Quercetin in Cancer Treatment, Alone or in Combination with Conventional Therapeutics?

Cancer is a problem of global importance, since the incidence is increasing worldwide and therapeutic options are generally limited. Thus, it becomes imperative to find new therapeutic targets as well as new molecules with therapeutic potential for tumors. Flavonoids are polyphenolic compounds that may be potential therapeutic agents. Several studies have shown that these compounds have a higher anticancer potential. Among the flavonoids in the human diet, quercetin is one of the most important. In the last decades, several anticancer properties of quercetin have been described, such as cell signaling, pro-apoptotic, anti-proliferative and anti-oxidant effects, growth suppression. In fact, it is now well known that quercetin has diverse biological effects, inhibiting multiple enzymes involved in cell proliferation, as well as, in signal transduction pathways. On the other hand, there are also studies reporting potential synergistic effects when combined quercetin with chemotherapeutic agents or radiotherapy. In fact, several studies which aim to explore the anticancer potential of these combined treatments have already been published, the majority with promising results. Actually it is well known that quercetin can act on the chemosensitization and radiosensitization but also as chemoprotective and radioprotective, protecting normal cells of the side effects that results from chemotherapy and radiotherapy, which obviously provides notable advantages in their use in anticancer treatment. Thus, all these data indicate that quercetin may have a key role in anticancer treatment. In this context, this review is focused on the relationship between flavonoids and cancer, with special emphasis on the role of quercetin.

Cholangiocarcinoma: from molecular biology to treatment

Cholangiocarcinoma is a rare tumor originating in the bile ducts, which, according to their anatomical location, is classified as intrahepatic, extrahepatic and hilar. Nevertheless, incidence rates have increased markedly in recent decades. With respect to tumor biology, several genetic alterations correlated with resistance to chemotherapy and radiotherapy have been identified. Here, we highlight changes in KRAS and TP53 genes that are normally associated with a more aggressive phenotype. Also IL-6 and some proteins of the BCL-2 family appear to be involved in the resistance that the cholangiocarcinoma presents toward conventional therapies. With regard to diagnosis, tumor markers most commonly used are CEA and CA 19-9, and although its use isolated appears controversial, their combined value has been increasingly advocated. In imaging terms, various methods are needed, such as abdominal ultrasound, computed tomography and cholangiopancreatography. Regarding therapy, surgical modalities are the only ones that offer chance of cure; however, due to late diagnosis, most patients cannot take advantage of them. Thus, the majority of patients are directed to other therapeutic modalities like chemotherapy, which, in this context, assumes a purely palliative role. Thus, it becomes urgent to investigate new therapeutic options for this highly aggressive type of tumor.

Improving risk stratification in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with combined assessment of GRACE and CRUSADE risk scores

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment is fundamental in the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), enabling estimation of prognosis. AIMS: To evaluate whether the combined use of GRACE and CRUSADE risk stratification schemes in patients with myocardial infarction outperforms each of the scores individually in terms of mortality and haemorrhagic risk prediction. METHODS: Observational retrospective single-centre cohort study including 566 consecutive patients admitted for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The CRUSADE model increased GRACE discriminatory performance in predicting all-cause mortality, ascertained by Cox regression, demonstrating CRUSADE independent and additive predictive value, which was sustained throughout follow-up. The cohort was divided into four different subgroups: G1 (GRACE<141; CRUSADE<41); G2 (GRACE<141; CRUSADE≥41); G3 (GRACE≥141; CRUSADE<41); G4 (GRACE≥141; CRUSADE≥41). RESULTS: Outcomes and variables estimating clinical severity, such as admission Killip-Kimbal class and left ventricular systolic dysfunction, deteriorated progressively throughout the subgroups (G1 to G4). Survival analysis differentiated three risk strata (G1, lowest risk; G2 and G3, intermediate risk; G4, highest risk). The GRACE+CRUSADE model revealed higher prognostic performance (area under the curve [AUC] 0.76) than GRACE alone (AUC 0.70) for mortality prediction, further confirmed by the integrated discrimination improvement index. Moreover, GRACE+CRUSADE combined risk assessment seemed to be valuable in delineating bleeding risk in this setting, identifying G4 as a very high-risk subgroup (hazard ratio 3.5; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Combined risk stratification with GRACE and CRUSADE scores can improve the individual discriminatory power of GRACE and CRUSADE models in the prediction of all-cause mortality and bleeding. This combined assessment is a practical approach that is potentially advantageous in treatment decision-making.