Intrinsically disordered protein RBM14 plays a role in generation of RNA:DNA hybrids at double-strand break sites.

Accumulating evidence suggests participation of RNA-binding proteins with intrinsically disordered domains (IDPs) in the DNA damage response (DDR). These IDPs form liquid compartments at DNA damage sites in a poly(ADP ribose) (PAR)-dependent manner. However, it is greatly unknown how the IDPs are involved in DDR. We have shown previously that one of the IDPs RBM14 is required for the canonical nonhomologous end joining (cNHEJ). Here we show that RBM14 is recruited to DNA damage sites in a PARP- and RNA polymerase II (RNAPII)-dependent manner. Both KU and RBM14 are required for RNAPII-dependent generation of RNA:DNA hybrids at DNA damage sites. In fact, RBM14 binds to RNA:DNA hybrids. Furthermore, RNA:DNA hybrids and RNAPII are detected at gene-coding as well as at intergenic areas when double-strand breaks (DSBs) are induced. We propose that the cNHEJ pathway utilizes damage-induced transcription and intrinsically disordered protein RBM14 for efficient repair of DSBs.

Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolisation for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Due to a comment received and due to some other identified methodological problems, the present review is withdrawn.

Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolisation for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common liver neoplasm and the sixth most common cancer worldwide. Its incidence has increased dramatically since the mid-2000s. Although surgical resection and liver transplantation are the main curative treatments, only about 20% of people with early hepatocellular carcinoma may benefit from these interventions. Treatment options for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma include ablative and transarterial interventions - selective yttrium-90 microsphere transarterial radioembolisation - in addition to the drug sorafenib. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of yttrium-90 (Y-90) microsphere transarterial radioembolisation given as monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional interventions versus placebo, no treatment, or other similar systemic or locoregional interventions for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. SEARCH METHODS: We performed electronic searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group (CHBG) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Science Citation Index - Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science until September 2019. We manually checked the reference lists of primary studies and review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised clinical trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We extracted information on participants, interventions, outcomes, trial design, and trial methods. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials using pre-defined domains and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Our primary review outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, and serious adverse events; our secondary outcomes were cancer-related mortality, time to progression of the tumour, tumour response, non-serious adverse events, and liver transplantation. For dichotomous variables, we calculated risk ratio (RR), and for continuous variables, we planned to calculate mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We based time-to-event data analyses on hazard ratios (HRs). MAIN RESULTS: Six randomised trials with 1340 participants in total fulfilled the review inclusion criteria and provided data for one or more of our analysed outcomes. All trials were at high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence as low to very low. One trial compared radioembolisation plus sorafenib versus sorafenib alone in people with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. All-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, cancer-related mortality, time to progression, and tumour response rates were not reported. Serious adverse events were reported in 63 trial participants (39.6%) in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group versus 70 trial participants (38.5%) in the sorafenib group (very low-certainty evidence). Hyperbilirubinaemia was approximately three times more common in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group