Expression of PH Domain Leucine-rich Repeat Protein Phosphatase, Forkhead Homeobox Type O 3a and RAD51, and their Relationships with Clinicopathologic Features and Prognosis in Ovarian Serous Adenocarcinoma / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>Ovarian serous adenocarcinoma can be divided into low- and high-grade tumors, which exhibit substantial differences in pathogenesis, clinicopathology, and prognosis. This study aimed to investigate the differences in the PH domain leucine-rich repeat protein phosphatase (PHLPP), forkhead homeobox type O 3a (FoxO3a), and RAD51 protein expressions, and their associations with prognosis in patients with low- and high-grade ovarian serous adenocarcinomas.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>The PHLPP, FoxO3a, and RAD51 protein expressions were examined in 94 high- and 26 low-grade ovarian serous adenocarcinomas by immunohistochemistry. The differences in expression and their relationships with pathological features and prognosis were analyzed.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>In high-grade serous adenocarcinomas, the positive rates of PHLPP and FoxO3a were 24.5% and 26.6%, while in low-grade tumors, they were 23.1% and 26.9%, respectively (P < 0.05 vs. the control specimens; low- vs. high-grade: P > 0.05). The positive rates of RAD51 were 70.2% and 65.4% in high- and low-grade serous adenocarcinomas, respectively (P < 0.05 vs. the control specimens; low- vs. high-grade: P > 0.05). Meanwhile, in high-grade tumors, Stage III/IV tumors and lymph node and omental metastases were significantly associated with lower PHLPP and FoxO3a and higher RAD51 expression. The 5-year survival rates of patients with PHLPP- and FoxO3a-positive high-grade tumors (43.5% and 36.0%) were significantly higher than in patients with PHLPP-negative tumors (5.6% and 7.2%, respectively; P< 0.05). Similarly, the 5-year survival rate of RAD51-positive patients (3.0%) was significantly lower than in negative patients (42.9%; P< 0.05). In low-grade tumors, the PHLPP, FoxO3a, and RAD51 expressions were not significantly correlated with lymph node metastasis, omental metastasis, Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, or prognosis.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Abnormal PHLPP, FoxO3a, and RAD51 protein expressions may be involved in the development of high- and low-grade ovarian serous adenocarcinomas, suggesting common molecular pathways. Decreased PHLPP and FoxO3a and increased RAD51 protein expression may be important molecular markers for poor prognosis, and RAD51 may be an independent prognosis factor, of high-grade, but not low-grade, ovarian serous adenocarcinomas.</p>

Implementation of Constant Dose Rate and Constant Angular Spacing Intensity-modulated Arc Therapy for Cervical Cancer by Using a Conventional Linear Accelerator / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can only be implemented on the new generation linacs such as the Varian Trilogy® and Elekta Synergy®. This prevents most existing linacs from delivering VMAT. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using a conventional linear accelerator delivering constant dose rate and constant angular spacing intensity-modulated arc therapy (CDR-CAS-IMAT) for treating cervical cancer.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Twenty patients with cervical cancer previously treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using Varian Clinical 23EX were retreated using CDR-CAS-IMAT. The planning target volume (PTV) was set as 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. Plans were evaluated based on the ability to meet the dose volume histogram. The homogeneity index (HI), target volume conformity index (CI), the dose to organs at risk, radiation delivery time, and monitor units (MUs) were also compared. The paired t-test was used to analyze the two data sets. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 19.0 software.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Compared to the IMRT group, the CDR-CAS-IMAT group showed better PTV CI (0.85 ± 0.03 vs. 0.81 ± 0.03, P = 0.001), clinical target volume CI (0.46 ± 0.05 vs. 0.43 ± 0.05, P = 0.001), HI (0.09 ± 0.02 vs. 0.11 ± 0.02, P = 0.005) and D95 (5196.33 ± 28.24 cGy vs. 5162.63 ± 31.12 cGy, P = 0.000), and cord D2 (3743.8 ± 118.7 cGy vs. 3806.2 ± 98.7 cGy, P = 0.017) and rectum V40 (41.9 ± 6.1% vs. 44.2 ± 4.8%, P = 0.026). Treatment time (422.7 ± 46.7 s vs. 84.6 ± 7.8 s, P = 0.000) and the total plan Mus (927.4 ± 79.1 vs. 787.5 ± 78.5, P = 0.000) decreased by a factor of 0.8 and 0.15, respectively. The IMRT group plans were superior to the CDR-CAS-IMAT group plans considering decreasing bladder V50 (17.4 ± 4.5% vs. 16.6 ± 4.2%, P = 0.049), bowel V30 (39.6 ± 6.5% vs. 36.6 ± 7.5%, P = 0.008), and low-dose irradiation volume; there were no significant differences in other statistical indexes.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Patients with cervical cancer treated with CDR-CAS-IMAT using Varian Clinical 23EX can get equivalent or superior dose distribution compared to those treated with IMRT. CDR-CAS-IMAT has a less treatment time and MU, which can reduce the uncertainty factor and patient discomfort in treatment.</p>