Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Cancer
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Prediction of 5–year overall survival in cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy using computational intelligence methods

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Computational intelligence methods, including non-linear classification algorithms, can be used in medical research and practice as a decision making tool. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of artificial intelligence models for 5–year overall survival prediction in patients with cervical cancer treated by radical hysterectomy.

Methods

The data set was collected from 102 patients with cervical cancer FIGO stage IA2-IIB, that underwent primary surgical treatment. Twenty-three demographic, tumor-related parameters and selected perioperative data of each patient were collected. The simulations involved six computational intelligence methods: the probabilistic neural network (PNN), multilayer perceptron network, gene expression programming classifier, support vector machines algorithm, radial basis function neural network and k-Means algorithm. The prediction ability of the models was determined based on the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, as well as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The results of the computational intelligence methods were compared with the results of linear regression analysis as a reference model.

Results

The best results were obtained by the PNN model. This neural network provided very high prediction ability with an accuracy of 0.892 and sensitivity of 0.975. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of PNN was also high, 0.818. The outcomes obtained by other classifiers were markedly worse.

Conclusions

The PNN model is an effective tool for predicting 5–year overall survival in cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy.
Literature
1.
Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA: Cancer J Clin. 2015; 65(2):87–108.
2.
3.
Polterauer S, Grimm C, Hofstetter G, Concin N, Natter C, Sturdza A, et al.Nomogram prediction for overall survival of patients diagnosed with cervical cancer. British J Cancer. 2012; 107(6):918–24.CrossRef
4.
Zhou H, Li X, Zhang Y, Jia Y, Hu T, Yang R, et al.Establishing a Nomogram for Stage IA-IIB Cervical Cancer Patients after Complete Resection. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prevent. 2015; 16(9):3773–7.CrossRef
5.
Brewer N, Borman B, Sarfati D, Jeffreys M, Fleming ST, Cheng S, et al.Does comorbidity explain the ethnic inequalities in cervical cancer survival in New Zealand? A retrospective cohort study. BMC Cancer. 2011; 11(1):132.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Bottaci L, Drew PJ, Hartley JE, Hadfield MB, Farouk R, Lee PW, et al.Artificial neural networks applied to outcome prediction for colorectal cancer patients in separate institutions. The Lancet. 1997; 350(9076):469–72.CrossRef
7.
Kluska J, Kusy M, Obrzut B. Prediction of Radical Hysterectomy Complications for Cervical Cancer Using Computational Intelligence Methods In: Rutkowski L, Korytkowski M, Sherer R, Tadeusiewicz R, Zadeh LA, Zurada J, editors. Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing: 11th International Conference, ICAISC 2012, Zakopane, Poland, April 29-May 3, 2012, Proceedings, Part II. Berlin: Springer-Verlag: 2012. p. 259–67.
8.
Kusy M, Obrzut B, Kluska J. Application of gene expression programming and neural networks to predict adverse events of radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer patients. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2013; 51(12):1357–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Sato F, Shimada Y, Selaru FM, Shibata D, Maeda M, Watanabe G, et al.Prediction of survival in patients with esophageal carcinoma using artificial neural networks. Cancer. 2005; 103(8):1596–605.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Shi HY, Lee KT, Lee HH, Ho WH, Sun DP, Wang JJ, et al.Comparison of artificial neural network and logistic regression models for predicting in-hospital mortality after primary liver cancer surgery. PloS ONE. 2012; 7(4):1–6.CrossRef
11.
Chassagne D, Sismondi P, Horiot J, Sinistrero G, Bey P, Zola P, et al.A glossary for reporting complications of treatment in gynecological cancers. Radiothe Oncol. 1993; 26(3):195–202.CrossRef
12.
13.
Specht DF. Probabilistic neural networks and the polynomial Adaline as complementary techniques for classification. Neural Netw IEEE Trans. 1990; 1(1):111–21.CrossRef
14.
