Richard Birnie

Gene expression profiling of human prostate cancer stem cells reveals a pro-inflammatory phenotype and the importance of extracellular matrix interactions.

BackgroundThe tumor-initiating capacity of many cancers is considered to reside in a small subpopulation of cells (cancer stem cells). We have previously shown that rare prostate epithelial cells with a CD133+/α2β1hi phenotype have the properties of prostate cancer stem cells. We have compared gene expression in these cells relative to their normal and differentiated (CD133-/α2β1low) counterparts, resulting in an informative cancer stem cell gene-expression signature.ResultsCell cultures were generated from specimens of human prostate cancers (n = 12) and non-malignant control tissues (n = 7). Affymetrix gene-expression arrays were used to analyze total cell RNA from sorted cell populations, and expression changes were selectively validated by quantitative RT-PCR, flow cytometry and immunocytochemistry. Differential expression of multiple genes associated with inflammation, cellular adhesion, and metastasis was observed. Functional studies, using an inhibitor of nuclear factor κB (NF-κB), revealed preferential targeting of the cancer stem cell and progenitor population for apoptosis whilst sparing normal stem cells. NF-κB is a major factor controlling the ability of tumor cells to resist apoptosis and provides an attractive target for new chemopreventative and chemotherapeutic approaches.ConclusionWe describe an expression signature of 581 genes whose levels are significantly different in prostate cancer stem cells. Functional annotation of this signature identified the JAK-STAT pathway and focal adhesion signaling as key processes in the biology of cancer stem cells.

The calcium sensor STIM1 is regulated by androgens in prostate stromal cells

Prostate development and maintenance in the adult results from an interaction of stromal and glandular components. Androgens can drive this process by direct action on the stroma. We investigated whether there was a direct link between androgens and another key regulator of stromal cells, intracellular Ca2+ ([Ca2+]i).

Integrated sensor-augmented pump therapy systems [the MiniMed® Paradigm™ Veo system and the Vibe™ and G4® PLATINUM CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) system] for managing blood glucose levels in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND In recent years, meters for continuous monitoring of interstitial fluid glucose have been introduced to help people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) to achieve better control of their disease. OBJECTIVE The objective of this project was to summarise the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the MiniMed(®) Paradigm™ Veo system (Medtronic Inc., Northridge, CA, USA) and the Vibe™ (Animas(®) Corporation, West Chester, PA, USA) and G4(®) PLATINUM CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) system (Dexcom Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) in comparison with multiple daily insulin injections (MDIs) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), both with either self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) or CGM, for the management of T1DM in adults and children. DATA SOURCES A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Diagnostic Assessment Programme manual. We searched 14 databases, three trial registries and two conference proceedings from study inception up to September 2014. In addition, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were checked. In the absence of randomised controlled trials directly comparing Veo or an integrated CSII + CGM system, such as Vibe, with comparator interventions, indirect treatment comparisons were performed if possible. METHODS A commercially available cost-effectiveness model, the IMS Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness diabetes model version 8.5 (IMS Health, Danbury, CT, USA), was used for this assessment. This model is an internet-based, interactive simulation model that predicts the long-term health outcomes and costs associated with the management of T1DM and type 2 diabetes. The model consists of 15 submodels designed to simulate diabetes-related complications, non-specific mortality and costs over time. As the model simulates individual patients over time, it updates risk factors and complications to account for disease progression. RESULTS Fifty-four publications resulting from 19 studies were included in the review. Overall, the evidence suggests that the Veo system reduces hypoglycaemic events more than other treatments, without any differences in other outcomes, including glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. We also found significant results in favour of the integrated CSII + CGM system over MDIs with SMBG with regard to HbA1c levels and quality of life. However, the evidence base was poor. The quality of the included studies was generally low, often with only one study comparing treatments in a specific population at a specific follow-up time. In particular, there was only one study comparing Veo with an integrated CSII + CGM system and only one study comparing Veo with a CSII + SMBG system in a mixed population. Cost-effectiveness analyses indicated that MDI + SMBG is the option most likely to be cost-effective, given the current threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, whereas integrated CSII + CGM systems and Veo are dominated and extendedly dominated, respectively, by stand-alone, non-integrated CSII with CGM. Scenario analyses did not alter these conclusions. No cost-effectiveness modelling was conducted for children or pregnant women. CONCLUSIONS The Veo system does appear to be better than the other systems considered at reducing hypoglycaemic events. However, in adults, it is unlikely to be cost-effective. Integrated systems are also generally unlikely to be cost-effective given that stand-alone systems are cheaper and, possibly, no less effective. However, evidence in this regard is generally lacking, in particular for children. Future trials in specific child, adolescent and adult populations should include longer term follow-up and ratings on the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions scale at various time points with a view to informing improved cost-effectiveness modelling. STUDY REGISTRATION PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42014013764. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

In Vitro Primary Cell Culture as a Physiologically Relevant Method for Preclinical Testing of Human Oncolytic Adenovirus

Ad[I/PPT-E1A] is an oncolytic adenovirus that specifically kills prostate cells via restricted replication by a prostate-specific regulatory element. Off-target replication of oncolytic adenoviruses would have serious clinical consequences. As a proposed ex vivo test, we describe the assessment of the specificity of Ad[I/PPT-E1A] viral cytotoxicity and replication in human nonprostate primary cells. Four primary nonprostate cell types were selected to mimic the effects of potential in vivo exposure to Ad[I/PPT-E1A] virus: bronchial epithelial cells, urothelial cells, vascular endothelial cells, and hepatocytes. Primary cells were analyzed for Ad[I/PPT-E1A] viral cytotoxicity in MTS assays, and viral replication was determined by hexon titer immunostaining assays to quantify viral hexon protein. The results revealed that at an extreme multiplicity of infection of 500, unlikely to be achieved in vivo, Ad[I/PPT-E1A] virus showed no significant cytotoxic effects in the nonprostate primary cell types apart from the hepatocytes. Transmission electron microscopy studies revealed high levels of Ad[I/PPT-E1A] sequestered in the cytoplasm of these cells. Adenoviral green fluorescent protein reporter studies showed no evidence for nuclear localization, suggesting that the cytotoxic effects of Ad[I/PPT-E1A] in human primary hepatocytes are related to viral sequestration. Also, hepatocytes had increased amounts of coxsackie adenovirus receptor surface protein. Active viral replication was only observed in the permissive primary prostate cells and LNCaP prostate cell line, and was not evident in any of the other nonprostate cells types tested, confirming the specificity of Ad[I/PPT-E1A]. Thus, using a relevant panel of primary human cells provides a convenient and alternative preclinical assay for examining the specificity of conditionally replicating oncolytic adenoviruses in vivo.