Obesity is a strong risk factor for cancer progression, posing obesity-related cancer as one of the leading causes of death. Nevertheless, the molecular mechanisms that endow cancer cells with metastatic properties in patients affected by obesity remain unexplored.Here, we show that IL-6 and HGF, secreted by tumor neighboring visceral adipose stromal cells (V-ASCs), expand the metastatic colorectal (CR) cancer cell compartment (CD44v6 + ), which in turn secretes neurotrophins such as NGF and NT-3, and recruits adipose stem cells within tumor mass. Visceral adipose-derived factors promote vasculogenesis and the onset of metastatic dissemination by activation of STAT3, which inhibits miR-200a and enhances ZEB2 expression, effectively reprogramming CRC cells into a highly metastatic phenotype. Notably, obesity-associated tumor microenvironment provokes a transition in the transcriptomic expression profile of cells derived from the epithelial consensus molecular subtype (CMS2) CRC patients towards a mesenchymal subtype (CMS4). STAT3 pathway inhibition reduces ZEB2 expression and abrogates the metastatic growth sustained by adipose-released proteins. Together, our data suggest that targeting adipose factors in colorectal cancer patients with obesity may represent a therapeutic strategy for preventing metastatic disease.

The diagnostic assessment of patients with Interstitial Lung Disease (ILD) can be challenging due to the large number of possible causes. Moreover, the diagnostic approach can be limited by the severity of the disease, which may not allow invasive exams. To overcome this issue, the referral centers for ILD organized Multidisciplinary Teams (MDTs), including physicians and experts in complementary discipline, to discuss the management of doubtful cases of ILD. MDT is currently considered the gold standard for ILD diagnosis, but it is not often simple to organize and, furthermore, rheumatologists are still not always included. In fact, even if rheumatologic conditions represent a common cause of ILD, they are sometimes difficult to recognize, considering the variegated clinical features and their association with all possible radiographic patterns of ILD. The first objective of this review is to describe the clinical, laboratory, and instrumental tests that can drive a diagnosis toward a possible rheumatic disease. The secondary objective is to propose a set of first-line tests to perform in all patients in order to recognize any possible rheumatic conditions underlying ILD.

To evaluate neurocognitive performance, daily activity and quality of life (QoL), other than usual oncologic outcomes, among patients with brain metastasis ≥5 (MBM) from solid tumors treated with Stereotactic Brain Irradiation (SBI) or Whole Brain Irradiation (WBI). Methods: This multicentric randomized controlled trial will involve the enrollment of 100 patients (50 for each arm) with MBM ≥ 5, age ≥ 18 years, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) ≥ 70, life expectancy > 3 months, known primary tumor, with controlled or controllable extracranial disease, baseline Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score ≥ 20/30, Barthel Activities of Daily Living score ≥ 90/100, to be submitted to SBI by LINAC with monoisocentric technique and non-coplanar arcs (experimental arm) or to WBI (control arm). The primary endpoints are neurocognitive performance, QoL and autonomy in daily-life activities variations, the first one assessed by MoCa Score and Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised, the second one through the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and QLQ-BN-20 questionnaires, the third one through the Barthel Index, respectively. The secondary endpoints are time to intracranial failure, overall survival, retreatment rate, acute and late toxicities, changing of KPS. It will be considered significant a statistical difference of at least 30% between the two arms (statistical power of 80% with a significance level of 95%). Discussion: Several studies debate what is the decisive factor accountable for the development of neurocognitive decay among patients undergoing brain irradiation for MBM: radiation effect on clinically healthy brain tissue or intracranial tumor burden? The answer to this question may come from the recent technological advancement

No abstract