MD Anderson Cancer Center
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
PROVIDER: EGAO00000000362 | EGA |
REPOSITORIES: EGA
Publications
Gut microbiome modulates response to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in melanoma patients.
Gopalakrishnan V V Spencer C N CN Nezi L L Reuben A A Andrews M C MC Karpinets T V TV Prieto P A PA Vicente D D Hoffman K K Wei S C SC Cogdill A P AP Zhao L L Hudgens C W CW Hutchinson D S DS Manzo T T Petaccia de Macedo M M Cotechini T T Kumar T T Chen W S WS Reddy S M SM Szczepaniak Sloane R R Galloway-Pena J J Jiang H H Chen P L PL Shpall E J EJ Rezvani K K Alousi A M AM Chemaly R F RF Shelburne S S Vence L M LM Okhuysen P C PC Jensen V B VB Swennes A G AG McAllister F F Marcelo Riquelme Sanchez E E Zhang Y Y Le Chatelier E E Zitvogel L L Pons N N Austin-Breneman J L JL Haydu L E LE Burton E M EM Gardner J M JM Sirmans E E Hu J J Lazar A J AJ Tsujikawa T T Diab A A Tawbi H H Glitza I C IC Hwu W J WJ Patel S P SP Woodman S E SE Amaria R N RN Davies M A MA Gershenwald J E JE Hwu P P Lee J E JE Zhang J J Coussens L M LM Cooper Z A ZA Futreal P A PA Daniel C R CR Ajami N J NJ Petrosino J F JF Tetzlaff M T MT Sharma P P Allison J P JP Jenq R R RR Wargo J A JA
Science (New York, N.Y.) 20171102 6371
Preclinical mouse models suggest that the gut microbiome modulates tumor response to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy; however, this has not been well-characterized in human cancer patients. Here we examined the oral and gut microbiome of melanoma patients undergoing anti-programmed cell death 1 protein (PD-1) immunotherapy (<i>n</i> = 112). Significant differences were observed in the diversity and composition of the patient gut microbiome of responders versus nonresponders. Analysis of patien ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Organisation EGAO00000000306
| EGAO00000000306 | EGA
Project description:Organisation EGAO00000000396
| EGAO00000000396 | EGA
Project description:Clinical heterogeneity of gastric cancer reflected in unequal outcome of treatment is poorly defined in molecular level, and molecular subtypes and their associated biomarkers have not been established to improve prognostification and treatment of gastric cancer. Using microarray technologies, we analyzed gene expression profiling data from patients with advanced gastric cancer and uncovered potential prognostic subtypes and identify gene expression signature associated with prognosis.
2012-04-30 | GSE28541 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundMen diagnosed with prostate cancer are at risk for competing morbidity and mortality due to cardiometabolic disease given their advanced age at diagnosis, high prevalence of pre-existing risk factors, and receipt of systemic therapy that targets the androgen receptor (AR). Expert panels have stressed the importance of cardiometabolic risk assessment in the clinic and proposed evaluating key risks using consensus paradigms. Yet, there is a gap in real-world evidence for implementation of comprehensive cardiometabolic care for men with prostate cancer.MethodsThis is a retrospective, descriptive study of patients with prostate cancer who were referred and evaluated in the Healthy Heart Program at MD Anderson Cancer Center, which was established to mitigate cardiometabolic risks in men with prostate cancer. Patients were seen by a cardiologist and exercise physiologist to evaluate and manage cardiometabolic risk factors, including blood pressure, cholesterol, blood glucose, tobacco use, and coronary artery disease, concurrent with management of their cancer by a medical oncologist.ResultsFrom December 2018 through October 2021, the Healthy Heart Program enrolled 55 men with prostate cancer, out of which 35 had biochemical, locoregional recurrence or distant metastases, while all received at least a single dose of a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analog. Ninety-three percent of men were overweight or obese, and 51% had an intermediate or high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease at 10 years based on the pooled cohort equation. Most men had an overlap of two or more cardiometabolic diseases (84%), and 25% had an overlap of at least 4 cardiometabolic diseases. Although uncontrolled hypertension and hyperlipidemia were common among the cohort (45% and 26%, respectively), only 29% of men followed up with the clinic.ConclusionsMen with prostate cancer have a high burden of concurrent cardiometabolic risk factors. At a tertiary cancer center, the Healthy Heart Program was implemented to address this need, yet the utility of the program was limited by poor follow-up possibly due to outside cardiometabolic care and inconvenient appointment logistics, a lack of cardiometabolic labs at the time of visits, and telemedicine visits.
| S-EPMC10498569 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinical heterogeneity of gastric cancer reflected in unequal outcome of treatment is poorly defined in molecular level, and molecular subtypes and their associated biomarkers have not been established to improve prognostification and treatment of gastric cancer. Using microarray technologies, we analyzed gene expression profiling data from patients with advanced gastric cancer and uncovered potential prognostic subtypes and identify gene expression signature associated with prognosis. Using microarray technologies, we analyzed gene expression profiling data from patients with advanced gastric cancer and uncovered potential prognostic subtypes and identify gene expression signature associated with prognosis.
