METHODS: The two entities organised a combined symposium and post-meeting interactions among representatives of major cancer centres from seventeen Asian countries to outlining major challenges and countermeasures.
RESULTS: Participating stakeholders distilled five big questions. 1) "Will there be an explosion of late-stage cancers after the pandemic?" To address and recover from perceived delayed prevention, screening, treatment and care challenges, collaboration of key stakeholders in the region and alignment in cancer care management, policy intervention and cancer registry initiatives would be of essential value. 2) "Operations and Finance" The pandemic has resulted in significant material and financial casualties. Flagged acute challenges (shortages of supplies, imposition of lockdown) as well as longer-standing reduction of financial revenue, manpower, international collaboration, and training should also be addressed. 3) "Will telemedicine and technological innovations revolutionize cancer care?" Deploying and implementing telemedicine such as teleconsultation and virtual tumour boards were considered invaluable. These innovations could become a new regular practice, leading to expansion of tele-collaboration through collaboration of institutions in the region. 4) "Will virtual conferences continue after the pandemic?" Virtual conferences during the pandemic have opened new doors for knowledge sharing, especially for representatives of low- and middle-income countries in the region, while saving time and costs of travel. 5) "How do we prepare for the next pandemic or international emergency?" Roadmaps for action to improve access to appropriate patient care and research were identified and scrutinised.
CONCLUSION: Through addressing these five big questions, focused collaboration among members and with international organisations such as City Cancer Challenge will allow enhanced preparedness for future international emergencies.
.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The purpose of this study was to investigate the immunohistochemical expression of SMO in 112 bladder cancer cases and determine their association with demographic and clinicopathological parameters. Bladder cancer tissues were obtained from the Hospital Kuala Lumpur.
RESULTS: SMO was expressed in the cytoplasm of all cases of bladder cancer. 6 cases (5.4%) showed low expression, while 106 cases (94.6%) showed high expression. Positive expression of SMO protein was correlated with a few variables which include grade and stage of tumour, lymph node metastasis and distant metastasis. SMO expression showed statistically significant association with higher grade (p=0.001) and higher stage (p=0.042) of bladder cancer. SMO expression also showed borderline association with lymph node metastasis (p=0.056).
CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that SMO expression may be a poor prognostic marker in bladder cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Herein, the expression profiles, oncogenic roles, regulators and inhibitors of DNMT1 in PDACs are presented and discussed. DNMT1 is overexpressed in PDAC cases compared with non-cancerous pancreatic ducts, and its expression gradually increases from pre-neoplastic lesions to PDACs. DNMT1 plays oncogenic roles in suppressing PDAC cell differentiation and in promoting their proliferation, migration and invasion, as well as in induction of the self-renewal capacity of PDAC cancer stem cells. These effects are achieved via promoter hypermethylation of tumor suppressor genes, including cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors (e.g., p14, p15, p16, p21 and p27), suppressors of epithelial-mesenchymal transition (e.g., E-cadherin) and tumor suppressor miRNAs (e.g., miR-148a, miR-152 and miR-17-92 cluster). Pre-clinical investigations have shown the potency of novel non-nucleoside DNMT1 inhibitors against PDAC cells. Finally, phase I/II clinical trials of DNMT1 inhibitors (azacitidine, decitabine and guadecitabine) in PDAC patients are currently underway, where these inhibitors have the potential to sensitize PDACs to chemotherapy and immune checkpoint blockade therapy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic online search was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Eligible publications reporting the overall survival (OS) and/or disease-specific survival (DSS) were included. A total of 14 studies, including 17,869 patients, were considered for analysis. The impact of therapeutic modalities on survival was assessed, with a risk of bias assessment according to the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS: For RP, RT, and HT, the mean 10-year OS was 70.7% (95% CI 61.3-80.2), 65.8% (95% CI 48.1-83.3), and 22.6% (95% CI 4.9-40.3; p = 0.001), respectively. The corresponding 10-year DSS was 84.1% (95% CI 75.1-93.2), 89.4% (95% CI 70.1-108.6), and 50.4% (95% CI 31.2-69.6; p = 0.0127), respectively. Among all treatment combinations, RP displayed significant improvement in OS when included in the treatment (Z = 4.01; p < 0.001). Adjuvant RT significantly improved DSS (Z = 2.7; p = 0.007). Combination of RT and HT favored better OS in comparison to monotherapy with RT or HT (Z = 3.61; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Improved outcomes in advanced PC were detected for RP plus adjuvant RT vs. RP alone and RT plus adjuvant HT vs. RT alone with comparable survival results between both regimens. RP with adjuvant RT may present the modality of choice when HT is contraindicated.
METHODS: Using Singapore Malaysia Hospital-Based Breast Cancer Registry, clinical information was retrieved from 7064 stage I to III breast cancer patients who were diagnosed between 1990 and 2011 and underwent surgery. Predicted and observed probabilities of positive nodes and survival were compared for each subgroup. Calibration was assessed by plotting observed value against predicted value for each decile of the predicted value. Discrimination was evaluated by area under a receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with 95 % confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS: The median predicted probability of positive lymph nodes is 40.6 % which was lower than the observed 43.6 % (95 % CI, 42.5 %-44.8 %). The calibration plot showed underestimation for most of the groups. The AUC was 0.71 (95 % CI, 0.70-0.72). Cancermath predicted and observed overall survival probabilities were 87.3 % vs 83.4 % at 5 years after diagnosis and 75.3 % vs 70.4 % at 10 years after diagnosis. The difference was smaller for patients from Singapore, patients diagnosed more recently and patients with favorable tumor characteristics. Calibration plot also illustrated overprediction of survival for patients with poor prognosis. The AUC for 5-year and 10-year overall survival was 0.77 (95 % CI: 0.75-0.79) and 0.74 (95 % CI: 0.71-0.76).
CONCLUSIONS: The discrimination and calibration of CancerMath were modest. The results suggest that clinical application of CancerMath should be limited to patients with better prognostic profile.
METHODS: Thirteen medical oncologists and five radiation oncologists currently practising in Australia participated in this study. Data collection involved individual semi-structured interviews via telephone. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach.
RESULTS: Four key themes emerged: (1) beliefs about the impact of priming on cancer survivors' perceived cognitive function, (2) perceptions of who is more likely to raise concerns of cognitive change, (3) uncertainty of how to best manage CRCC, and (4) the perceived role of oncologists in the management of CRCC.
CONCLUSIONS: CRCC and its impact on the cancer survivor's journey have been under-addressed by oncology specialists, and they are uncertain of potential management strategies. With cancer survival rates increasing, there is a need for specific interventions and management guidelines addressing CRCC and their effects on cancer survivors. Future exploration should focus on the survivor as central to their care and holistic approaches to CRCC management involving all members of the multidisciplinary team.