Search

Low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein-1 (LRP1) plays an important role in regulating energy homeostasis, the integrity of the blood-brain barrier, and metabolic signal transport across the brain, while its dysfunction has been associated with cognitive decline, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease. However, the impact of LRP1 in GABAergic neurons on neurodegeneration and memory is poorly understood. Mice lacking LRP1 in GABAergic neurons (Vgat-Cre; LRP1loxP/loxP) were subjected to behavioral tests for memory and learning. Here we show that the loss of LRP1 in GABAergic neurons causes significant impairment in short-term memory. The spatial Y-maze test revealed that Vgat-Cre; LRP1loxP/loxP mice exhibited decreased travel distance and duration in the novel arm compared to the controls (LRP1loxP/loxP mice). A reduction in correct responses to find the escape platform in the water T-maze test was found when LRP1 is absent in GABAergic neurons. Moreover, the distance and duration in the novel arm as well as the performance of the reversal water T-maze test were negatively correlated with body weight as well as serum levels of leptin, insulin, and ApoJ. Mice lacking LRP1 in GABAergic neurons displayed decreased freezing time in the contextual and cued fear conditioning test. Histopathological evaluation of the hippocampus revealed that Vgat-Cre; LRP1loxP/loxP mice had greater neuronal necrosis and neuroinflammation than those of LRP1loxP/loxP mice. These findings suggest that LRP1 in GABAergic neurons may play a crucial role in maintaining normal memory function and could be a molecular target for neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease.

Background:\ud The tAnGo trial was designed to investigate the potential role of gemcitabine when added to anthracycline and taxane-containing adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer. When this study was developed, gemcitabine had shown significant activity in metastatic breast cancer, and there was evidence of a favourable interaction with paclitaxel.\ud \ud Methods:\ud tAnGo was an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 superiority trial that enrolled women aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed, early-stage breast cancer who had a definite indication for chemotherapy, any nodal status, any hormone receptor status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1, and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. Women were recruited from 127 clinical centres and hospitals in the UK and Ireland, and randomly assigned (1:1) to one of two treatment regimens: epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel (four cycles of 90 mg/m2 intravenously administered epirubicin and 600 mg/m2 intravenously administered cyclophosphamide on day 1 every 3 weeks, followed by four cycles of 175 mg/m2 paclitaxel as a 3 h infusion on day 1 every 3 weeks) or epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (the same chemotherapy regimen as the other group, with the addition of 1250 mg/m2 gemcitabine to the paclitaxel cycles, administered intravenously as a 0·5 h infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks). Patients were randomly assigned by a central computerised deterministic minimisation procedure, with stratification by country, age, radiotherapy intent, nodal status, and oestrogen receptor and HER-2 status. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival and the trial aimed to detect 5% differences in 5-year disease-free survival between the treatment groups. Recruitment completed in 2004 and this is the final, intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with EudraCT (2004-002927-41), ISRCTN (51146252), and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00039546).\ud \ud Findings:\ud Between Aug 22, 2001, and Nov 26, 2004, 3152 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, and gemcitabine (gemcitabine group; n=1576) or to epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel (control group; n=1576). 11 patients (six in the gemcitabine group and five in the control group) were ineligible because of pre-existing metastases and were therefore excluded from the analysis. At this protocol-specified final analysis (median follow-up 10 years [IQR 10–10]), 1087 disease-free survival events and 914 deaths had occurred. Disease-free survival did not differ significantly between the treatment groups at 10 years (65% [63–68] in the gemcitabine group vs 65% [62–67] in the control group), and median disease-free survival was not reached (adjusted hazard ratio 0·97 [95% CI 0·86–1·10], p=0·64). Toxicity, dose intensity, and a detailed safety substudy showed both regimens to be safe, deliverable, and tolerable. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were reported at expected levels in both groups. The most common were neutropenia (527 [34%] of 1565 patients in the gemcitabine group vs 412 [26%] of 1567 in the control group), myalgia and arthralgia (207 [13%] vs 186 [12%]), fatigue (207 [13%] vs 152 [10%]), infection (202 [13%] vs 141 [9%]), vomiting (143 [9%] vs 108 [7%]), and nausea (132 [8%] vs 102 [7%]).\ud \ud Interpretation:\ud The addition of gemcitabine to anthracycline and taxane-based adjuvant chemotherapy at this dose and schedule confers no therapeutic advantage in terms of disease-free survival in early breast cancer, although it can cause increased toxicity. Therefore, gemcitabine has not been added to standard adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer for any subgroup.\ud \ud Funding:\ud Cancer Research UK core funding for Clinical Trials Unit at the University of Birmingham, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer.