versus the sorafenib group (14.5% versus 4.4%; very low-certainty evidence). Fatigue was more common in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group than in the sorafenib group, at 35.2% versus 24.2% of trial participants. Two trials compared radioembolisation versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in people with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. From the data we could extract, one-year all-cause mortality was 62.7% in the radioembolisation group versus 53.0% in the sorafenib group (1 trial; n = 360; very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences in the quality of life between radioembolisation and sorafenib groups (1 trial). Global health status subscore was better in the radioembolisation group than in the sorafenib group (P = 0.0048; 1 trial). Fewer participants had serious adverse events in the radioembolisation group than in the sorafenib group (27 (20.8%) in the radioembolisation group versus 57 (35.2%) in the sorafenib group; 1 trial). Median time to progression of the tumour in the radioembolisation group was 6.1 months versus 5.4 months in the sorafenib group (1 trial). The RR for disease control rate was 0.94 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.05; n = 748; 2 trials; very low-certainty evidence), favouring neither radioembolisation nor sorafenib. In two trials with 734 participants, radioembolisation seemed to be less likely to be associated with hand-foot skin reaction (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; P < 0.001; low-certainty evidence), skin rash (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; low-certainty evidence), diarrhoea (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; low-certainty evidence), and hypertension (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.88; low-certainty evidence). No trial reported cancer-related mortality. Three trials compared radioembolisation versus chemoembolisation in people with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. From the data we could extract, none of these trials reported all-cause mortality and cancer-related mortality. The RR for serious adverse events was 1.41 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.14; n = 97; very low-certainty evidence), favouring neither radioembolisation nor chemoembolisation. One trial reported quality of life and noted no differences between intervention groups with regard to this outcome at week 12 (very low-certainty evidence). Median time to progression was not reached in the radioembolisation group and was 6.8 months in the chemoembolisation group (HR 0.122, 95% CI 0.027 to 0.557; 1 trial). Median time to progression of the tumour in the radioembolisation group was 371 days versus 336 days in the chemoembolisation group (P = 0.5764; 1 trial). Disease control rates (complete response + partial response + stable disease) were 73.3% with radioembolisation versus 76.9% with chemoembolisation (1 trial). According to World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, tumour response was reported in 52% of participants who received radioembolisation versus 63% of those who received chemoembolisation (1 trial). Patients in the chemoembolisation group experienced diarrhoea (P = 0.031; 1 trial) and hypoalbuminaemia (P < 0.001; 1 trial) more frequently. Four trials were sponsored by industry, and two by University. We found two ongoing trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence showing effects of radioembolisation with or without sorafenib compared with sorafenib alone in people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is highly insufficient. We cannot determine if radioembolisation plus sorafenib compared with sorafenib alone affects all-cause mortality or the occurrence of adverse events. Radioembolisation compared with sorafenib seemed to achieve equivalent survival and to cause fewer adverse effects, but our certainty was very low. Evidence showing effects of radioembolisation versus chemoembolisation in people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is also highly insufficient. Radioembolisation did not seem to differ from chemoembolisation in terms of serious adverse events and quality of life, but the certainty of evidence was very low. Further high-quality placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials are needed to assess patient-centred outcomes.

Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract carcinomas.

BACKGROUND: Biliary tract cancers are a group of rare heterogeneous malignant tumours. They include intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas, gallbladder carcinomas, and ampullary carcinomas. Surgery remains the optimal modality of therapy leading to long-term survival for people diagnosed with resectable biliary tract carcinomas. Unfortunately, most people with biliary tract carcinomas are diagnosed with either unresectable locally-advanced or metastatic disease, and they are only suitable for palliative chemotherapy or supportive care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of intravenous administration of gemcitabine monotherapy or gemcitabine-based chemotherapy versus placebo, or no intervention, or other treatments (excluding gemcitabine) in adults with advanced biliary tract carcinomas. SEARCH METHODS: We performed electronic searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science up to June 2017. We also checked reference lists of primary original studies and review articles manually, for further related articles (cross-references). SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language or publication status, comparing intravenous administration of gemcitabine monotherapy or gemcitabine-based combination to placebo, to no intervention, or to treatments other than gemcitabine. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risks of bias of the included trials using definitions of predefined bias risk domains, and presented the review results incorporating the methodological quality of the trials using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven published randomised clinical trials with 600 participants. All included trials were at high risk of bias, and we rated the evidence as very low quality. Cointerventions were equally applied in three trials (gemcitabine plus S-1 (a combination of tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil) versus S-1 monotherapy; gemcitabine plus S-1 versus gemcitabine monotherapy versus S-1 monotherapy; and gemcitabine plus vandetanib versus gemcitabine plus placebo versus vandetanib monotherapy), while four trials compared gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatin; gemcitabine plus mitomycin C versus capecitabine plus mitomycin C; gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus chemoradiotherapy; and gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus best supportive care. The seven trials were conducted in India, Japan, France, China, Austria, South Korea, and Italy. The median age of the participants in the seven trials was between 50 and 60 years, and the male/female ratios were comparable in most of the trials. Based on these seven trials, we established eight comparisons. We could not perform all planned analyses in all comparisons because of insufficient data.Gemcitabine versus vandetanibOne three-arm trial compared gemcitabine versus vandetanib versus both drugs in combination. It reported no data for mortality, health-related quality of life, or tumour progression outcomes. We rated the increased risk of serious adverse events, anaemia, and overall response rate as very low-certainty evidence.Gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatinFrom one trial of 96 participants, we found very low-certainty evidence that gemcitabine can lower the risk of mortality at one year when used with cisplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatin (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.98; P = 0.04; participants = 96). The trial did not report data for serious adverse events, quality of life, or tumour response outcomes. There is very low-certainty evidence that gemcitabine plus cisplatin combination leads to a higher risk of high-grade thrombocytopenia compared with S-1 plus cisplatin combination (RR 5.28, 95% CI 1.23 to 22.55; P = 0.02; participants = 96).Gemcitabine plus S-1 versus S-1From two trials enrolling 151 participants, we found no difference between the two groups in terms of risk of mortality at one year or risk of serious adverse events. Gemcitabine plus S-1 combination was associated with a higher overall response rate compared with S-1 alone (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.75; P = 0.007; participants = 140; trials = 2; I2 = 0%; very low certainty of evidence). Neither of the trials reported data for health-related quality of life or time to progression of the tumour.Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus best supportive careOne three-arm trial compared gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus best supportive care. It reported no data for serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, or tumour progression. We rated the evidence for mortality and for overall response rate as of very low certainty.Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin plus radiotherapyOne trial of 34 participants compared gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin plus radiotherapy. It reported no data for quality of life, overall response rate, or tumour progression outcomes. We rated the evidence for mortality and serious adverse events as of very low certainty.Gemcitabine plus mitomycin C versus capecitabine plus mitomycin COne trial of 51 participants compared gemcitabine plus mitomycin C versus capecitabine plus mitomycin C. It reported no data for serious adverse events, quality of life, or tumour progression. We rated the evidence for mortality, overall response rate and thrombocytopenia as of very low certainty.We also identified three ongoing trials evaluating outcomes of interest for our review, which we can incorporate in future updates.For-profit bias: there was a high risk of for-profit bias in two trials (because of industry sponsorship) while there was a low risk of for-profit bias in another three trials, and unclear risk in two trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In adults with advanced biliary tract carcinomas, the effects of gemcitabine or gemcitabine-based chemotherapy are uncertain on mortality and overall response compared with a range of inactive or active controls. The very low certainty of evidence is due to risk of bias, lack of information in the analyses and hence large imprecision, and possible publication bias. The confidence intervals do not rule out meaningful benefits or lack of effect of gemcitabine in all comparisons but one on mortality where gemcitabine plus cisplatin is compared with S-1 plus cisplatin. Gemcitabine-based regimens showed an increase in non-serious adverse events (particularly haematological toxicities). Further randomised clinical trials are mandatory, to further explore the best therapeutic options for adults with advanced biliary tract carcinomas.

