scholarly journals P2X7: a receptor with a split personality that raises new hopes for anti-cancer therapy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alba Clara Sarti ◽  
Valentina Vultaggio-Poma ◽  
Francesco Di Virgilio
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Therapy ◽  
Anti Cancer ◽  
Split Personality

Protease Mediated Anti-Cancer Therapy

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ching-Hsuan Tung
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Therapy ◽  
Anti Cancer

Anticancer Properties of Essential Oils: An Overview

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (10) ◽  
pp. 957-966 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milene Aparecida Andrade ◽  
Mariana Aparecida Braga ◽  
Pedro Henrique Souza Cesar ◽  
Marcus Vinicius Cardoso Trento ◽  
Mariana Araújo Espósito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Therapy ◽  
Essential Oils ◽  
Public Health Problem ◽  
Mechanisms Of Action ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Anticancer Properties ◽  
Anti Cancer ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Antitumor Properties ◽  
Pharmaceutical Properties

Background: Essential oils are complex mixtures of low molecular weight compounds extracted from plants. Their main constituents are terpenes and phenylpropanoids, which are responsible for their biological and pharmaceutical properties, such as insecticidal, parasiticidal, antimicrobial, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, analgesic, antinociceptive, anticarcinogenic, and antitumor properties. Cancer is a complex genetic disease considered as a serious public health problem worldwide, accounting for more than 8 million deaths annually. Objective: The activities of prevention and treatment of different types of cancer and the medicinal potential of essential oils are addressed in this review. Conclusion: Several studies have demonstrated anti-carcinogenic and antitumor activity for many essential oils obtained from various plant species. They may be used as a substitution to or in addition to conventional anti-cancer therapy. Although many studies report possible mechanisms of action for essential oils compounds, more studies are necessary in order to apply them safely and appropriately in cancer therapy.

Exploring Nanoemulsion for Liver Cancer Therapy

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 260-268
Author(s):  
Tanmay Upadhyay ◽  
Vaseem A. Ansari ◽  
Usama Ahmad ◽  
Nazneen Sultana ◽  
Juber Akhtar
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Therapy ◽  
Liver Cancer ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Chemotherapeutic Drugs ◽  
Drug Delivery Vehicles ◽  
Chronic Hepatitis B Virus ◽  
Anti Cancer ◽  
B Virus ◽  
Delivery Vehicles ◽  
Liquid Dosage Form

Cancer is a leading cause of mortality worldwide, accounting for 8.8 million deaths in 2015. Among these, at least 0.78 million people died of liver cancer alone. The recognized risk factors for liver cancer include chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, exposure to dietary aflatoxin, fatty liver disease, alcohol-induced cirrhosis, obesity, smoking, diabetes, and iron overload. The treatment plan for early diagnosed patients includes radiation therapy, tumour ablation, surgery, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy. Some sort of drug delivery vehicles has to be used when the treatment plan is targeted chemotherapy. Nanoemulsions are a class of biphasic liquid dosage form which are mixtures of oil and water stabilized by a surfactant. They are either transparent or bluish in hue and serve as a wonderful carrier system for chemotherapeutic drugs. These vehicles have a particle size in the range of 20-200 nm allowing them to be delivered successfully in the deepest of tissues. Recent publications on nanoemulsions reveal their acceptance and a popular choice for delivering both synthetic and herbal drugs to the liver. This work focuses on some anti-cancer agents that utilized the advantages of nanoemulsion for liver cancer therapy.

DNA-drug Conjugates for Site-specific Delivery in Anti-cancer Therapy

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 68-73
Author(s):  
Karimpanakkal C. Ajithkumar ◽  
Kannissery Pramod
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Therapy ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
Drug Conjugates ◽  
Anti Cancer

scholarly journals Delivery of systemic anti-cancer therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Orla Fitzpatrick ◽  
Roisin Ní Dhonaill ◽  
Anna Linehan ◽  
Zac Coyne ◽  
Maeve Hennessy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Therapy ◽  
General Population ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Symptom Questionnaire ◽  
Treatment Review ◽  
Anti Cancer ◽  
System Changes ◽  
Hospital Visits ◽  
Telephone Screening

Abstract Background The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in Ireland was on February 29th 2020. From March until late April, the number of cases increased exponentially. The delivery of anti-cancer therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic was extremely challenging. In order to balance the benefits of continuing anti-cancer therapy with the associated increased hospital visits, combined with the risk of COVID-19 infection, we undertook a series of system changes in the delivery of cancer care. Methods Patients who attended our dayward over a 4-month period were included. Data were obtained from patient and chemotherapy prescribing records. Patients were screened for symptoms of COVID-19 at two separate timepoints: prior to their visit via telephone, and using a symptom questionnaire on arrival at the hospital. If patients displayed COVID-19 symptoms, they were isolated and a viral swab arranged. Results A total of 456 patients attended from January 1st to April 30th. The numbers of visits from January to April were 601, 586, 575, and 607, respectively. During this period, there were 2369 patient visits to the dayward and 1953 (82%) intravenous regimens administered. Of the 416 visits that did not lead to treatment, 114 (27%) were scheduled non-treatment review visits, 194 (47%) treatments were held due to disease-related illness, and 108 (26%) treatments were held due to treatment-related complications. Screening measurements were implemented on March 18th due to rising COVID-19 prevalence in the general population. Overall, 53 treatments were held due to the screening process: 19 patients (36%) elicited COVID-19 symptoms via telephone screening; 34 patients (64%) were symptomatic in our pre-assessment area and referred for swabs, of which 4 were positive. Those with a negative swab were rescheduled for chemotherapy the following week. Conclusions With careful systematic changes, safe and continued delivery of systemic anti-cancer therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic is possible.

Responsive nanogels for anti-cancer therapy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sneha Iyer ◽  
Asmita Das
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Therapy ◽  
Anti Cancer

Description of the role of pharmacist independent double checks during cognitive order verification of outpatient parenteral anti-cancer therapy

2021 ◽  
pp. 107815522199431
Author(s):  
Jennifer P Booth ◽  
Julie M Kennerly-Shah ◽  
Amber D Hartman
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Therapy ◽  
Medication Error ◽  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Error Reporting ◽  
Single Center ◽  
Medication Error Reporting ◽  
Anti Cancer ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Type Frequency

Introduction To describe pharmacist interventions as a result of an independent double check during cognitive order verification of outpatient parenteral anti-cancer therapy. Methods A single-center, retrospective analysis of all individual orders for outpatient, parenteral anti-cancer agents within a hematology/oncology infusion center during a 30 day period was conducted. The primary endpoint was error identification rates during first and second verification. Secondary endpoints included the type, frequency, and severity of errors identified during second verification using a modified National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention Index. Results A total of 1970 anti-cancer parenteral orders were screened, from which 1645 received an independent double check and were included. The number of errors identified during first and second verification were 30 (1.8%) and 10 (0.6%) respectively; second verification resulted in a 33.3% increase in corrected errors. The 10 errors identified during second verification included: four rate transcriptions to optimize pump interoperability, three rate and/or volume modifications, two dosage adjustments, and one treatment deferral due to toxicity. The severity was classified as Category A for four (40%), Category C for three (30%), and Category D for three (30%) errors. This correlated to a low capacity for harm for seven (70%) and a serious capacity for three (30%) errors. Conclusions Second verification of outpatient, parenteral anti-cancer medication orders resulted in a 33.3% increase in corrected errors. Three errors detected during second verification were determined to have a serious capacity for harm, supporting the value of independent double checks during pharmacist cognitive order verification.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document