Crohn-related fistular disease. The authors further propose that MSC viability and metabolic fitness likely dominate as a potency quality attribute, especially in recipients poised for salutary benefits as defined by emerging predictive biomarkers of response.

Background: The prognostic role of the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) is controversial in patients with melanoma. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to assess the prognostic value of the PLR in patients with melanoma.Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane library, WanFang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched for eligible studies. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the association between the PLR and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).Results: Nine studies with 2,396 patients were included in this meta-analysis. A high PLR was a predictor of shorter OS (HR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.18–2.38, p = 0.004), but not PFS (HR = 1.53, 95% CI = 0.96–2.44, p = 0.075) in patients with melanoma. Subgroup analysis revealed that the PLR remained a significant prognostic indicator of both OS and PFS in patients with non-metastatic disease; the PLR cutoff value of

Cancer is a genetic disease where genetic variations cause abnormally functioning genes that appear to alter expression. Proteins, the final products of gene expression, determine the phenotypes and biological processes. Therefore, detecting gene expression levels can be used for cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment prediction in a clinical setting. In this review, we investigated six gene expression assay systems (qRT-PCR, DNA microarray, nCounter, RNA-Seq, FISH, and tissue microarray) that are currently being used in clinical cancer studies. Some of these methods are also commonly used in a modified way; for example, detection of DNA content or protein expression. Herein, we discuss their principles, sample preparation, design, quantification and sensitivity, data analysis, time for sample preparation and processing, and cost. We also compared these methods according to their sample selection, particularly for the feasibility of using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples, which are routinely archived for clinical cancer studies. We intend to provide a guideline for choosing an assay method with respect to its oncological applications in a clinical setting.

Background: The prognostic value of programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to understand the role of PD-L1 in NPC. Method: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to April 2019. We determined the pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the relationship between PD-L1 and various survival outcomes. Begg's funnel plot was used to assess any publication bias. Results: Eleven studies involving 1,315 patients were included in this meta-analysis. For overall survival (OS), the HR was 1.48 and 95% CI was 1.00–2.18 (p = 0.049). For disease-free survival (DFS), the HR was 1.51 and 95% CI was 0.85–2.69 (p = 0.162). For distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), the HR was 1.75 and 95% CI was 0.64–4.79 (p = 0.277). For local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), the HR was 0.67 and 95% CI was 0.06–8.16 (p = 0.756). The results of prognosis of PD-L1 and OS were more significant after sensitivity analysis. The pooled odds ratio indicated that PD-L1 expression was not associated with T stage, N stage, M stage, overall stage, sex, age, smoking, or alcohol intake. No publication bias was found. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed that PD-L1 overexpression in NPC was associated with a poor OS and may be useful as a novel prognostic factor for NPC.

Despite their great promise, only a few nanoparticle formulations have been approved for clinical use in oncology. The failure of nano-scale drugs to enhance cancer therapy is in large part due to inefficient delivery. To overcome this outstanding problem, a better understanding of how the physical properties (i.e., size, surface chemistry, and shape) of nanoparticles affect their transvascular transport in tumors is required. In this study, we developed a mathematical model for nanoparticle delivery to solid tumors taking into account electrostatic interactions between the particles and the negatively-charged pores of the vessel wall. The model predictions suggest that electrostatic repulsion has a minor effect on the transvascular transport of nanoparticles. On the contrary, electrostatic attraction, caused even by small cationic charges (surface charge density less than 3 × 10-3 C/m2) can lead to a twofold or more increase in the transvascular flux of nanoparticles into the tumor interstitial space. Importantly, for every nanoparticle size, there is a value of charge density above which a steep increase in transvascular transport is predicted. Our model provides important guidelines for the optimal design of nanoparticle formulation for delivery to solid tumors. © 2012 Biomedical Engineering Society. 41 68 77 68-77

The use of nanotechnology has offered new hope for cancer detection, prevention and treatment. Nanoparticle formulations are advantageous over conventional chemotherapy because they can incorporate multiple diagnostic and therapeutic agents and are associated with significantly less adverse effects due to selective accumulation to tumor tissue. Despite their great promise, however, only a few nanoparticle formulations have been approved for clinical use in oncology. The failure of nano-scale drugs to enhance cancer therapy is in large part due to inefficient delivery. Indeed, physiological barriers posed by the tumor micro-environment inhibit homogeneous distribution of drugs to the interstitial space of tumors and compromise the efficacy of the treatment. To overcome this outstanding problem, a better understanding of how the physical properties (i.e., size, and surface charge) of nanoparticles affect their transport in tumors is required. Here we use a mathematical model to provide basic design guidelines for the optimal delivery of nanoparticle formulations. © 2012 IEEE. 529 534 529-534