Browsing by Author "Stamatovic, Ljiljana (6603184356)"

Purpose: Since several studies have proposed that epithelial ovarian cancer should not be considered as a single disease entity and that it results from an accumulation of genetic changes, we aimed to assess the polymorphic expression of major cytosolic glutathione S-transferases (GSTM1, T1, A1 and P1) with respect to ovarian cancer susceptibility and aggressiveness. Methods: This case-control study was conducted on 93 newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer patients and 178 healthy matched controls. The multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to detect homozygous deletions ofGSTMl and GSTT1 genes. Analysis of the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) GSTA1 C69T was performed using PCR-restrictionfragment length polymorphism (RFLP), while for SNP GSTP1 Ile105Val real-time PCR was used. Results: No significant association to ovarian cancer risk was found for individual GSTM1, GSTA1 and GSTP1 genotypes (p>0.05). However, the carriers of GSTT1-active genotype were at 2-fold higher risk of ovarian cancer development (95%C1: 1.00-4.01, p=0.049), which was even more elevated in the subgroup of patients with positive family history of cancer. Moreover, the frequency of all three GST genotypes that might be associated to ovarian cancer risk (GSTT1-active, GSTA1-active and GSTPl-referent) was significantly higher in patients than in the control group (p=0.042). Even more, patients who were carriers of combination of these three genotypes represented over 64% of the total number of patients within any of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages of ovarian cancer. Conclusions: This study provides supportive evidence that GSTs might affect both susceptibility and progression of ovarian cancer.

Purpose: Since several studies have proposed that epithelial ovarian cancer should not be considered as a single disease entity and that it results from an accumulation of genetic changes, we aimed to assess the polymorphic expression of major cytosolic glutathione S-transferases (GSTM1, T1, A1 and P1) with respect to ovarian cancer susceptibility and aggressiveness. Methods: This case-control study was conducted on 93 newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer patients and 178 healthy matched controls. The multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to detect homozygous deletions ofGSTMl and GSTT1 genes. Analysis of the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) GSTA1 C69T was performed using PCR-restrictionfragment length polymorphism (RFLP), while for SNP GSTP1 Ile105Val real-time PCR was used. Results: No significant association to ovarian cancer risk was found for individual GSTM1, GSTA1 and GSTP1 genotypes (p>0.05). However, the carriers of GSTT1-active genotype were at 2-fold higher risk of ovarian cancer development (95%C1: 1.00-4.01, p=0.049), which was even more elevated in the subgroup of patients with positive family history of cancer. Moreover, the frequency of all three GST genotypes that might be associated to ovarian cancer risk (GSTT1-active, GSTA1-active and GSTPl-referent) was significantly higher in patients than in the control group (p=0.042). Even more, patients who were carriers of combination of these three genotypes represented over 64% of the total number of patients within any of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages of ovarian cancer. Conclusions: This study provides supportive evidence that GSTs might affect both susceptibility and progression of ovarian cancer.

Even though surgery is the primary treatment of operable breast cancer, it has been known for decades that the administration of postoperative adjuvant or preoperative neoadjuvant therapy is extremely important. Indications for neodjuvant therapy administration have been expanded over the years, and nowadays this kind of treatment represents an inevitable option in early breast cancer treatment. The NeoPULSE project, which gathered a group of experts in the field of breast cancer from five Serbian university centres, was formed with the aim to define optimal breast cancer diagnosis, indications for neoadjuvant therapy, therapeutic combinations in relation to molecular/biological parameters of breast cancer, as well as the treatment after neoadjuvant therapy. During two separate expert meetings involving surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, a pathologist, and a "Blueprint" workshop, the project participants answered questions over the indications for neoadjuvant therapy. The first part covered local practice and referred to the existence and work of a multidisciplinary team, as well as commonly applied therapeutic regimens in the neoadjuvant setting. Experts analysed personal views regarding indications for the administration and benefits of neoadjuvant therapy, their perception on the correlation between achieving a pathological complete response (pCR) and the outcome of treatment, as well as the attitude towards controversies about this type of treatment, primarily regarding a possible change in the receptor status after therapy and therapeutic options after a suboptimal response. The analysis of the answers pointed to problems and deviations from recommendations in everyday clinical practice, based on which appropriate solutions were proposed. The establishment of such a panel and consensus is an attempt to modernize multidisciplinary teams in Serbia, achieve reaching uniform decisions of all subjects dealing with breast cancer, and therefore, at least in one segment, improve breast cancer treatment in Serbia. © 2017 Zerbinis Publications. All rights reserved.

Even though surgery is the primary treatment of operable breast cancer, it has been known for decades that the administration of postoperative adjuvant or preoperative neoadjuvant therapy is extremely important. Indications for neodjuvant therapy administration have been expanded over the years, and nowadays this kind of treatment represents an inevitable option in early breast cancer treatment. The NeoPULSE project, which gathered a group of experts in the field of breast cancer from five Serbian university centres, was formed with the aim to define optimal breast cancer diagnosis, indications for neoadjuvant therapy, therapeutic combinations in relation to molecular/biological parameters of breast cancer, as well as the treatment after neoadjuvant therapy. During two separate expert meetings involving surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, a pathologist, and a "Blueprint" workshop, the project participants answered questions over the indications for neoadjuvant therapy. The first part covered local practice and referred to the existence and work of a multidisciplinary team, as well as commonly applied therapeutic regimens in the neoadjuvant setting. Experts analysed personal views regarding indications for the administration and benefits of neoadjuvant therapy, their perception on the correlation between achieving a pathological complete response (pCR) and the outcome of treatment, as well as the attitude towards controversies about this type of treatment, primarily regarding a possible change in the receptor status after therapy and therapeutic options after a suboptimal response. The analysis of the answers pointed to problems and deviations from recommendations in everyday clinical practice, based on which appropriate solutions were proposed. The establishment of such a panel and consensus is an attempt to modernize multidisciplinary teams in Serbia, achieve reaching uniform decisions of all subjects dealing with breast cancer, and therefore, at least in one segment, improve breast cancer treatment in Serbia. © 2017 Zerbinis Publications. All rights reserved.