Radical multimodality therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma is an almost always fatal tumour, for which palliative platinum-based chemotherapy is currently the standard treatment. Multimodal therapeutic strategies incorporating surgery, radiation therapy or photodynamic therapy and chemotherapy have been recommended for selected patients but there is no consensus about their effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of radical multimodal treatment options (including radical surgery ± radical radiotherapy ± photodynamic therapy ± systemic therapy) compared to each other or to palliative treatments, for people with malignant pleural mesothelioma. SEARCH METHODS: We reviewed data from the Cochrane Lung Cancer group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase. We also checked reference lists of primary original studies, review articles and relevant conference proceedings manually for further related articles up to 21 March 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials of multimodal therapy for people with malignant pleural mesothelioma (stages I, II or III) that measured at least one of the following endpoints: overall survival, health-related health-related quality of life, adverse events or progression-free survival. We considered studies regardless of language or publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted relevant information on participant characteristics, interventions, study outcomes, and data on the outcomes for this review, as well as information on the design and methodology of the studies. Two review authors assessed the risk of bias in the included trials using pre-defined 'Risk of bias' domains. We assessed the methodological quality using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We conducted this review in accordance with the published Cochrane protocol. Two randomised clinical trials with 104 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Both trials were at high risk of bias (for outcomes other than overall survival), and we rated the evidence as moderate quality for overall survival and low quality for all other outcomes. One trial compared combined extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) plus neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy plus postoperative high-dose hemithoracic radiotherapy with combined EPP plus platinum-based chemotherapy. The other trial compared EPP plus postoperative hemithoracic radiotherapy with standard (non-radical) therapy alone following platinum-based chemotherapy (patients in the standard therapy arm received continued oncological management according to local policy, which could include further chemotherapy or palliative radiotherapy).For the first trial, median overall survival calculated from registration was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 14.4 to 27.8) in the no-radiotherapy group and 19.3 months (95% CI 11.5 to 21.8) in the radiotherapy group. For the second trial, median overall survival was 14.4 months (95% CI 5.3 to 18.7) for patients allocated to EPP and 19.5 months (95% CI 13.4 to time not yet reached) for patients randomised to standard non-radical therapy. In the second trial, 12 serious adverse events were reported during the study period: ten in the EPP group and two in the non-radical therapy group. Overall health-related quality of life scores were not different between the two arms in either study. We could not perform a meta-analysis of the two included trials due to clinical heterogeneity. We also identified three ongoing trials evaluating the topic of our review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The overall strength of the evidence gathered in this review is low and there is a lack of available evidence to support the use of radical multimodality therapy in routine clinical practice (particularly as one trial suggests greater harm). Given the added cost of multimodality treatment and the possible increase in risk of adverse effects, the lack of evidence of their effectiveness probably means that these interventions should currently be limited to clinical trials alone.

Is fertility-preservation safe for adult non-metastatic gynecologic rhabdomyosarcoma patients? Systematic review and pooled survival analysis of 137 patients.

PURPOSE: Recently, conservative approaches such as wide local excisions and neoadjuvant chemotherapy are being considered to select young adult females with gynecologic RMS who have strong desire to preserve fertility. This analysis aims to identify prognosticators affecting survival outcomes and defining potential candidacy for fertility-preservation. Another focus is to explore the role of chemotherapy in reducing the need for aggressive surgery and the role of radiotherapy in decreasing rates of local failure. METHODS: A comprehensive database search identified 137 females > 16 years old with primary non-metastatic gynecologic RMS, who were included in a multivariate survival analysis. RESULTS: 5-year overall survival rate was 65%. Patients < 50 years old, with cervix uteri primaries, well-defined/polypoid presentations, embryonal histology and superficial tumors were more likely to survive. Deeply invasive disease and alveolar/pleomorphic histology significantly increased risks of treatment failure and tumor recurrence. Chemotherapy use was a significant multivariate predictor of better overall and metastasis-free survival. Radical surgery did not add local control or overall survival benefit for patients with superficial lesions (minimal/no cervical stromal invasion and no myometrial invasion). CONCLUSIONS: While high-quality clinical trial evidence is missing, existing evidence seems to support holding back on radical surgery for selected candidates with well-defined, polypoid, superficial, embryonal cervical/endometrial RMS lesions that could be completely excised with conservative surgery; further local resections with/without radiotherapy are then warranted based on margin status. Experience on the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the conservative management of uterine RMS in adults is very limited, though this approach is golden-standard in pediatrics. A suggested scheme is introduced for the management of uterine RMS.