2012-04-29 | E-GEOD-28541 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:Organisation EGAO00000000943
| EGAO00000000943 | EGA
Project description:BACKGROUND/AIMS:In our 2009 article, we showed that Bayesian methods had established a foothold in developing therapies in our institutional oncology trials. In this article, we will document what has happened since that time. In addition, we will describe barriers to implementing Bayesian clinical trials, as well as our experience overcoming them. METHODS:We reviewed MD Anderson Cancer Center clinical trials submitted to the institutional protocol office for scientific and ethical review between January 2009 and December 2013, the same length time period as the previous article. We tabulated Bayesian methods implemented for design or analyses for each trial and then compared these to our previous findings. RESULTS:Overall, we identified 1020 trials and found that 283 (28%) had Bayesian components so we designated them as Bayesian trials. Among MD Anderson-only and multicenter trials, 56% and 14%, respectively, were Bayesian, higher rates than our previous study. Bayesian trials were more common in phase I/II trials (34%) than in phase III/IV (6%) trials. Among Bayesian trials, the most commonly used features were for toxicity monitoring (65%), efficacy monitoring (36%), and dose finding (22%). The majority (86%) of Bayesian trials used non-informative priors. A total of 75 (27%) trials applied Bayesian methods for trial design and primary endpoint analysis. Among this latter group, the most commonly used methods were the Bayesian logistic regression model (N?=?22), the continual reassessment method (N?=?20), and adaptive randomization (N?=?16). Median institutional review board approval time from protocol submission was the same 1.4?months for Bayesian and non-Bayesian trials. Since the previous publication, the Biomarker-Integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) trial was the first large-scale decision trial combining multiple treatments in a single trial. Since then, two regimens in breast cancer therapy have been identified and published from the cooperative Investigation of Serial Studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response with Imaging and Molecular Analysis (I-SPY 2), enhancing cooperation among investigators and drug developers across the nation, as well as advancing information needed for personalized medicine. Many software programs and Shiny applications for Bayesian trial design and calculations are available from our website which has had more than 21,000 downloads worldwide since 2004. CONCLUSION:Bayesian trials have the increased flexibility in trial design needed for personalized medicine, resulting in more cooperation among researchers working to fight against cancer. Some disadvantages of Bayesian trials remain, but new methods and software are available to improve their function and incorporation into cancer clinical research.
| S-EPMC6904523 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWe initiated a personalized medicine program in the context of early clinical trials, using targeted agents matched with tumor molecular aberrations. Herein, we report our observations.Patient and methodsPatients with advanced cancer were treated in the Clinical Center for Targeted Therapy. Molecular analysis was conducted in the MD Anderson Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified laboratory. Patients whose tumors had an aberration were treated with matched targeted therapy, when available. Treatment assignment was not randomized. The clinical outcomes of patients with molecular aberrations treated with matched targeted therapy were compared with those of consecutive patients who were not treated with matched targeted therapy.ResultsOf 1,144 patients analyzed, 460 (40.2%) had 1 or more aberration. In patients with 1 molecular aberration, matched therapy (n = 175) compared with treatment without matching (n = 116) was associated with a higher overall response rate (27% vs. 5%; P < 0.0001), longer time-to-treatment failure (TTF; median, 5.2 vs. 2.2 months; P < 0.0001), and longer survival (median, 13.4 vs. 9.0 months; P = 0.017). Matched targeted therapy was associated with longer TTF compared with their prior systemic therapy in patients with 1 mutation (5.2 vs. 3.1 months, respectively; P < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis in patients with 1 molecular aberration, matched therapy was an independent factor predicting response (P = 0.001) and TTF (P = 0.0001).ConclusionKeeping in mind that the study was not randomized and patients had diverse tumor types and a median of 5 prior therapies, our results suggest that identifying specific molecular abnormalities and choosing therapy based on these abnormalities is relevant in phase I clinical trials.
| S-EPMC4454458 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In 2006, a remarkable collaboration between University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center clinicians and Texas and New Mexico State legislators led to the formation of a dedicated IBC Research Program and Clinic at MD Anderson. This initiative provided funding and infrastructure to foster coordination of an IBC World Consortium of national and international experts, and launch the first ever IBC international conference in 2008, which brought together experts from around the world to facilitate collaborations and accelerate progress. Indeed great progress has been made since then. National and international experts in IBC convened at the 10th Anniversary Conference of the MD Anderson IBC Clinic and Research Program and presented the most extensive sequencing analysis to date comparing IBC to non-IBC, gene- and protein-based immunoprofiling of IBC versus non-IBC patients, and converging lines of evidence on the specific role of the microenvironment in IBC. Novel models, unique metabolic mechanisms, and prominent survival pathways have been identified and were presented. Multiple clinical trials based on the work of the last decade are in progress or in development. The important challenges ahead were discussed. This progress and a coordinated summary of these works are presented herein.
| S-EPMC5687177 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOn 30 January 2012, the US FDA approved vismodegib (Erivedge®, Genentech, CA, USA) for the management of both metastatic and locally advanced basal cell carcinoma.ObjectiveOur objective was to identify evidence of hepatotoxicity with vismodegib in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) in treated patients in two National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Centers.MethodsFAERS was searched for reports dated 1 January 2009 through 31 December 2015 using terms including hedgehog pathway and vismodegib and hepatic-related terms such as liver, jaundice, and hepatitis, among others. Disproportionality analyses with estimates of proportional reporting ratio and empirical Bayesian geometric mean were conducted. A comprehensive literature review was conducted, and the clinical databases at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University were searched.ResultsTwo cases of severe liver dysfunction were published (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE] class III), and 94 reports of adverse events (AEs) were detected in FAERS, 35 of which were serious AEs. Safety notifications related to hepatotoxicity have not been issued by the manufacturer or the FDA, although vismodegib is listed in LiverTox and the European Medicines Agency website.ConclusionWe identified a detectable safety signal for hepatotoxicity for vismodegib within 4 years of FDA approval. Vismodegib should be used in patients with severe liver disease only after careful consideration, and concomitant hepatotoxic medications should be avoided. Rapid dissemination of such safety concerns is expected to result in fewer serious hepatotoxic AEs and more optimal outcomes for patients with cancer receiving vismodegib.
| S-EPMC5318336 | biostudies-literature