Osteopontin (OPN) is a glycophosphoprotein cytokine that has multiple functions. OPN is expressed and secreted by various cells, and has a role in cell adhesion, chemotaxis, prevention of apoptosis, invasion, migration and anchorage-independent growth of tumor cells. Extensive research has demonstrated the pivotal participation of OPN in the regulation of cell signaling which controls neoplastic and malignant transformation. The elevated expression of OPN has been observed in a variety of cancers. OPN has been linked with tumor metastasis and signifies a poor prognosis for the patient. This review details the mechanisms by which OPN facilitates these pathological events. It will also show that gaining an understanding of the mechanism of OPN's action at a cellular level has led to the development of a number of therapeutic strategies against the cytokine. These include inhibiting its expression, antagonizing cell surface receptor activation and blocking downstream cell signaling pathways. In addition to the potential of these therapies, serum levels of OPN could be used as a diagnostic and prognostic marker. The authors propose that with further research and development, osteopontin directed treatment could greatly enhance outcomes for cancer patients.

The inability of the older poor to purchase a healthy dietary cannot be solved merely by health education or budgeting skills. Primarily, they need more money.

Gender stereotypes surrounding women's reproductive health impede women's access to essential reproductive healthcare and contribute to inequality more generally. Stereotyping in healthcare settings impedes women's access to contraceptive information, services, and induced abortion, and lead to involuntary interventions in the context of sterilization. Decisions by human rights monitoring bodies, such as the Inter‐American Court of Human Rights’ case, IV v. Bolivia, which was a case concerned with the involuntary sterilization of a woman during childbirth, highlight how stereotypes in the context of providing health care can operate to strip women of their agency and decision‐making authority, deny them their right to informed consent, reinforce gender hierarchies and violate their reproductive rights. In the present article, IV v. Bolivia is examined as a case study with the objective being to highlight how, in the context of coercive sterilization, human rights law has been used to advance legal and ethical guidelines, including the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics’ (FIGO) own guidelines, on gender stereotyping and reproductive healthcare. The Inter‐American Court's judgment in IV v. Bolivia illustrates the important role FIGO's guidance can play in shaping human rights standards and provides guidance on the service provider's role and responsibility in eliminating gender stereotypes and upholding and fulfilling human rights.

The ECOWAS Court of Justice is the first human rights body to find a violation of the African region's women's rights treaty, the African Women's Protocol. Nearly 15 years after the adoption of this Protocol, the ECOWAS Court determined in Dorothy Njemanze & 3 Others v Nigeria that the Nigerian state violated the rights of women because state agents assumed they were sex workers and, therefore, discriminated against them and treated them violently. Significantly, the Court determined that the state violated the women's rights to dignity, as well as their right not to be arbitrarily detained and arrested. However, a feminist analysis of this case reveals that the ECOWAS Court's judgment protected women who are not sex workers at the expense of sex workers' rights. This article critically examines how the ECOWAS Court developed its jurisdiction in this case, with a particular focus on how the Court's strategic avoidance of the topic of sex work resulted in a judgment that is harmful to sex workers. The article reconceptualises the Court's reasoning to provide alternative approaches for interpreting women's rights, especially sex workers' rights. By providing the ECOWAS Court judgment with an alternative approach,

Remedies and reparation measures emerging from the Inter-American System of Human Rights in reproductive health cases have consistently highlighted the need to develop, and subsequently implement, non-repetition remedies that protect, promote, and fulill women's reproductive health rights. Litigation outcomes that determine there have been violations of reproductive rights are regarded as a "win" for health rights litigation, but when implementation fails, is a "win" still a win? here has been considerable success in litigating reproductive health rights cases, yet the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are not adequately equipped to follow up on cases ater they have been won. Successful and sustainable implementation of reproductive health rights law requires incorporation of non-repetition remedies in the form of legislation, education, and training that seeks to remodel existing social and cultural practices that hinder women's enjoyment of their reproductive rights. In order for a reproductive health rights case to ultimately be a "winner, " case recommendations and decisions emerging from the Commission and Court must incorporate perspectives from members of civil society, with the ultimate goal being to develop measurable remedies that address underlying obstacles to domestic implementation.