External beam radiotherapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common liver neoplasm, the sixth most common cancer worldwide, and the third most common cause of cancer mortality. Moreover, its incidence has increased dramatically in the past decade. While surgical resection and liver transplantation are the main curative treatments, only around 20% of people with early hepatocellular carcinoma may benefit from these therapies. Current treatment options for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma include various ablative and transarterial therapies in addition to the drug sorafenib. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of external beam radiotherapy in the management of localised unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), and clinicaltrials.gov registry. We also checked reference lists of primary original studies and review articles manually for further related articles (cross-references) up to October 6, 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies included all randomised clinical trials comparing external beam radiotherapy either as a monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional therapies versus placebo, no treatment, or other systemic or locoregional therapies for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used a random-effects model as well as a fixed-effect model meta-analysis but in case of discrepancy between the two models (e.g. one giving a significant intervention effect, the other no significant intervention effect), we reported both results; otherwise, we reported only the results from the fixed-effect model meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials using predefined risk of bias domains; assessed risks of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis; and presented the review results incorporating the methodological quality of the trials using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Nine randomised clinical trials with 879 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. All trials were at high risk of bias, and we rated the evidence as low to very low quality. All of the included trials compared combined external beam radiotherapy plus chemoembolisation versus chemoembolisation alone in people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma; moreover, three of the trials compared external beam radiotherapy alone versus chemoembolisation alone. All trials were conducted in China. The median age in most of the included trials was around 52 years, and most trial participants were male. The median follow-up duration ranged from one to three years. None of the trials reported data on cancer-related mortality, quality of life, serious adverse events, or time to progression of the tumour. For the comparison of radiotherapy plus chemoembolisation versus chemoembolisation alone, the risk ratio for one-year all-cause mortality was 0.51 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 0.62; P < 0.001; 9 trials; low-quality evidence); for complete response rate was 2.14 (95% CI 1.47 to 3.13; P < 0.001; 7 trials; low-quality evidence); and for overall response rate defined as complete response plus partial response was 1.58 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.78; P < 0.001; 7 trials; low-quality evidence), all in favour of combined treatment with external beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation and seemingly supported by our Trial Sequential Analysis. Additionally, the combined treatment was associated with a higher risk of elevated total bilirubin and elevated alanine aminotransferase. The risk ratio for the risk of elevated alanine aminotransferase was 1.41 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.84; P = 0.01; very low-quality evidence), while for elevated total bilirubin it was 2.69 (95% CI 1.34 to 5.40; P = 0.005; very low-quality evidence). For the comparison of radiotherapy versus chemoembolisation, the risk ratio for one-year all-cause mortality was 1.21 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.50; 3 trials; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence) which was not supported by our Trial Sequential Analysis.In addition, we found seven ongoing randomised clinical trials evaluating different external beam radiotherapy techniques for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low- and low-quality evidence suggesting that combined external beam radiotherapy and chemoembolisation may be associated with lower mortality and increased complete and overall response rates, despite an increased toxicity as expressed by a higher rise of bilirubin and alanine aminotransferase. A high risk of systematic errors (bias) as well as imprecision and inconsistency suggest that these findings should be considered cautiously and that high-quality trials are needed to assess further the role of external beam radiotherapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Ino80 is essential for proximal-distal axis asymmetry in part by regulating Bmp4 expression.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how embryos specify asymmetric axes is a major focus of biology. While much has been done to discover signaling pathways and transcription factors important for axis specification, comparatively little is known about how epigenetic regulators are involved. Epigenetic regulators operate downstream of signaling pathways and transcription factors to promote nuclear processes, most prominently transcription. To discover novel functions for these complexes in axis establishment during early embryonic development, we characterized phenotypes of a mouse knockout (KO) allele of the chromatin remodeling Ino80 ATPase. RESULTS: Ino80 KO embryos implant, but fail to develop beyond the egg cylinder stage. Ino80 KO embryonic stem cells (ESCs) are viable and maintain alkaline phosphatase activity, which is suggestive of pluripotency, but they fail to fully differentiate as either embryoid bodies or teratomas. Gene expression analysis of Ino80 KO early embryos by in situ hybridization and embryoid bodies by RT-PCR shows elevated Bmp4 expression and reduced expression of distal visceral endoderm (DVE) markers Cer1, Hex, and Lefty1. In culture, Bmp4 maintains stem cell pluripotency and when overexpressed is a known negative regulator of DVE differentiation in the early embryo. Consistent with the early embryo, we observed upregulated Bmp4 expression and down-regulated Cer1, Hex, and Lefty1 expression when Ino80 KO ESCs are differentiated in a monolayer. Molecular studies in these same cells demonstrate that Ino80 bound to the Bmp4 promoter regulates its chromatin structure, which correlates with enhanced SP1 binding. These results in combination suggest that Ino80 directly regulates the chromatin structure of the Bmp4 promoter with consequences to gene expression. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to Ino80 KO differentiated cells, our experiments show that undifferentiated Ino80 KO ESCs are viable, but fail to differentiate in culture and in the early embryo. Ino80 KO ESCs and the early embryo up-regulate Bmp4 expression and down-regulate the expression of DVE markers Cer1, Hex and Lefty1. Based on this data, we propose a model where the Ino80 chromatin remodeling complex represses Bmp4 expression in the early embryo, thus promoting DVE differentiation and successful proximal-distal axis establishment. These results are significant because they show that epigenetic regulators have specific roles in establishing embryonic axes. By further characterizing these complexes, we will deepen our understanding of how the mammalian embryo is patterned by epigenetic regulators.

