Zhenduo Shi

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tadalafil monotherapy for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH). METHODS: A comprehensive search was done to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of tadalafil for LUTS/BPH with placebos. Meta-analytical techniques were applied to evaluate the differences in the study results. RESULTS: Eight studies were identified and analyzed. Compared with placebo, tadalafil was associated with significant improvements in the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) (mean difference = -2.19, p < 0.00001) and the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score (mean difference = +4.66, p < 0.00001), despite the concomitant presence of erectile dysfunction. Significant differences were also observed in the IPSS irritative and obstructive subscores, IPSS quality of life index and BPH impact index. After pooling four doses (2.5, 5, 10 and 20 mg), tadalafil failed to produce a significant outcome in maximal urinary flow rate (Qmax) (mean difference = +0.26 ml/s, p = 0.14), but 5 mg of tadalafil significantly improved Qmax (mean difference = +0.63 ml/s, p = 0.04). No significant difference was detected in the incidence of serious adverse events (risk ratio = 1.00, p = 1.00) after tadalafil treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Tadalafil showed good efficacy and safety for improving LUTS and erectile dysfunction in men with BPH, and 5 mg of tadalafil significantly improved Qmax.

Despite the success of targeted therapies in cancer treatment, therapy-induced resistance remains a major obstacle to a complete cure. Tumor cells evade treatments and relapse via phenotypic switching driven by intrinsic or induced cell plasticity. Several reversible mechanisms have been proposed to circumvent tumor cell plasticity, including epigenetic modifications, regulation of transcription factors, activation or suppression of key signaling pathways, as well as modification of the tumor environment. Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, tumor cell and cancer stem cell formation also serve as roads towards tumor cell plasticity. Corresponding treatment strategies have recently been developed that either target plasticity-related mechanisms or employ combination treatments. In this review, we delineate the formation of tumor cell plasticity and its manipulation of tumor evasion from targeted therapy. We discuss the non-genetic mechanisms of targeted drug-induced tumor cell plasticity in various types of tumors and provide insights into the contribution of tumor cell plasticity to acquired drug resistance. New therapeutic strategies such as inhibition or reversal of tumor cell plasticity are also presented. We also discuss the multitude of clinical trials that are ongoing worldwide with the intention of improving clinical outcomes. These advances provide a direction for developing novel therapeutic strategies and combination therapy regimens that target tumor cell plasticity.

Abstract Protein phosphorylation is an important post‐transcriptional modification involving an extremely wide range of intracellular signaling transduction pathways, making it an important therapeutic target for disease intervention. At present, numerous drugs targeting protein phosphorylation have been developed for the treatment of various diseases including malignant tumors, neurological diseases, infectious diseases, and immune diseases. In this review article, we analyzed 303 small‐molecule protein phosphorylation kinase inhibitors (PKIs) registered and participated in clinical research obtained in a database named Protein Kinase Inhibitor Database (PKIDB), including 68 drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States. Based on previous classifications of kinases, we divided these human protein phosphorylation kinases into eight groups and nearly 50 families, and delineated their main regulatory pathways, upstream and downstream targets. These groups include: protein kinase A, G, and C (AGC) and receptor guanylate cyclase (RGC) group, calmodulin‐dependent protein kinase (CaMK) group, CMGC [Cyclin‐dependent kinases (CDKs), Mitogen‐activated protein kinases (MAPKs), Glycogen synthase kinases (GSKs), and C dc2‐like kinases (CLKs)] group, sterile (STE)‐MAPKs group, tyrosine kinases (TK) group, tyrosine kinase‐like (TKL) group, atypical group, and other groups. Different groups and families of inhibitors stimulate or inhibit others, forming an intricate molecular signaling regulatory network. This review takes newly developed new PKIs as breakthrough point, aiming to clarify the regulatory network and relationship of each pathway, as well as their roles in disease intervention, and provide a direction for future drug development.

PURPOSE: The overall response of cisplatin-based chemotherapy in bladder urothelial carcinoma (BUC) remains unsatisfactory due to the complex pathological subtypes, genomic difference, and drug resistance. The genes that associated with cisplatin resistance remain unclear. Herein, we aimed to identify the cisplatin resistance associated genes in BUC. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The cytotoxicity of cisplatin was evaluated in six bladder cancer cell lines to compare their responses to cisplatin. The T24 cancer cells exhibited the lowest sensitivity to cisplatin and was therefore selected to explore the mechanisms of drug resistance. We performed genome-wide CRISPR screening in T24 cancer cells in vitro, and identified that the gene heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein U (HNRNPU) was the top candidate gene related to cisplatin resistance. Epigenetic and transcriptional profiles of HNRNPU-depleted cells after cisplatin treatment were analyzed to investigate the relationship between HNRNPU and cisplatin resistance. In vivo experiments were also performed to demonstrate the function of HNRNPU depletion in cisplatin sensitivity. RESULTS: Significant correlation was found between HNRNPU expression level and sensitivity to cisplatin in bladder cancer cell lines. In the high HNRNPU expressing T24 cancer cells, knockout of HNRNPU inhibited cell proliferation, invasion, and migration. In addition, loss of HNRNPU promoted apoptosis and S-phase arrest in the T24 cells treated with cisplatin. Data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) demonstrated that HNRNPU expression was significantly higher in tumor tissues than in normal tissues. High HNRNPU level was negatively correlated with patient survival. Transcriptomic profiling analysis showed that knockout of HNRNPU enhanced cisplatin sensitivity by regulating DNA damage repair genes. Furthermore, it was found that HNRNPU regulates chemosensitivity by affecting the expression of neurofibromin 1 (NF1). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that HNRNPU expression is associated with cisplatin sensitivity in bladder urothelial carcinoma cells. Inhibition of HNRNPU could be a potential therapy for cisplatin-resistant bladder cancer.