Potential biomarkers for hepatoblastoma: Results from the SIOPEL-3 study

Hepatoblastoma (HB) is a rare malignant liver tumour found in infants. Many heterogenous histological tumour subtypes exist. Although survival rates have improved dramatically in recent years with the use of platinum-based chemotherapy, there still exists a subset of HB that does not respond to treatment. There are currently no tumour biomarkers in use and in this study we aim to evaluate potential biomarkers to aid identification of relapse cases that would otherwise be overlooked by current prognostication. This may identify patients that would benefit from more aggressive therapy and could improve overall survival rates. We used immunohistochemistry to analyse the expression of β-catenin, E-cadherin, Cyclin D1, Ki-67 and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) protein in tumours from 91 patients prospectively enroled into the SIOPEL 3 clinical trial. The relationship between these biomarkers and clinicopathologic features and patient survival were statistically analysed. We identified one biomarker, Cyclin D1, which has a correlation with mixed epithelial/mesenchymal HB approaching significance (P=0.07). Survival analysis using these markers has revealed two potential prognostic indicators; Cyclin D1 and Ki-67 (P=0.01, 0.01).

HGF/c-Met related activation of ?-catenin in hepatoblastoma

Activation of beta-catenin is a hallmark of hepatoblastoma (HB) and appears to play a crucial role in its pathogenesis. While aberrant accumulation of the beta-catenin is a common event in HB, mutations or deletions in CTNNB1 (beta-catenin gene) do not always account for the high frequency of protein expression. In this study we have investigated alternative activation of beta-catenin by HGF/c-Met signaling in a large cohort of 98 HB patients enrolled in the SIOPEL-3 clinical trial.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

Does the beta-blocker nebivolol increase coronary flow reserve?

INTRODUCTION: Nebivolol, a highly selective beta1-adrenergic receptor-blocker, increases basal and stimulated endothelial nitric oxide (NO)-release. It is unknown, whether coronary perfusion is improved by the increase in NO availability. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the effect of nebivolol on coronary flow reserve (CFR) and collateral flow. METHODS: Doppler-flow wire derived coronary flow velocity measurements were obtained in ten controls and eight patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) at rest and after intracoronary nebivolol. CFR was defined as maximal flow during adenosine-induced hyperemia divided by resting flow. In the CAD group, collateral flow was determined after dilatation of a flow-limiting coronary stenosis. Collateral flow index (CFI) was defined as the ratio of flow velocity during balloon inflation divided by resting flow. RESULTS: CFR at rest was 3.0+/-0.6 in controls and 2.1+/-0.4 in CAD patients. After intracoronary doses of 0.1, 0.25, and 0.5 mg nebivolol, CFR increased to 3.4+/-0.7, 3.9+/-0.9, and 4.0+/-0.1 (p<0.01) in controls, and to 2.3+/-0.7, 2.6+/-0.9, and 2.6+/-0.5 (p<0.05) in CAD patients. CFI decreased significantly with intracoronary nebivolol and correlated to changes in heart rate (r=0.75, p<0.001) and rate-pressure product (r=0.59, p=0.001). DISCUSSION: Intracoronary nebivolol is associated with a significant increase in CFR due to reduction in resting flow (controls), or due to an increase in maximal coronary flow (CAD patients). CFI decreased with nebivolol parallel to the reduction in myocardial oxygen consumption.

Management of infusion reactions in clinical trials and beyond: the US and EU perspectives

Monoclonal antibodies have expanded our cancer-fighting armamentarium in both the United States and Europe. While in general, monoclonal antibodies are well tolerated and do not have significant overlapping side effects with traditional cytotoxic agents, severe infusion reactions (IRs)--sometimes severe enough to be life threatening--have been reported. The pathophysiology of severe infusion reactions associated with monoclonal antibodies is poorly understood, but mechanisms are beginning to be elucidated. Geographic differences in the incidence of IRs have become apparent. Understanding the risk, recognizing the signs and symptoms, and being ready to promptly manage severe IRs are key for the clinician to avoid unnecessarily discontinuing these effective anticancer agents and prevent potentially tragic consequences for their patients. To date, clinical trials have incorporated monoclonal antibodies into combinations with standard cytotoxic regimens; it is expected that in time clinical trials will be testing promising new combinations utilizing multiple targeted agents, resulting in improved toxicity profiles and efficacy for cancer patients.