Polo-like kinase 1-mediated phosphorylation of Forkhead box protein M1b antagonizes its SUMOylation and facilitates its mitotic function.

Transcription factor Forkhead box protein M1b (FoxM1b) plays an important role during mitotic entry and progression. Our previous studies identified polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) as a major regulator of FoxM1b. During G2/M transition, PLK1 directly interacts with and phosphorylates FoxM1b, resulting in full activation of the transactivation capacity of FoxM1b. Such a vital regulatory mechanism is essential for timely mitotic entry and progression. However, the molecular mechanism by which PLK1-mediated phosphorylation enhances the transcriptional activity of FoxM1b remains to be determined. We demonstrate that FoxM1b can be SUMOylated in vitro and in vivo, preferentially by SUMO-1. SUMOylation of FoxM1b was found to occur at multiple sites, leading to suppression of FoxM1b transcriptional activity. Such a posttranslational modification of FoxM1b was antagonized by PLK1-mediated phosphorylation. By immunofluorescence staining and subcellular fractionation, we demonstrate that SUMO conjugation promotes cytosolic translocation of FoxM1b. Moreover, SUMO modification of FoxM1b facilitates the ubiquitin-mediated proteasomal degradation of FoxM1b. PLK1-mediated phosphorylation of FoxM1b abrogates the inhibitory effect on FoxM1b by SUMO modification, thereby promoting its nuclear translocation and preventing its proteolytic degradation in the cytoplasm. Such an antagonistic regulatory mechanism is essential for the mitotic function of FoxM1b, ensuring timely mitotic entry and progression. Taken together, our studies have revealed a working mechanism by which PLK1 positively regulates the activity and level of FoxM1b, which would greatly facilitate therapeutic interventions that focus on targeting the PLK1-mediated and/or FoxM1-mediated signaling network.

Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolisation for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common liver neoplasm and the fifth most common cancer worldwide. Moreover, its incidence has increased dramatically since the mid-2000s. While surgical resection and liver transplantation are the main curative treatments, only around 20% of people with early hepatocellular carcinoma may benefit from these therapies. Current treatment options for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma include various ablative and trans-arterial therapies in addition to the drug sorafenib. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of yttrium-90 microsphere trans-arterial radioembolisation either as a monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional therapies versus placebo, no treatment, or other similar systemic or locoregional therapies for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. SEARCH METHODS: We reviewed data from the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded. We also checked reference lists of primary original studies and review articles manually for further related articles (cross-references) up to December 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies included all randomised clinical trials comparing yttrium-90-90 microsphere radioembolisation either as a monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional therapies versus placebo, no treatment, or other systemic or locoregional therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The two review authors independently extracted the relevant information on participant characteristics, interventions, study outcomes, and data on the outcomes for this review, as well as information on the design and methodology of the studies. The two review authors assessed risk of bias of the included trials using pre-defined risk of bias domains. We used Trial Sequential Analysis to control the risk of random errors. We assessed the methodological quality with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Two randomised clinical trials with 68 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Both trials were at high risk of bias, and we rated the evidence as very low quality. One of the included trials compared radioembolisation versus chemoembolization for intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma as classified by the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system, while the other included trial was an interim analysis of a randomised trial assessing radioembolisation combined with sorafenib versus sorafenib monotherapy in participants with BCLC-advanced stage hepatocellular carcinoma. The available data were insufficient to perform the planned analyses. Neither of the two trials reported data on all-cause mortality, cancer-related mortality, or time to progression of the tumour. The trial comparing radioembolisation with chemoembolization reported quality of life and serious adverse events, and there were no statistically significant differences between the trial groups with regard to these outcomes at week 12. On the basis of the two included randomised clinical trials, single-session radioembolisation appeared to be as safe as multiple sessions of chemoembolization for intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma and had a similar impact on quality of life, but data were too sparse to exclude even major differences. Radioembolisation followed by sorafenib appeared to be as well tolerated as sorafenib alone for advanced stage hepatocellular carcinoma, but data were too sparse to exclude even major differences. We also identified five ongoing studies evaluating the topic of our review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolisation for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Further randomised clinical trials are mandatory to better assess the potential beneficial and harmful outcomes of yttrium-90 microsphere trans-arterial radioembolisation either as a monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional therapies versus placebo, no treatment, or other systemic or locoregional therapies for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Therapeutic targeting Tudor domains in leukemia via CRISPR-Scan Assisted Drug Discovery.

