Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
Filter
All
- All
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Volume
- References
Filter
All
- All
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Volume
- References
Filter
All
- All
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Volume
- References
Filter
All
- All
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Volume
- References
Filter
All
- All
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Volume
- References
Filter
All
- All
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Volume
- References
NARROW
Format
Subjects
Journal
Article Type
Issue Section
Date
Availability
1-20 of 508
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Journal Articles
Kristie A. Blum, Jeffrey G. Supko, Michael B. Maris, Ian W. Flinn, Andre Goy, Anas Younes, Suresh Bobba, Adrian M. Senderowicz, Sergey Efuni, Ronda Rippley, Gozde Colak, Patrick Trojer, Jeremy S. Abramson
Journal:
Cancer Research Communications
Cancer Research Communications (2022) 2 (8): 795–805.
Published: 11 August 2022
Includes: Supplementary data
Images
in A Phase I Study of Pelabresib (CPI-0610), a Small-Molecule Inhibitor of BET Proteins, in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Lymphoma
> Cancer Research Communications
Published: 11 August 2022
FIGURE 1 Relationship between pelabresib and platelet count values. A, Day 14 platelet count as a function of steady state AUC of pelabresib. B, Day 14 mean platelet count as a percent of baseline compared with pelabresib mean AUC. The coefficient of determination (R2) = 0.8122, obtained from a simple linear regression model with mean platelet count ratio as the dependent variable and pelabresib capsule dose as the independent variable (tablet doses were multiplied by 1.34 to convert to capsule doses). C, Mean platelet count over time. AUC, area under the curve; CPI-0610, pelabresib; CXDX, Cycle number Day number; X mg C, Capsule pelabresib dose; X mg T, Tablet pelabresib dose. More
Images
in A Phase I Study of Pelabresib (CPI-0610), a Small-Molecule Inhibitor of BET Proteins, in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Lymphoma
> Cancer Research Communications
Published: 11 August 2022
FIGURE 2 Mean pelabresib plasma profiles and dose proportionality. A, Mean pelabresib plasma profile over time at Cycle 1 Day 1. B, Mean pelabresib plasma profile over time at Cycle 1 Day 14. C, Dose proportionality of mean steady-state AUC of patients treated with capsule and tablet doses o... More
Images
in A Phase I Study of Pelabresib (CPI-0610), a Small-Molecule Inhibitor of BET Proteins, in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Lymphoma
> Cancer Research Communications
Published: 11 August 2022
FIGURE 3 Gene expression analysis of IL8 and CCR1 transcript levels after treatment with pelabresib. A, Relative expression of IL8 blood mRNA levels prior to and 2, 6, and 8 hours after pelabresib treatment. B, Relative expression of CCR1 blood mRNA levels prior to and 2, 6, and 8 hours after pelabresib treatment. Relative mRNA expression of IL8 and CCR1 after dosing is shown relative to the pretreatment values (y axis). C, Relative IL8 and CCR1 mRNA expression compared to the Cycle 1 Day 14 steady-state AUC. IL8 and CCR1 are represented as the average at the 2-hour time point following pelabresib administration over that of baseline in each dose group. The steady state (C1D14) AUC0–24 (hour/ng/mL, geometric mean of each dose level) is shown on the right y axis. T = tablet 125 mg and 225 mg were tablet formulations; all other doses were capsule formulation. More
Journal Articles
Natalia E. Cortez, Cecilia Rodriguez Lanzi, Brian V. Hong, Jihao Xu, Fangyi Wang, Shuai Chen, Jon J. Ramsey, Matthew G. Pontifex, Michael Müller, David Vauzour, Payam Vahmani, Chang-Il Hwang, Karen Matsukuma, Gerardo G. Mackenzie
Journal:
Cancer Research Communications
Cancer Research Communications CRC-22-0256.
Published: 11 August 2022
Includes: Supplementary data
Journal Articles
Mariafausta Fischietti, Frank Eckerdt, Ricardo E. Perez, Jamie N. Guillen Magaña, Candice Mazewski, Sang Ho, Christopher Gonzalez, Lukas D. Streich, Elspeth M. Beauchamp, Amy B. Heimberger, Aneta H. Baran, Feng Yue, C. David James, Leonidas C. Platanias
Journal:
Cancer Research Communications
Cancer Research Communications CRC-22-0192.
Published: 11 August 2022
Includes: Supplementary data
Journal Articles
Caroline Phillips, Inder Bhamra, Catherine Eagle, Eimear Flanagan, Richard Armer, Clifford D. Jones, Matilda Bingham, Peter Calcraft, Alicia Edmenson Cook, Ben Thompson, Simon A. Woodcock
Journal:
Cancer Research Communications
Cancer Research Communications CRC-21-0095.
Published: 11 August 2022
Includes: Supplementary data
Journal Articles
Valentino Clemente, Asumi Hoshino, Mihir Shetty, Andrew Nelson, Britt K. Erickson, Ruth Baker, Nathan Rubin, Mahmoud Khalifa, S. John Weroha, Emil Lou, Martina Bazzaro
Journal:
Cancer Research Communications
Cancer Research Communications (2022) 2 (8): 784–794.
