17 resultados para ELECTROPOLISHING (EP)


Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

BACKGROUND: Given the potential importance of epithelial plasticity (EP) to cancer metastasis, we sought to investigate biomarkers related to EP in men with localized prostate cancer (PC) for the association with time to PSA recurrence and other clinical outcomes after surgery. METHODS: Men with localized PC treated with radical prostatectomy at the Durham VA Medical Center and whose prostatectomy tissues were included in a tissue microarray (TMA) linked to long-term outcomes. We performed immunohistochemical studies using validated antibodies against E-cadherin and Ki-67 and mesenchymal biomarkers including N-cadherin, vimentin, SNAIL, ZEB1 and TWIST. Association studies were conducted for each biomarker with baseline clinical/pathologic characteristics an risk of PSA recurrence over time. RESULTS: Two hundred and five men contributed TMA tissue and had long-term follow-up (median 11 years). Forty-three percent had PSA recurrence; three died of PC. The majority had high E-cadherin expression (86%); 14% had low/absent E-cadherin expression. N-cadherin was rarely expressed (<4%) and we were unable to identify an E-to-N-cadherin switch as independently prognostic. No associations with clinical risk group, PSA recurrence or Gleason sum were noted for SNAIL, ZEB1, vimentin or TWIST, despite heterogeneous expression between patients. We observed an association of higher Ki-67 expression with Gleason sum (P=0.043), National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk (P=0.013) and PSA recurrence (hazard ratio 1.07, P=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: The expression of EP biomarkers in this cohort of men with a low risk of PC-specific mortality was not associated with aggressive features or PSA relapse after surgery.

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

BACKGROUND: Patients, clinicians, researchers and payers are seeking to understand the value of using genomic information (as reflected by genotyping, sequencing, family history or other data) to inform clinical decision-making. However, challenges exist to widespread clinical implementation of genomic medicine, a prerequisite for developing evidence of its real-world utility. METHODS: To address these challenges, the National Institutes of Health-funded IGNITE (Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE; www.ignite-genomics.org ) Network, comprised of six projects and a coordinating center, was established in 2013 to support the development, investigation and dissemination of genomic medicine practice models that seamlessly integrate genomic data into the electronic health record and that deploy tools for point of care decision making. IGNITE site projects are aligned in their purpose of testing these models, but individual projects vary in scope and design, including exploring genetic markers for disease risk prediction and prevention, developing tools for using family history data, incorporating pharmacogenomic data into clinical care, refining disease diagnosis using sequence-based mutation discovery, and creating novel educational approaches. RESULTS: This paper describes the IGNITE Network and member projects, including network structure, collaborative initiatives, clinical decision support strategies, methods for return of genomic test results, and educational initiatives for patients and providers. Clinical and outcomes data from individual sites and network-wide projects are anticipated to begin being published over the next few years. CONCLUSIONS: The IGNITE Network is an innovative series of projects and pilot demonstrations aiming to enhance translation of validated actionable genomic information into clinical settings and develop and use measures of outcome in response to genome-based clinical interventions using a pragmatic framework to provide early data and proofs of concept on the utility of these interventions. Through these efforts and collaboration with other stakeholders, IGNITE is poised to have a significant impact on the acceleration of genomic information into medical practice.