Rumelhart DE, McClelland JL, PDP Research Group C, (eds). Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Vol. 1: Foundations. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1986.
15.
Ferreira C. Gene expression programming: mathematical modeling by an artificial intelligence: Springer: Berlin; 2006.
16.
Vapnik V. The nature of statistical learning theory.Springer-Verlag, New York; 1995.
17.
Broomhead DS, Lowe D. Multivariable functional interpolation and adaptive networks. Complex Systems. 1988; 2:321–55.
18.
Chen S, Wang X, Harris CJ. Experiments with repeating weighted boosting search for optimization signal processing applications. Syst Man Cybernet Part B Cybernet IEEE Trans. 2005; 35(4):682–93.CrossRef
19.
Hartigan JA, Wong MA. A k-means clustering algorithm. J R Stat Soc Series C (Appl Stat). 1979; 1:100–8.
20.
Kohavi R. A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. In: Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 14. Stanford: Morgan Kaufmann: 1995. p. 1137–43.
21.
Biglarian A, Bakhshi E, Gohari MR, Khodabakhshi R. Artificial neural network for prediction of distant metastasis in colorectal cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prevent. 2012; 13(3):927–30.CrossRef
22.
Chien CW, Lee YC, Ma T, Lee TS, Lin YC, Wang W, et al.The application of artificial neural networks and decision tree model in predicting post-operative complication for gastric cancer patients. Hepatogastroenterology. 2008; 55(84):1140–5.PubMed
23.
Zhang XP, Wang ZL, Tang L, Sun YS, Cao K, Gao Y. Support vector machine model for diagnosis of lymph node metastasis in gastric cancer with multidetector computed tomography: a preliminary study. BMC Cancer. 2011; 11(1):10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Haseena HH, Mathew AT, Paul JK. Fuzzy clustered probabilistic and multi layered feed forward neural networks for electrocardiogram arrhythmia classification. J Med Syst. 2011; 35(2):179–88.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Pan G, Yan G, Qiu X, Cui J. Bleeding detection in wireless capsule endoscopy based on probabilistic neural network. J Med Syst. 2011; 35(6):1477–84.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Orr RK. Use of a probabilistic neural network to estimate the risk of mortality after cardiac surgery. Med Decis Making. 1997; 17(2):178–85.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Stehman FB, Bundy BN, Disaia PJ, Keys HM, Larson JE, Fowler WC. Carcinoma of the cervix treated with radiation therapy I. A multi-variate analysis of prognostic variables in the gynecologic oncology group. Cancer. 1991; 67(11):2776–85.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Fyles AW, Pintilie M, Kirkbride P, Levin W, Manchul LA, Rawlings GA. Prognostic factors in patients with cervix cancer treated by radiation therapy: results of a multiple regression analysis. Radiothe Oncol. 1995; 35(2):107–17.CrossRef
29.
Quinn M, Benedet J, Odicino F, Maisonneuve P, Beller U, Creasman W, et al.Carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2006; 95(S1):43–103.CrossRef
30.
Piver MS, Chung WS. Prognostic significance of cervical lesion size and pelvic node metastases in cervical carcinoma. Obstet Gynaecol. 1975; 46(5):507–10.
31.
Baltzer J, Koepcke W. Tumor size and lymph node metastases in squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 1979; 227(3):271–8.
32.
Perez CA, Grigsby PW, Chao KC, Mutch DG, Lockett MA. Tumor size, irradiation dose, and long-term outcome of carcinoma of uterine cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998; 41(2):307–17.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Horn LC, Fischer U, Raptis G, Bilek K, Hentschel B. Tumor size is of prognostic value in surgically treated FIGO stage II cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2007; 107(2):310–5.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Eifel PJ, Jhingran A, Levenback CF, Tucker S. Predictive value of a proposed subclassification of stages I and II cervical cancer based on clinical tumor diameter. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009; 19(1):2–7.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Kristensen GB, Abeler VM, Risberg B, Tropé C, Bryne M. Tumor size, depth of invasion, and grading of the invasive tumor front are the main prognostic factors in early squamous cell cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1999; 74(2):245–51.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Trattner M, Graf AH, Lax S, Forstner R, Dandachi N, Haas J, et al.Prognostic factors in surgically treated stage Ib–IIb cervical carcinomas with special emphasis on the importance of tumor volume. Gynecol Oncol. 2001; 82(1):11–16.