Healthcare Professionals' Attitudes towards and Knowledge and Understanding of Paediatric Palliative Medicine (PPM) and Its Meaning within the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU): A Summative Content Analysis in a Tertiary Children's Hospital in Scotland-"An In Vitro Study".

Background: Paediatric palliative medicine (PPM) is a holistic approach to care for children and their families. Services are growing and developing worldwide but significant disparity in service provision remains. The Paediatric Supportive and Palliative Care Team (PSPCT) at the Royal Hospital for Children in Glasgow was established in 2019, but there is still no clear integrated role within the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) at present. Through analysing the attitudes, meaning, knowledge and understanding of PPM in the PICU environment, we hoped to explore the experiences of those providing paediatric palliative care and to identify any barriers to or facilitators of integrated working to gain a better understanding of providing this care. Methods: This qualitative study used a survey composed of five open-ended and five closed questions. Sixteen out of a possible thirty-two responses (50%) were accrued from PICU healthcare professionals, including consultants (n = 19), advanced nurse practitioners (n = 4) and band-seven nurses (n = 9). The data were comprehensively studied and analysed by two coders using summative content analysis with assistance from data management software. Codes were further developed to form categories and subcategories. Results: Two categories were found: (1) the role of palliative care and (2) experiences of providing palliative care. A total of five subcategories were found, demonstrating that the PSPCT can enhance care in PICU through collaborative working. Barriers identified included staffing, funding and stigma around palliative care. Conclusions: This study shows that PICU professionals have a good understanding of the concepts of PPM and view it as an essential part of PICU work. Barriers related to resources and misperceptions of palliative care can be overcome through improved education, funding and staff retention, but this would require buy-in from policymakers. The perspective from our relatively small team increases generalizability to growing teams across the country.

Transcriptomic profiling and quantitative high-throughput (qHTS) drug screening of CDH1 deficient hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) cells identify treatment leads for familial gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC), a cancer predisposition syndrome associated with germline mutations of the CDH1 (E-cadherin) gene, have few effective treatment options. Despite marked differences in natural history, histopathology, and genetic profile to patients afflicted by sporadic gastric cancer, patients with HDGC receive, in large, identical systemic regimens. The lack of a robust preclinical in vitro system suitable for effective drug screening has been one of the obstacles to date which has hampered therapeutic advances in this rare disease. METHODS: In order to identify therapeutic leads selective for the HDGC subtype of gastric cancer, we compared gene expression profiles and drug phenotype derived from an oncology library of 1912 compounds between gastric cancer cells established from a patient with metastatic HDGC harboring a c.1380delA CDH1 germline variant and sporadic gastric cancer cells. RESULTS: Unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis shows select gene expression alterations in c.1380delA CDH1 SB.mhdgc-1 cells compared to a panel of sporadic gastric cancer cell lines with enrichment of ERK1-ERK2 (extracellular signal regulated kinase) and IP3 (inositol trisphosphate)/DAG (diacylglycerol) signaling as the top networks in c.1380delA SB.mhdgc-1 cells. Intracellular phosphatidylinositol intermediaries were increased upon direct measure in c.1380delA CDH1 SB.mhdgc-1 cells. Differential high-throughput drug screening of c.1380delA CDH1 SB.mhdgc-1 versus sporadic gastric cancer cells identified several compound classes with enriched activity in c.1380 CDH1 SB.mhdgc-1 cells including mTOR (Mammalian Target Of Rapamycin), MEK (Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase), c-Src kinase, FAK (Focal Adhesion Kinase), PKC (Protein Kinase C), or TOPO2 (Topoisomerase II) inhibitors. Upon additional drug response testing, dual PI3K (Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase)/mTOR and topoisomerase 2A inhibitors displayed up to >100-fold increased activity in hereditary c.1380delA CDH1 gastric cancer cells inducing apoptosis most effectively in cells with deficient CDH1 function. CONCLUSION: Integrated pharmacological and transcriptomic profiling of hereditary diffuse gastric cancer cells with a loss-of-function c.1380delA CDH1 mutation implies various pharmacological vulnerabilities selective to CDH1-deficient familial gastric cancer cells and suggests novel treatment leads for future preclinical and clinical treatment studies of familial gastric cancer.

Label-retaining liver cancer cells are relatively resistant to sorafenib.

OBJECTIVE: The standard therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is sorafenib, with most patients experiencing disease progression within 6 months. Label-retaining cancer cells (LRCC) represent a novel subpopulation of cancer stem cells (CSC). The objective was to test whether LRCC are resistant to sorafenib. METHODS: We tested human HCC derived LRCC and non-LRCC before and after treatment with sorafenib. RESULTS: LRCC derived from human HCC are relatively resistant to sorafenib. The proportion of LRCC in HCC cell lines is increased after sorafenib while the general population of cancer cells undergoes growth suppression. We show that LRCC demonstrate improved viability and toxicity profiles, and reduced apoptosis, over non-LRCC. We show that after treatment with sorafenib, LRCC upregulate the CSC marker aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 family, wingless-type MMTV-integration-site family, cell survival and proliferation genes, and downregulate apoptosis, cell cycle arrest, cell adhesion and stem cells differentiation genes. This phenomenon was accompanied by non-uniform activation of specific isoforms of the sorafenib target proteins extracellular-signal-regulated kinases and v-akt-murine-thymoma-viral-oncogene homologue (AKT) in LRCC but not in non-LRCC. A molecular pathway map for sorafenib treated LRCC is proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that HCC derived LRCC are relatively resistant to sorafenib. Since LRCC can generate tumours with as few as 10 cells, our data suggest a potential role for these cells in disease recurrence. Further investigation of this phenomenon might provide novel insights into cancer biology, cancer recurrence and drug resistance with important implications for the development of novel cancer therapies based on targeting LRCC.