Epigenetic therapy in urologic cancers: an update on clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
// Inês Faleiro 1,2,3 , Ricardo Leão 4,5 , Alexandra Binnie 1,2,3 , Ramon Andrade de Mello 1,2,3 , Ana-Teresa Maia 1,2,3 and Pedro Castelo-Branco 1,2,3 1 Regenerative Medicine Program, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Medicine, University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal 2 Centre for Biomedical Research, University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal 3 Algarve Biomedical Center, Campus Gambelas, Edificio 2. Faro, Portugal 4 Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada 5 Renal Transplantation and Urology Service, Coimbra University Hospital Center EPE, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Portugal Correspondence to: Pedro Castelo-Branco, email: // Keywords : epigenetic therapy, urologic cancers, clinical trials Received : October 26, 2016 Accepted : December 13, 2016 Published : December 26, 2016 Abstract Epigenetic dysregulation is one of many factors that contribute to cancer development and progression. Numerous epigenetic alterations have been identified in urologic cancers including histone modifications, DNA methylation changes, and microRNA expression. Since these changes are reversible, efforts are being made to develop epigenetic drugs that restore the normal epigenetic patterns of cells, and many clinical trials are already underway to test their clinical potential. In this review we analyze multiple clinical trials ( n =51) that test the efficacy of these drugs in patients with urologic cancers. The most frequently used epigenetic drugs were histone deacetylase inhibitors followed by antisense oligonucleotides, DNA methyltransferase inhibitors and histone demethylase inhibitors, the last of which are only being tested in prostate cancer. In more than 50% of the clinical trials considered, epigenetic drugs were used as part of combination therapy, which achieved the best results. The epigenetic regulation of some cancers is still matter of research but will undoubtedly open a window to new therapeutic approaches in the era of personalized medicine. The future of therapy for urological malignancies is likely to include multidrug regimens in which epigenetic modifying drugs will play an important role.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".