Published: 10 August 2022
Includes: Supplementary data
Images
in GLS1 is a Protective Factor in Patients with Ovarian Clear Cell Carcinoma and its Expression Does Not Correlate with ARID1A-mutated Tumors
> Cancer Research Communications
Published: 10 August 2022
FIGURE 1 ARID1A loss negatively correlates with the prognosis of 0.24–1.49OCCC. A, Top, representative images of ARID1A-negative or -positive OCCC clinical specimens and their respective Frequency distribution of the immunoreactivity scores for ARID1A; the dotted line represents the cutoff used to discriminate between ARID1A positive (+) and ARID1A negative (−) patients. C, Survival curves of ARID1A+vs. ARID1A− patients expressed in years. From the left to the right: PFS [36 vs. 19; P = 0.046; HR = 0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.19–0.98], cancer-specific survival, CSS (36 vs. 18; P = 0.003; HR = 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06–0.55), overall survival (OS; 36 vs. 19; P = 0.004; HR = 0.23, 95% CI, 0.09–0.63). More
Images
in GLS1 is a Protective Factor in Patients with Ovarian Clear Cell Carcinoma and its Expression Does Not Correlate with ARID1A-mutated Tumors
> Cancer Research Communications
Published: 10 August 2022
FIGURE 2 Stage I/II ARID1A negative patients have the same prognoses as stage III/IV ARID1A-positive patients. A, Survival curves of ARID1A+ (red) vs. ARID1A− (blue) stage I/II patients expressed in years. From the left to the right: PFS (24 vs. 15; P = 0.034; HR = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09–0.91), CSS (24 vs. 14; P = 0.0005; HR = 17.27; 95% CI, 2.538–117.6 – Mantel-Cox's logrank test), OS (24 vs. 15; P = 0.009; HR = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02–0.59). B, Survival curves of stage III/IV ARID1A+ (red) vs. stage I/II ARID1A− (blue) patients expressed in years. From the left to the right: PFS (12 vs. 15; P = 0.235; HR, 0.52; 95 CI, 0.18–1.52), CSS (12 vs. 14; P = 0.994; HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.29–3.49), OS (12 vs. 15; P = 0.899; HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.33–3.56). More
Images
in GLS1 is a Protective Factor in Patients with Ovarian Clear Cell Carcinoma and its Expression Does Not Correlate with ARID1A-mutated Tumors
> Cancer Research Communications
Published: 10 August 2022
FIGURE 3 GLS1 expression is negatively correlated with ARID1A loss in OCCC. A, Top, representative images of GLS1 IHC staining in ARID1A-positive and ARID1A-negative OCCC specimens; bottom, respective ARID1A immunostainings. B, Frequency distribution of the GLS1 H-scores in ARID1A+ and ARID1A− OCCC. C, Expression levels of GLS1 in ARID1A+ and ARID1A− OCCC (ARID1A+ vs. ARID1A−: P = 0.0012). n = number of clinical specimens per group. The circled dots represent the cases for which an additional Western blot analysis has been performed. D, Representative images of GLS1 IHC staining in ARID1A wild-type (WT) and ARID1A-mutated (mut.) OCCC specimens. E, Expression levels of GLS1 in ARID1A wild-type (WT) and ARID1A-mutated (mut) OCCC. n = number of clinical specimens per group. More
Images
in GLS1 is a Protective Factor in Patients with Ovarian Clear Cell Carcinoma and its Expression Does Not Correlate with ARID1A-mutated Tumors
> Cancer Research Communications
Published: 10 August 2022
FIGURE 4 GLS1 expression in ARID1A-negative OCCC is similar to the one of normal tissues. A, Bottom left and its inset, representative image of GLS1 staining in normal ovary. Bottom center and its inset, representative image of GLS1 staining in normal Fallopian tube. Bottom right, representative image of GLS1 staining in ARID1A-negative (−) OCCC. B, Expression levels of GLS1 in ARID1A-negative OCCC and in normal tissues. (ARID1A- vs. normal: P = 0.8285). n = number of clinical specimens per group. More
Images
in GLS1 is a Protective Factor in Patients with Ovarian Clear Cell Carcinoma and its Expression Does Not Correlate with ARID1A-mutated Tumors
> Cancer Research Communications
Published: 10 August 2022
FIGURE 5 GLS1 overexpression may be a protective factor in OCCC. A, Kaplan-Meier curves of OCCC patients, divided by high (≥200, blue), intermediate (<200, ≥100, red) and low (<100, black) GLS1 expression levels. From left to right: PFS (12 vs. 19 vs. 22; P = 0.013; HR by 10 points increase = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88–0.99), CSS (12 vs. 19 vs. 21; P = 0.014; HR by 10 points increase = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85–0.98). OS (12 vs. 19 vs. 22; P = 0.021; HR by 10 points increase = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87–0.99). Survival times are expressed in years. B, Kaplan–Meier curves of ARID1A+ patients, divided by high (≥200, blue), intermediate (<200, ≥100, red) and low (<100, black) GLS1 expression levels. From left to right: PFS (11 vs. 14 vs. 10, P = 0.023, HR by 10 points increase = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84–0.99), CSS (11 vs. 14 vs. 10, P = 0.036, HR by 10 points increase = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79–0.99), OS (11 vs. 14 vs. 10, P = 0.093; HR by 10 points increase = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85–1.01). Survival times are expressed in years. C, Kaplan–Meier curves of ARID1A− patients, divided by high (≥200, blue), intermediate (<200, ≥100, red) and low (<100, black) GLS1 expression levels. From left to right: PFS (1 vs. 4 vs. 12, P = 0.487; HR by 10 points increase = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86–1.07), CSS (1 vs. 4 vs. 11; P = 0.647; HR by 10 points increase = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87–1.09), OS (1 vs. 4 vs. 12; P = 0.511; HR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87–1.07). Survival times are expressed in years. More
Journal Articles
Hiroyasu Konno, Tracey Lin, Renyi Wu, Xinchuan Dai, Shou Li, Grace Wang, Min Chen, Wenying Li, Lina Wang, Bee-Chun Sun, Zhen Luo, Tom Huang, Yuping Chen, John Zhang, Qiuping Ye, David Bellovin, Bing Wan, Lishan Kang, Christopher Szeto, Karl Hsu, Omar Kabbarah
Journal:
Cancer Research Communications
Cancer Research Communications CRC-22-0216.