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Wagner AE, Pappas L, Ghia AJ, Gaffney DK. Impact of tumor size on survival in cancer of the cervix and validation of stage IIA1 and IIA2 subdivisions. Gynecol Oncol. 2013; 129(3):517–21.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Delgado G, Bundy B, Zaino R, Sevin BU, Creasman WT, Major F. Prospective surgical-pathological study of disease-free interval in patients with stage IB squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 1990; 38(3):352–7.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Sedlis A, Bundy BN, Rotman MZ, Lentz SS, Muderspach LI, Zaino RJ. A randomized trial of pelvic radiation therapy versus no further therapy in selected patients with stage IB carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: A Gynecol Oncol. Group Study. Gynecol Oncol. 1999; 73(2):177–83.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Inoue T, Okumura M. Prognostic significance of parametrial extension in patients with cervical carcinoma stages IB, IIA, and IIB. A study of 628 cases treated by radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy with or without postoperative irradiation. Cancer. 1984; 54(8):1714–9.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Zreik TG, Chambers JT, Chambers SK. Parametrial involvement, regardless of nodal status: a poor prognostic factor for cervical cancer. Obstet Gynaecol. 1996; 87(5):741–6.CrossRef
42.
Peters IIIWA, Liu P, Barrett RJ, Stock RJ, Monk BJ, Berek JS, et al.Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18(8):1606–13.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Winer I, Alvarado-Cabrero I, Hassan O, Ahmed QF, Alosh B, Bandyopadhyay S, et al.The prognostic significance of histologic type in early stage cervical cancer–A multi-institutional study. Gynecol Oncol. 2015; 137(3):474–8.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Shingleton HM, Bell MC, Fremgen A, Chmiel JS, Russell AH, Jones WB, et al.Is there really a difference in survival of women with squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous cell carcinoma of the cervix?. Cancer. 1995; 76(S10):1948–55.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Look KY, Brunetto VL, Clarke-Pearson DL, Averette HE, Major FJ, Alvarez RD, et al.An analysis of cell type in patients with surgically staged stage IB carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecol Oncol. Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 1996; 63(3):304–11.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Kilgore LC, Soong SJ, Gore H, Shingleton HM, Hatch KD, Partridge EE. Analysis of prognostic features in adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 1988; 31(1):137–48.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Alfsen GC, Kristensen GB, Skovlund E, Pettersen EO, Abeler VM. Histologic subtype has minor importance for overall survival in patients with adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: a population-based study of prognostic factors in 505 patients with non-squamous cell carcinomas of the cervix. Cancer. 2001; 92(9):2471–83.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Lee KBM, Lee JM, Park CY, Lee KB, Cho HY, Ha SY. What is the difference between squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the cervix? A matched case–control study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006; 16(4):1569–73.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Chen RJ, Lin YH, Chen CA, Huang SC, Chow SN, Hsieh CY. Influence of histologic type and age on survival rates for invasive cervical carcinoma in Taiwan. Gynecol Oncol. 1999; 73(2):184–90.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Nakanishi T, Ishikawa H, Suzuki Y, Inoue T, Nakamura S, Kuzuya K. A comparison of prognoses of pathologic stage Ib adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 2000; 79(2):289–93.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Irie T, Kigawa J, Minagawa Y, Itamochi H, Sato S, Akeshima R, et al.Prognosis and clinicopathological characteristics of Ib-IIb adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix in patients who have had radical hysterectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2000; 26(5):464–7.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Takeda N, Sakuragi N, Takeda M, Okamoto K, Kuwabara M, Negishi H, et al.Multivariate analysis of histopathologic prognostic factors for invasive cervical cancer treated with radical hysterectomy and systematic retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2002; 81(12):1144–51.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Davy ML, Dodd TJ, Luke CG, Roder DM. Cervical cancer: effect of glandular cell type on prognosis, treatment, and survival. Obstet Gynaecol. 2003; 101(1):38–45.