Overdiagnosis, and thus overtreatment, are inevitable consequences of most screening programmes; identification of ways of minimising the impact of overdiagnosis demands new prospective research, in particular the need to separate clinically relevant lesions that require active treatment from those that can be safely left alone or monitored and only need treated if they change characteristics. Breast cancer screening has led to a large increase in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnoses. This is a widely heterogeneous disease and most DCIS detected through screening is of high cytonuclear grade and therefore likely to be important clinically. However, the historic practice of surgical treatment for all DCIS is unlikely to be optimal for lower risk patients. A clearer understanding of how to manage DCIS is required. This article describes the background and development of ‘The low risk’ DCIS trial (LORIS), a phase III trial of surgery versus active monitoring. LORIS will determine if it is appropriate to manage women with screen detected or asymptomatic, low grade and intermediate grade DCIS with low grade features, by active monitoring rather than by surgical treatment.

SummaryBackgroundAnthracyclines and taxanes have been the standard neoadjuvant chemotherapies for breast cancer in the past decade. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of the addition of gemcitabine to accelerated paclitaxel with epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, and also the effect of sequencing the blocks of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide and paclitaxel (with or without gemcitabine).MethodsIn our randomised, open-label, 2×2 factorial phase 3 trial (Neo-tAnGo), we enrolled women (aged >18 years) with newly diagnosed breast cancer (tumour size >20 mm) at 57 centres in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned via a central randomisation procedure to epirubicin and cyclophosphamide then paclitaxel (with or without gemcitabine) or paclitaxel (with or without gemcitabine) then epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. Four cycles of each component were given. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR), defined as absence of invasive cancer in the breast and axillary lymph nodes. This study is registered with EudraCT (2004-002356-34), ISRCTN (78234870), and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00070278).FindingsBetween Jan 18, 2005, and Sept 28, 2007, we randomly allocated 831 participants; 207 received epirubicin and cyclophosphamide then paclitaxel; 208 were given paclitaxel then epirubicin and cyclophosphamide; 208 had epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel and gemcitabine; and 208 received paclitaxel and gemcitabine then epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. 828 patients were eligible for analysis. Median follow-up was 47 months (IQR 37–51). 207 (25%) patients had inflammatory or locally advanced disease, 169 (20%) patients had tumours larger than 50 mm, 413 (50%) patients had clinical involvement of axillary nodes, 276 (33%) patients had oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative disease, and 191 (27%) patients had HER2-positive disease. Addition of gemcitabine did not increase pCR: 70 (17%, 95% CI 14–21) of 404 patients in the epirubicin and cyclophosphamide then paclitaxel group achieved pCR compared with 71 (17%, 14–21) of 408 patients who received additional gemcitabine (p=0·98). Receipt of a taxane before anthracycline was associated with improved pCR: 82 (20%, 95% CI 16–24) of 406 patients who received paclitaxel with or without gemcitabine followed by epirubicin and cyclophosphamide achieved pCR compared with 59 (15%, 11–18) of 406 patients who received epirubicin and cyclophosphamide first (p=0·03). Grade 3 toxicities were reported at expected levels: 173 (21%) of 812 patients who received treatment and had full treatment details had grade 3 neutropenia, 66 (8%) had infection, 41 (5%) had fatigue, 41 (5%) had muscle and joint pains, 37 (5%) had nausea, 36 (4%) had vomiting, 34 (4%) had neuropathy, 23 (3%) had transaminitis, 16 (2%) had acute hypersensitivity, and 20 (2%) had a rash. 86 (11%) patients had grade 4 neutropenia and 3 (