Published: 09 August 2022
Includes: Supplementary data
Journal Articles
Lei Wang, Lai Wei, Shijun Zhang, Lijun Cheng, Aditi Shendre, William E Carson, James L Chen, Dwight H Owen, Megan Gregory, Lang Li
Journal:
Cancer Research Communications
Cancer Research Communications CRC-22-0160.
Published: 09 August 2022
Includes: Supplementary data
Journal Articles
Robert H.I. Andtbacka, Yan Wang, Robert H. Pierce, Jean S. Campbell, Melinda Yushak, Mohammed M Milhem, Merrick I. Ross, Kathleen Niland, Robert D Arbeit, Sudha Parasuraman, Kris Bickley, Cecilia Yeung, Lauri D Aicher, Kimberly S. Smythe, Lu Gan
Journal:
Cancer Research Communications
Cancer Research Communications CRC-22-0090.
Published: 09 August 2022
Includes: Supplementary data
Journal Articles
Journal:
Cancer Research Communications
Cancer Research Communications CRC-22-0126.
Published: 09 August 2022
Includes: Supplementary data
Journal Articles
Akio Takeuchi, Naoki Asano, Akira Imatani, Masashi Saito, Xiaoyi Jin, Masahiro Saito, Takeshi Kanno, Waku Hatta, Kaname Uno, Tomoyuki Koike, Atsushi Masamune
Journal:
Cancer Research Communications
Cancer Research Communications (2022) 2 (8): 772–783.
Published: 08 August 2022
Includes: Supplementary data
Images
in Suppressed Cellular Senescence Mediated by T-box3 in Aged Gastric Epithelial Cells may Contribute to Aging-related Carcinogenesis
> Cancer Research Communications
Published: 08 August 2022
FIGURE 1 Aged gastric organoids exhibit increased cellular proliferation and enhanced Wnt/β-catenin signaling. A, Representative images of young and aged gastric organoids on days 0 and 4. Scale bar: 500 μm. B, The numbers of young and aged gastric organoids larger than 50 μm in diameter on days 0, 2, and 4 (n = 3). C, Cell viability assay of young and aged gastric organoids performed on day 4. D, Survival of the young and aged gastric organoids (n = 3). E, Representative images of young and aged gastric organoids cultured in the presence (WRC+) and the absence (WRC−) of Wnt3a, R-Spondin1, and Chir99021. Scale bar: 500 μm. F, Cell viability assay of young and aged gastric organoids cultured in WRC+ and WRC− medium performed on day 4 (n = 3). G, TCF reporter activity of young and aged gastric organoids (n = 3). n.s., not significant; *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001. More
Images
in Suppressed Cellular Senescence Mediated by T-box3 in Aged Gastric Epithelial Cells may Contribute to Aging-related Carcinogenesis
> Cancer Research Communications
Published: 08 August 2022
FIGURE 2 Cellular senescence is suppressed in aged gastric organoids. A, GSEA for (left) G2–M checkpoint-related genes and (right) senescence-related genes. B, The expression of genes related to cellular proliferation and cell cycle in young and aged gastric organoids (n = 3). C, The expression of senescence-inducing genes in young and aged gastric organoids (n = 3). D, Immunofluorescence for genes related to cellular proliferation and senescence in young and aged gastric organoids (n = 5). E-cad: E-cadherin. E, Representative images of SABG assay for young and aged gastric organoids. Scale bar: 50 μm. F, The ratio of senescent cells in young and aged gastric organoids assessed by SABG assay (n = 3). G, The expression of SASP-related genes in young and aged gastric organoids (n = 3). n.s., not significant; *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001. More