54.
Landoni F, Maneo A, Cormio G, Perego P, Milani R, Caruso O, et al.Class II versus class III radical hysterectomy in stage IB–IIA cervical cancer: a prospective randomized study. Gynecol Oncol. 2001; 80(1):3–12.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Van Nagell J, Donaldson E, Parker J, Van Dyke A, Wood E. The prognostic significance of pelvic lymph node morphology in carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1978; 33(3):201–4.CrossRef
56.
Zaino R, Ward S, Delgado G, Bundy B, Gore H, Fetter G, et al.Histopathologic predictors of the behavior of surgically treated stage IB squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix a gynecologic oncology group study. Cancer. 1992; 69(7):1750–8.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Burghardt E, Pickel H, Haas J, Lahousen M. Prognostic factors and operative treatment of stages IB to IIB cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987; 156(4):988–96.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Creasman WT, Zaino RJ, Major FJ, DiSaia PJ, Hatch KD, Homesley HD. Early invasive carcinoma of the cervix (3 to 5 mm invasion): risk factors and prognosis: a Gynecol Oncol. Group study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 178(1):62–5.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Inoue T. Prognostic significance of the depth of invasion relating to nodal metastases, parametrial extension, and cell types: A study of 628 cases with stage IB, IIA, and IIB cervical carcinoma. Cancer. 1984; 54(12):3035–42.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Obrzut B, Semczuk A, Narog M, Obrzut M, Krol P. Prognostic parameters for patients with cervical cancer FIGO stages IA2-IIB: a long-term follow-up. Oncology. 2017; 93(2):106–14.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Obrzut B. Impact of the extent of surgery on the treatment outcomes in patients with cervical cancer FIGO IA2-IIB.Poznan: Osrodek Wydawnictw Naukowych; 2008. (In Polish).
62.
Lapuz C, Kondalsamy-Chennakesavan S, Bernshaw D, Khaw P, Narayan K. Stage IB cervix cancer with nodal involvement treated with primary surgery or primary radiotherapy: Patterns of failure and outcomes in a contemporary population. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2016; 60:274–82.CrossRefPubMed
63.
Inoue T, Morita K. The prognostic significance of number of positive nodes in cervical carcinoma stages IB, IIA, and IIB. Cancer. 1990; 65(9):1923–7.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Heller P, Malfetano J, Bundy B, Barnhill D, Okagaki T. Clinical-pathologic study of stage IIB, III, and IVA carcinoma of the cervix: extended diagnostic evaluation for paraaortic node metastasis–a Gynecol Oncol Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 1990; 38(3):425–30.CrossRefPubMed
65.
Sakuragi N, Satoh C, Takeda N, Hareyama H, Takeda M, Yamamoto R, et al.Incidence and distribution pattern of pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with stages IB, IIA, and IIB cervical carcinoma treated with radical hysterectomy. Cancer. 1999; 85(7):1547–54.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Kamura T, Tsukamoto N, Tsuruchi N, Saito T, Matsuyama T, Akazawa K, et al.Multivariate analysis of the histopathologic prognostic factors of cervical cancer in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy. Cancer. 1992; 69(1):181–6.CrossRefPubMed
67.
Kristensen GB, Abeler VM, Risberg B, Tropé C, Bryne M. Tumor size, depth of invasion, and grading of the invasive tumor front are the main prognostic factors in early squamous cell cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1999; 74(2):245–51.CrossRefPubMed
68.
Baltzer J, Koepcke W, Lohe K, Ober K, Zander J. Age and 5-year survival rates in patients with operated carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 1982; 14(2):220–4.CrossRefPubMed
69.
Meanwell CA, Kelly KA, Wilson S, Roginski C, Woodman C, Griffiths R, et al.Young age as a prognostic factor in cervical cancer: analysis of population based data from 10 022 cases. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1988; 296(6619):386–91.CrossRef
70.
Rutledge FN, Mitchell MF, Munsell M, Bass S, McGuffee V, Atkinson EN. Youth as a prognostic factor in carcinoma of the cervix: a matched analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 1992; 44(2):123–30.CrossRefPubMed
71.
Austin J, Degefu S, Torres J, Bush DJ, O’quinn AG, Ozmen N, et al.Cervical carcinoma in women less than 35 years of age. South Med J. 1994; 87(3):375–9.CrossRefPubMed
72.