Epigenetic dysregulation has been reported in multiple cancers including leukemias. Nonetheless, the roles of the epigenetic reader Tudor domains in leukemia progression and therapy remain unexplored. Here, we conducted a Tudor domain-focused CRISPR screen and identified SGF29, a component of SAGA/ATAC acetyltransferase complexes, as a crucial factor for H3K9 acetylation, ribosomal gene expression, and leukemogenesis. To facilitate drug development, we integrated the CRISPR tiling scan with compound docking and molecular dynamics simulation, presenting a generally applicable strategy called CRISPR-Scan Assisted Drug Discovery (CRISPR-SADD). Using this approach, we identified a lead inhibitor that selectively targets SGF29's Tudor domain and demonstrates efficacy against leukemia. Furthermore, we propose that the structural genetics approach used in our study can be widely applied to diverse fields for de novo drug discovery.

A novel class of inhibitors that disrupts the stability of integrin heterodimers identified by CRISPR-tiling-instructed genetic screens.

The plasma membrane is enriched for receptors and signaling proteins that are accessible from the extracellular space for pharmacological intervention. Here we conducted a series of CRISPR screens using human cell surface proteome and integrin family libraries in multiple cancer models. Our results identified ITGAV (integrin αV) and its heterodimer partner ITGB5 (integrin ß5) as the essential integrin α/ß pair for cancer cell expansion. High-density CRISPR gene tiling further pinpointed the integral pocket within the ß-propeller domain of ITGAV for integrin αVß5 dimerization. Combined with in silico compound docking, we developed a CRISPR-Tiling-Instructed Computer-Aided (CRISPR-TICA) pipeline for drug discovery and identified Cpd_AV2 as a lead inhibitor targeting the ß-propeller central pocket of ITGAV. Cpd_AV2 treatment led to rapid uncoupling of integrin αVß5 and cellular apoptosis, providing a unique class of therapeutic action that eliminates the integrin signaling via heterodimer dissociation. We also foresee the CRISPR-TICA approach to be an accessible method for future drug discovery studies.

Similarities and disparities in cancer burden among Arab world females.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer is the leading cause of increased morbidity and mortality worldwide. This work aims to study the Arab-world females' cancers (AFCs), the similarities and disparities from epidemiological, economic and development-indices points of view. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Descriptive - Analytical review of the 2018 Global Cancer Observatory concerning AFCs. Data on various cancers were compiled and compared among the countries in the regions and the world females' cancers (WFCs). RESULTS: A total estimate of 227,494 new AFCs; 2.64% of WFCs, with an average crude incidence rate of 111.7* and an age-standardized rate of 134.5*, compared to 228* and 182.6* of WFCs, respectively. Death cases estimated to be 122,903; 2.95% of WFCs, with an average crude mortality rate of 60.3* and age-standardizedrate of 75.4*, compared to 110.2* and 83.1* of WFCs, respectively. Five-year prevalent cases were 530,735; 2.33% of WFCs, with an average proportion of 260.5*, compared to 603.5* of WFCs. Mortality to Incidence Ratio was 0.54 (range 0.36 - 0.80), compared to 0.58, 0.52, 0.49 in the medium human development index, upper-middle-income countries and world countries, respectively. */100,000 population. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the demographic and cultural similarities among the Arab communities, there are apparent disparities in AFCs. A systematic approach is required to address these remarkable differences in cancer ranking and rates among Arab countries themselves and when compared to other world groups and nations.

