BackgroundAccumulated evidence suggests that dysregulated expression of long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) may play a critical role in tumorigenesis and prognosis of cancer, indicating the potential utility of lncRNAs as cancer prognostic or diagnostic markers. However, the power of lncRNA signatures in predicting the survival of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has not yet been investigated.MethodsWe performed an array-based transcriptional analysis of lncRNAs in large patient cohorts with NSCLC by repurposing microarray probes from the gene expression omnibus database. A risk score model was constructed based on the expression data of these eight lncRNAs in the training dataset of NSCLC patients and was subsequently validated in other two independent NSCLC datasets. The biological implications of prognostic lncRNAs were also analyzed using the functional enrichment analysis.ResultsAn expression pattern of eight lncRNAs was found to be significantly associated with overall survival (OS) of NSCLC patients in the training dataset. With the eight-lncRNA signature, patients of the training dataset could be classified into high- and low-risk groups with significantly different OS (median survival 1.67 vs. 6.06 years, log-rank test p = 4.33E−09). The prognostic power of eight-lncRNA signature was further validated in other two non-overlapping independent NSCLC cohorts, demonstrating good reproducibility and robustness of this eight-lncRNA signature in predicting OS of NSCLC patients. Multivariate regression and stratified analysis suggested that the prognostic power of the eight-lncRNA signature was independent of clinical and pathological factors. Functional enrichment analyses revealed potential functional roles of the eight prognostic lncRNAs in tumorigenesis.ConclusionsThese findings indicate that the eight-lncRNA signature may be an effective independent prognostic molecular biomarker in the prediction of NSCLC patient survival.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12967-015-0556-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

BACKGROUND Malignant obstructive jaundice is mainly caused by cholangiocarcinoma. Only a few patients are indicated for surgical resection, and the 3-year survival rate is < 50%. For patients who are not eligible for surgery, biliary stent placement can relieve biliary obstruction and improve liver function and quality of life. However, restenosis after biliary stents has a poor prognosis and is a clinical challenge. Biliary stent combined with iodine-125 ( 125 I) seed implantation can prolong stent patency and improve survival. AIM To evaluate the safety and efficacy of biliary stent combined with 125 I seed strand implantation in malignant obstructive jaundice. METHODS We enrolled 67 patients between January 2016 and June 2018 with malignant obstructive jaundice and randomized them into a biliary stent combined with 125 I seed strand treatment (combined) group (n = 32) and biliary stent (control) group ( n = 35). All patients underwent enhanced computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging and were tested for biochemical and cancer markers. Twelve patients underwent pathological examination before surgery. All patients were followed up by telephone or clinical visit. Postoperative liver function improvement, postoperative complications, stent patency time, and survival time were compared between the two groups. Prognostic risk factors were evaluated. RESULTS Technical success was achieved in all patients in both groups. Postoperative liver function improved significantly in all patients (total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, alanine aminotransferase, and aspartate aminotransferase decreased significantly in all patients, the P values were less than 0.05). There was no significant difference in preoperative or postoperative indexes between the two groups for changes in total bilirubin ( P = 0.147), direct bilirubin ( P = 0.448), alanine aminotransferase ( P = 0.120), and aspartate aminotransferase ( P = 0.387) between the two groups. The median stent patency time of the combined group was 9.0 ± 1.4 mo [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.3-11.8 mo], which was significantly longer than the that of the control group (6.0 ± 0.3 mo, 95%CI: 5.5-6.5 mo, P = 0.000). The median survival time of the combined group was 11.0 ± 1.4 mo (95%CI: 8.2-13.7 mo), which was significantly longer than that of the control group (7.0 ± 0.3 mo, 95%CI: 6.4-7.6 mo, P = 0.000). Location of obstruction and number of stents were independent risk factors affecting prognosis. CONCLUSION Biliary stent combined with 125 I seed strand implantation is safe and effective in m...

To analyze safety and efficacy of patterns of sorafenib and TACE therapy under real-life clinical practice conditions. A total of 338 Chinese patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from the international database of the GIDEON non-interventional trial were included in this analysis. Endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP) and safety. Two major patterns in the use of sorafenib observed in current Chinese clinical practice were: sorafenib administration subsequent to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) treatment (n = 226, 66.9%) and sorafenib administration concomitant to TACE (n = 80, 35.4%). Patients receiving TACE prior to sorafenib had worse liver function (43.8% BCLC stage Cat diagnosis and 62.1% BCLC stage C at study entry) than those receiving TACE concomitant to sorefenib (35.0% BCLC stage C at diagnosis and 51.3% BCLC stage three at study entry). For patients undergoing prior TACE and concomitant TACE treatment, median OS time was 354 days vs. 608 days, PFS time was 168 days vs. 201 days, and TTP was 214 days vs. 205 days; and the percentage of patients who experienced drug-related adverse effects after sorafenib therapy in these two groups were 33.3 and 50.0%, respectively. Sorafenib treatment is usually administered in cases of tumor progression or poor liver function status after TACE treatment in China. Under such conditions, patients still gained a relatively satisfactory survival outcome. In addition, the present study suggests that concomitant sorafenib and TACE treatments may lead to a better prognosis, although differences in baseline characteristics may have contributed in part to the better outcomes.