19 research outputs found
sj-jpg-1-tah-10.1177_20406207231155991 – Supplemental material for Challenges in the treatment of melanoma with BRAF and MEK inhibitors in patients with sickle cell disease: case report and review of the literature
Supplemental material, sj-jpg-1-tah-10.1177_20406207231155991 for Challenges in the treatment of melanoma with BRAF and MEK inhibitors in patients with sickle cell disease: case report and review of the literature by Panagiotis T Diamantopoulos, Amalia Anastasopoulou, Maria Dimopoulou, Michalis Samarkos and Helen Gogas in Therapeutic Advances in Hematology</p
Data on eNOS T786 and G894T polymorphisms and peripheral blood eNOS mRNA levels in Sickle Cell Disease
In this article, we present data on endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase (eNOS) gene T786C and G894T polymorphisms in Greek steady-state Sickle Cell Disease patients in comparison to healthy controls. Moreover, eNOS mRNA levels were determined in peripheral blood samples from 18 patients and 9 controls. This article complements our recently published article named “Prognostic value of eNOS T786C and G894T polymorphisms in Sickle Cell Disease” (I. Armenis, V. Kalotychou, R. Tzanetea, Z. Kontogeorgiou, D. Anastasopoulou, M. Mantzourani, M. Samarkos, K. Pantos, K. Konstantopoulos, I. Rombos, 2016) [1]. © 2016 The Author
Challenges in the treatment of melanoma with BRAF and MEK inhibitors in patients with sickle cell disease: case report and review of the literature
Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) suffer from complications due to anemia, inflammation, and vaso-occlusion. Factors that trigger sickling and/or inflammation may initiate such complications, while treatment with hydroxyurea (HU) reduces their emergence and prolongs survival. On the contrary, inhibition of the BRAF-MEK-ERK pathway with BRAF and MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) has revolutionized treatment of melanoma but their use has been correlated with inflammatory adverse events. Thus, treatment of patients with SCD with BRAF/MEKi may be quite challenging and pyrexia in those patients should be managed as a medical emergency. In this article, intrigued by the case of a 36-year-old female patient with S/β-thal under HU who was treated with dabrafenib and trametinib for melanoma, we analyze the mechanisms underlying inflammation and vaso-occlusion in SCD, the mechanisms of pyrexia and inflammation induced by BRAF/MEKi, their potential interconnections, the shared role of the inflammasome in these two entities, and the protective effect of HU in SCD. Since SCD is the most common inheritable blood disorder, the administration of BRAF/MEKi for melanoma in patients with SCD may be a rather common challenge. Thus, proper treatment with HU may pave the way for an uneventful management of such patients
Reactivation of tuberculosis in cancer patients following administration of immune checkpoint inhibitors: Current evidence and clinical practice recommendations
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICBs) have revolutionized cancer treatment producing remarkable and durable responses for a range of malignancies. However, the additional modulation of immune response by ICBs may rarely cause immune-related infectious complications, including re-activation of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBC) with detrimental effects on those patients' outcome. Here, we present two "real-world" melanoma cases that were treated in our department with blockade of PD-1/PD-L1 and developed active Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) during immunotherapy. In view of these cases, we review the literature for ICB-associated MTB reactivation and discuss our considerations about the possible interactions of immunotherapy and the underlying co-existent mycobacterial infection. Based on the current evidence from preclinical findings prior to this experience, we raise questions regarding cancer patients who are at higher risk for developing MTB infection, whether ICB-treated patients should be considered immunocompromised, and how they should be managed for latent and/or active tuberculosis. Aside from the well-established clinical benefit of immunotherapy, the blockade of PD-1/PD-L1 axis may concurrently disrupt the immune control of specific opportunistic infections such as tuberculosis that should be carefully and expectantly managed in order to avoid compromising the outcome of cancer treatment and the affected patient's survival. © 2019 The Author(s)
Clinical impact of microbiome in patients with decompensated cirrhosis
Cirrhosis is an increasing cause of morbidity and mortality. Recent studies are trying to clarify the role of microbiome in clinical exacerbation of patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Nowadays, it is accepted that patients with cirrhosis have altered salivary and enteric microbiome, characterized by the presence of dysbiosis. This altered microbiome along with small bowel bacterial overgrowth, through translocation across the gut, is associated with the development of decompensating complications. Studies have analyzed the correlation of certain bacterial families with the development of hepatic encephalopathy in cirrhotics. In general, stool and saliva dysbiosis with reduction of autochthonous bacteria in patients with cirrhosis incites changes in bacterial defenses and higher risk for bacterial infections, such as spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and sepsis. Gut microbiome has even been associated with oncogenic pathways and under circumstances might promote the development of hepatocarcinogenesis. Lately, the existence of the oral-gut-liver axis has been related with the development of decompensating events. This link between the liver and the oral cavity could be via the gut through impaired intestinal permeability that allows direct translocation of bacteria from the oral cavity to the systemic circulation. Overall, the contribution of the microbiome to pathogenesis becomes more pronounced with progressive disease and therefore may represent an important therapeutic target in the management of cirrhosis. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved
Author Correction: Early treatment of COVID-19 with anakinra guided by soluble urokinase plasminogen receptor plasma levels: a double-blind, randomized controlled phase 3 trial (Nature Medicine, (2021), 27, 10, (1752-1760), 10.1038/s41591-021-01499-z)
In the version of this Article initially published, there was an error in the author affiliations. Specifically, affiliation 27, corresponding to author Carlo Selmi, has been corrected from “Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy” to read: “Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy & IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.” The change has been made to the online version of the Article
Cytomegalovirus Infections in Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Solid Malignancies
Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection/disease has been repeatedly reported in patients treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and most commonly involves patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) immune-related adverse events (irAEs). In the current study, we present a patient with melanoma who developed CMV gastritis during treatment with pembrolizumab in the absence of irAEs and without previous or current immunosuppression. Moreover, we review the literature regarding CMV infection/disease in patients treated with ICIs for solid malignancies. We present the currently available data on the pathogenesis, clinical characteristics, endoscopic findings, and histologic features and highlight the potential differences among cases complicating R/R irAEs versus those occurring in patients who are immunosuppression naive. Finally, we discuss the currently available data regarding potential useful diagnostic tools as well as the management of these patients. © The Author(s) 2023
Author Correction: Early treatment of COVID-19 with anakinra guided by soluble urokinase plasminogen receptor plasma levels: a double-blind, randomized controlled phase 3 trial (Nature Medicine, (2021), 27, 10, (1752-1760), 10.1038/s41591-021-01499-z)
In the version of this Article initially published, there was an error in the author affiliations. Specifically, affiliation 27, corresponding to author Carlo Selmi, has been corrected from “Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy” to read: “Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy & IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.” The change has been made to the online version of the Article. © The Author(s) 2021