Tumor cell escape from therapy-induced senescence.

H460 non-small cell lung, HCT116 colon and 4T1 breast tumor cell lines induced into senescence by exposure to either etoposide or doxorubicin were able to recover proliferative capacity both in mass culture and when enriched for the senescence-like phenotype by flow cytometry (based on ß-galactosidase staining and cell size, and a senescence-associated reporter, BTG1-RFP). Recovery was further established using both real-time microscopy and High-Speed Live-Cell Interferometry (HSLCI) and was shown to be accompanied by the attenuation of the Senescence-Associated Secretory Phenotype (SASP). Cells enriched for the senescence-like phenotype were also capable of forming tumors when implanted in both immunodeficient and immunocompetent mice. As chemotherapy-induced senescence has been identified in patient tumors, our results suggest that certain senescence-like phenotypes may not reflect a terminal state of growth arrest, as cells that recover with self-renewal capacity may ultimately contribute to disease recurrence.

Publisher Correction: Management of Low and Intermediate Risk Adult Rhabdomyosarcoma: A Pooled Survival Analysis of 553 Patients.

A correction to this article has been published and is linked from the HTML and PDF versions of this paper. The error has been fixed in the paper.

Management of Low and Intermediate Risk Adult Rhabdomyosarcoma: A Pooled Survival Analysis of 553 Patients.

This is the second-largest retrospective analysis addressing the controversy of whether adult rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) should be treated with chemotherapy regimens adopted from pediatric RMS protocols or adult soft-tissue sarcoma protocols. A comprehensive database search identified 553 adults with primary non-metastatic RMS. Increasing age, intermediate-risk disease, no chemotherapy use, anthacycline-based and poor chemotherapy response were significant predictors of poor overall and progression-free survival. In contrast, combined cyclophosphamide-based, cyclophosphamide + anthracycline-based, or cyclophosphamide + ifosfamide + anthracycline-based regimens significantly improved outcomes. Intermediate-risk disease was a significant predictor of poor chemotherapy response. Overall survival of clinical group-III patients was significantly improved if they underwent delayed complete resection. Non-parameningeal clinical group-I patients had the best local control, which was not affected by additional adjuvant radiotherapy. This study highlights the superiority of chemotherapy regimens -adapted from pediatric protocols- compared to anthracycline-based regimens. There is lack of data to support the routine use of adjuvant radiotherapy for non-parameningeal group-I patients. Nonetheless, intensive local therapy should be always considered for those at high risk for local recurrence, including intermediate-risk disease, advanced IRS stage, large tumors or narrow surgical margins. Although practically difficult (due to tumor's rarity), there is a pressing need for high quality randomized controlled trials to provide further guidance.

BPTF inhibits NK cell activity and the abundance of natural cytotoxicity receptor co-ligands.

Using syngeneic BALB/c mouse breast cancer models, we show that the chromatin remodeling subunit bromodomain PHD finger transcription factor (BPTF) suppresses natural killer (NK) cell antitumor activity in the tumor microenvironment (TME). In culture, BPTF suppresses direct natural cytotoxicity receptor (NCR) mediated NK cell cytolytic activity to mouse and human cancer cell lines, demonstrating conserved functions. Blocking mouse NCR1 in vivo rescues BPTF KD tumor weights, demonstrating its importance for the control of tumor growth. We discovered that BPTF occupies heparanase (Hpse) regulatory elements, activating its expression. Increased heparanase activity results in reduced cell surface abundance of the NCR co-ligands: heparan sulfate proteoglycans (HSPGs). Using gain and loss of function approaches we show that elevated heparanase levels suppress NK cell cytolytic activity to tumor cells in culture. These results suggest that BPTF activates heparanase expression, which in turn reduces cell surface HSPGs and NCR co-ligands, inhibiting NK cell activity. Furthermore, gene expression data from human breast cancer tumors shows that elevated BPTF expression correlates with reduced antitumor immune cell signatures, supporting conserved roles for BPTF in suppressing antitumor immunity. Conditional BPTF depletion in established mouse breast tumors enhances antitumor immunity, suggesting that inhibiting BPTF could provide a novel immunotherapy.