Circulating miR-10b, soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor, and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 as predictors of non-small cell lung cancer progression and treatment response.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in lung cancer treatment, most lung cancers are diagnosed at an advanced stage. Expression of microRNA10b (miR-10b) and fibrinolytic activity, as reflected by soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) and plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (PAI-1), are promising biomarker candidates. OBJECTIVE: To assess the expression of miR-10b, and serum levels of suPAR and PAI-1 in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, and their correlation with progression, treatment response and prognosis. METHODS: The present prospective cohort and survival study was conducted at Dharmais National Cancer Hospital and included advanced stage NSCLC patients diagnosed between March 2015 and September 2016. Expression of miR-10b was quantified using qRT-PCR. Levels of suPAR and PAI-1 were assayed using ELISA. Treatment response was evaluated using the RECIST 1.1 criteria. Patients were followed up until death or at least 1 year after treatment. RESULTS: Among the 40 patients enrolled, 25 completed at least four cycles of chemotherapy and 15 patients died during treatment. Absolute miR-10b expression ⩾ 592,145 copies/µL or miR-10b fold change ⩾ 0.066 were protective for progressive disease and poor treatment response, whereas suPAR levels ⩾ 4,237 pg/mL was a risk factor for progressive disease and poor response. PAI-1 levels > 4.6 ng/mL was a protective factor for poor response. Multivariate analysis revealed suPAR as an independent risk factor for progression (ORa⁢d⁢j, 13.265; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 2.26577.701; P= 0.006) and poor response (ORa⁢d⁢j, 15.609; 95% CI, 2.221-109.704; P= 0.006), whereas PAI-1 was an independent protective factor of poor response (ORa⁢d⁢j, 0.127; 95% CI, 0.019-0.843; P= 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Since miR-10b cannot be used as an independent risk factor for NSCLC progression and treatment response, we developed a model to predict progression using suPAR levels and treatment response using suPAR and PAI-1 levels. Further studies are needed to validate this model.

The effectiveness of atorvastatin for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy : A randomised controlled trial: open label.

BACKGROUND: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a common complication in cancer. Although thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients is recommended by the guidelines, clinicians' use of thromboprophylaxis remains limited due to cost, bleeding complications, and reluctance to give injectable anticoagulants. Inflammation plays essential roles in the pathogenesis of cancer-associated thrombosis. Owing to its ability to decrease proinflammatory cytokines, statins have anti-inflammatory properties. Thus, statins can be possibly utilized as thromboprophylaxis therapy in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of atorvastatin and rivaroxaban for DVT prevention in high-risk thrombosis patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: Double-blind, randomized controlled trial involving cancer patients with high-risk of thrombosis undergoing chemotherapy. We randomly assigned patients without deep-vein thrombosis at screening to receive atorvastatin 20 mg or rivaroxaban 10 mg daily for up to 90 days. Doppler ultrasonography was performed 90 days following chemotherapy to diagnose DVT. Average cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to analyze the cost of atorvastatin compared to rivaroxaban. RESULTS: Of the eighty six patients who underwent randomization, primary efficacy end point was observed in 1 of 42 patients (2.3%) in the atorvastatin group and in 1 of 44 (2.2%) in the rivaroxaban group (Odds Ratio [OR], 0.953; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.240 to 3.971; p = 1.000). There was a significant difference in the incidence of major bleeding, 2 of 42 patients (4.8%) in the atorvastatin group and 12 of 44 (27.3%) in the rivaroxaban group (OR, 0.257; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.94; p = 0.007). The average cost-effectiveness ratio of using atorvastatin was lower than that of rivaroxaban. CONCLUSION: Atorvastatin did not differ significantly from rivaroxaban in reducing the incidence of DVT, lower bleeding risk, and cost-effectiveness for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk thrombosis patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. The presence of limited statistical power and wide confidence intervals in this study needs further study to strengthen the efficacy of atorvastatin as DVT prophylaxis in cancer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN71891829, Registration Date: 17/12/2020.

Correlation of Inflammation and Coagulation Markers with the Incidence of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Cancer Patients with High Risk of Thrombosis.

Background: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a common complication and the second leading cause of death in cancer patients. Pro-inflammatory stimuli in the cancer microenvironment induce nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) signaling pathway that plays an integral role in immunothrombosis mechanism. Objective: To investigate the role of inflammatory and coagulation biomarkers in the development of DVT in cancer patients with high risk of thrombosis (Khorana score ≥2). Subjects and methods: This study was a cross-sectional study at Dr. Kariadi General Hospital. The serum levels of proinflammatory cytokines, ie, NF-κB, interleukin-6 (IL-6), C-reactive protein (CRP), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), and coagulation biomarkers, ie, tissue factor (TF), prothrombin fragment F1+2 (F1+2), fibrinogen and D-dimer were measured in newlydiagnosed cancer patients with a highrisk of thrombosis. Color duplex sonography was used for DVT screening. Results: From January to November 2021, there were 83 eligible patients. DVT was confirmed in 8 subjects (9.63%). Univariate analysis revealed a significant difference between the median age of patients with DVT compared to non-DVT patients, 49.5 years (range: 23-60 years) and 42 years (range: 19-60 years), with p=0.046. D-dimer level was higher in DVT patients [(6.020 µg/L, range 2.090-20.000) vs (1.940 µg/L, range 270-20.000), p=0.005]. Multivariate analysis revealed age and D-dimer were significantly correlated with DVT incidence. In all patients, there were significant positive correlations between several inflammatory and coagulation activation parameters, which were IL-6 with D-dimer and F1+2, CRP with F1+2 and D-dimer as well as TNF-α with F1+2. However, these findings were not shown in DVT patients. Conclusion: In cancer patients with a high risk of thrombosis, age and D-dimer level are the significant variables towards the incidence of DVT. In patients with DVT, there was no significant correlation between inflammatory and coagulation activation parameters.

Preventing Thrombosis in Cancer Patients.

Thromboembolism events, either venous (VTE) or arterial thromboembolism (ATE) remain a highly prevalent complication in cancer patients. Thrombosis is a leading cause of death, contributor to significant morbidity, the reason of delayed cancer treatment, leading to increased cancer financing and expenses. Both cancer and its treatment are recently found to be related to vascular inflammation through the induction of tissue factor (TF) expression and promoting a procoagulant state which triggers the activation of coagulation system. Several risk factors may also coexist such as dehydration, immobilization, smoking, obesity, previous DVT, etc. Even in patients with asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), they have a three-fold increase in mortality. The high morbidity and mortality of VTE raises the need for thromboprophylaxis to reduce the incidence of overt thrombosis, albeit against its possible side effects related to anticoagulant prescription. This article highlighted the clinical perspectives for thromboprophylaxis while counting on the risk stratification in a particular cancer patient.