No abstract

No abstract

Noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) include a diverse range of RNA species, including microRNAs (miRNAs) and long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs). MiRNAs, ncRNAs of approximately 19–25 nucleotides in length, are involved in gene expression regulation either via degradation or silencing of the messenger RNAs (mRNAs) and have roles in multiple biological processes, including cell proliferation, differentiation, migration, angiogenesis, and apoptosis. LncRNAs, which are longer than 200 nucleotides, comprise one of the largest and most heterogeneous RNA families. LncRNAs can activate or repress gene expression through various mechanisms, acting alone or in combination with miRNAs and other molecules as part of various pathways. Until recently, most research has focused on individual lncRNA and miRNA functions as regulators, and there is limited available data on ncRNA interactions relating to the tumor growth, metastasis, and therapy of cancer, acting either on mRNA alone or as competing endogenous RNA (ceRNA) networks. Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents approximately 10%–20% of all breast cancers (BCs) and is highly heterogenous and more aggressive than other types of BC, for which current targeted treatment options include hormonotherapy, PARP inhibitors, and immunotherapy; however, no targeted therapies for TNBC are available, partly because of a lack of predictive biomarkers. With advances in proteomics, new evidence has emerged demonstrating the implications of dysregulation of ncRNAs in TNBC etiology. Here, we review the roles of lncRNAs and miRNAs implicated in TNBC, including their interactions and regulatory networks. Our synthesis provides insight into the mechanisms involved in TNBC progression and has potential to aid the discovery of new diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.

AIMSCatumaxomab is the first EMEA approved trifunctional anti-EpCAM×anti-CD3 antibody for the treatment of cancer patients with malignant ascites. A phase II pharmacokinetic study was conducted to determine local and systemic antibody concentrations and anti-drug antibody (ADA) development.METHODSThirteen cancer patients with symptomatic malignant ascites were treated with four ascending doses of 10, 20, 50, and 150 µg catumaxomab intraperitoneally (i.p.) infused on days 0, 3, 6 or 7 and 10. The pharmacokinetics of catumaxomab were studied by implementation of supportive data from a non clinical mouse tumour model. Additionally, ADA development was monitored.RESULTSTen out of 13 patients were evaluable for pharmacokinetic analysis. Catumaxomab became increasingly concentrated in ascites during the course of treatment, attaining effective concentrations in the ng ml−1 range. Catumaxomab remained immunologically active even after several days in the circulation. The observed systemic catumaxomab exposure was low (<1%), with a maximal median plasma concentration (Cmax) of 403 pg ml−1. The mean elimination half-life in the plasma was 2.13 days. All patients developed ADA, but not before the last infusion. High observed inter-individual variability and low systemic exposure may be explained by the inverse correlation between tumour burden, effector cell numbers and systemic antibody bioavailability as demonstrated in a defined mouse tumour model.CONCLUSIONSBased on the high and effective local concentrations, low systemic exposure and acceptable safety profile, we confirmed that the i.p. application scheme of catumaxomab for the treatment of malignant ascites is appropriate.

PurposeThe aim of this study was to demonstrate lipegfilgrastim superiority versus placebo in adults with non-small cell lung cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.MethodsThis phase III, double-blind study randomized chemotherapy-naive patients to receive cisplatin and etoposide with either lipegfilgrastim 6 mg or placebo. Because of the placebo control, patients at individual high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN; ≥20%) were excluded. Study drug was administered on day 4 (24 h after chemotherapy) of a 21-day cycle for ≤4 cycles. Primary efficacy measure was FN incidence in cycle 1. Secondary assessments included duration of severe neutropenia (DSN), absolute neutrophil count (ANC) profile, and adverse events (AEs).ResultsThe study included 375 patients (lipegfilgrastim, n = 250; placebo, n = 125). Lipegfilgrastim superiority for FN incidence in cycle 1 was not achieved but incidence was lower (2.4%) versus placebo (5.6%). Cycle 1 mean DSN was significantly shorter for lipegfilgrastim (0.6 ± 1.1 days) versus placebo (2.3 ± 0.5 days; p < 0.0001). Incidence of severe neutropenia was significantly lower for lipegfilgrastim versus placebo overall and in each cycle (all, p < 0.0001). Mean ANC nadir was lowest in cycle 1 but significantly higher for lipegfilgrastim (1.60 ± 1.64) than placebo (0.67 ± 0.85; p < 0.0001). Mean time to ANC recovery was shorter with lipegfilgrastim in each cycle. Treatment-emergent AEs were similar between treatment groups.ConclusionsLipegfilgrastim was not statistically superior to placebo for incidence of FN in cycle 1, but was more effective in reducing incidence of severe neutropenia, DSN, and time to ANC recovery, with an acceptable safety profile.Controlled-trials.com identifier: ISRCTN55761467.