Stuart G, Robertson D, Fedorkow D, Duggan M, Nation J. Recurrent and persistent squamous cell cervical carcinoma in women under age 35. Gynecol Oncol. 1988; 30(2):163–72.CrossRefPubMed
73.
Fedorkow DM, Robertson DI, Duggan MA, Nation JG, McGregor SE, Stuart GC. Invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix in women less than 35 years old: recurrent versus nonrecurrent disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 158(2):307–11.CrossRefPubMed
74.
Dattoli MJ, Gretz HF, Beller U, Lerch IA, Demopoulos RI, Beckman EM, et al.Analysis of multiple prognostic factors in patients with stage IB cervical cancer: Age as a major determinant. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1989; 17(1):41–7.CrossRefPubMed
75.
Lee YY, Choi CH, Kim TJ, Lee JW, Kim BG, Lee JH, et al.A comparison of pure adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy in stage IB–IIA. Gynecol Oncol. 2011; 120(3):439–43.CrossRefPubMed
76.
Landoni F, Maneo A, Cormio G, Perego P, Milani R, Caruso O, et al.Class II versus class III radical hysterectomy in stage IB–IIA cervical cancer: a prospective randomized study. Gynecol Oncol. 2001; 80(1):3–12.CrossRefPubMed
77.
Burke HB, Goodman PH, Rosen DB, Henson DE, Weinstein JN, Harrell FE, et al.Artificial neural networks improve the accuracy of cancer survival prediction. Cancer. 1997; 79(4):857–62.CrossRefPubMed
78.
Ochi T, Murase K, Fujii T, Kawamura M, Ikezoe J. Survival prediction using artificial neural networks in patients with uterine cervical cancer treated by radiation therapy alone. International J Clin Oncol. 2002; 7(5):294–300.
79.
Tripepi G, Jager KJ, Dekker FW, Zoccali C. Statistical methods for the assessment of prognostic biomarkers (Part I): discrimination. Nephrol Dial Transpl. 2010; 25(5):1399–401.CrossRef
80.
Tripepi G, Jager KJ, Dekker FW, Zoccali C. Diagnostic methods 2: receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Kidney Int. 2009; 76(3):252–6.CrossRefPubMed
81.
Kasamatsu T, Onda T, Sawada M, Kato T, Ikeda Si. Radical hysterectomy for FIGO stage IIB cervical cancer: clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic evaluation. Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 114(1):69–74.CrossRefPubMed
82.
Mabuchi S, Okazawa M, Matsuo K, Kawano M, Suzuki O, Miyatake T, et al.Impact of histological subtype on survival of patients with surgically-treated stage IA2–IIB cervical cancer: adenocarcinoma versus squamous cell carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2012; 127(1):114–20.CrossRefPubMed
83.
Chai Y, Wang T, Wang J, Yang Y, Gao Y, Gao J, et al.Radical hysterectomy with adjuvant radiotherapy versus radical radiotherapy for FIGO stage IIB cervical cancer. BMC Cancer. 2014; 14(1):63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
84.
Lee YJ, Kim DY, Lee SW, Park JY, Suh DS, Kim JH, et al.A postoperative scoring system for distant recurrence in node-positive cervical cancer patients after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection with para-aortic lymph node sampling or dissection. Gynecol Oncol. 2017; 144(3):536–40.CrossRefPubMed
85.
Kodama J, Seki N, Ojima Y, Nakamura K, Hongo A, Hiramatsu Y. Prognostic factors in node-positive patients with stage IB-IIB cervical cancer treated by radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2006; 93(2):130–5.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Prediction of 5–year overall survival in cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy using computational intelligence methods
Publication date
01-12-2017
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3806-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Cancer 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Decreased expression of the β2 integrin on tumor cells is associated with a reduction in liver metastasis of colorectal cancer in mice

Research article

Long intergenic non-protein-coding RNA 1567 (LINC01567) acts as a “sponge” against microRNA-93 in regulating the proliferation and tumorigenesis of human colon cancer stem cells

Research article

RNA-transfection of γ/δ T cells with a chimeric antigen receptor or an α/β T-cell receptor: a safer alternative to genetically engineered α/β T cells for the immunotherapy of melanoma

Research article

Inhibition of the IGF signaling pathway reverses cisplatin resistance in ovarian cancer cells

Research article

Cleavage of the urokinase receptor (uPAR) on oral cancer cells: regulation by transforming growth factor – β1 (TGF-β1) and potential effects on migration and invasion

Research article

Are heart toxicities in breast cancer patients important for radiation oncologists? A practice pattern survey in German speaking countries
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits