1.
Sleep Disturbance Affects Immune Factors in Clinical Liver Cancer Patients.
Wang, Z, Wang, Y, Huang, J, Xu, J, Chen, F, Zhu, Z, Gao, L, Qin, J, Liu, B, Liang, C
Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.). 2022;29(10):7943-7952
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Many studies have shown that sleep disorders promote tumor growth and can impair immunity at the cellular level. There is however a lack of research in patients with liver cancer. The aim of this study was the asses the quality of sleep and the prevalence of disturbed sleep in patients with liver cancer and to explore whether sleep quality influences immune factors. 210 patients with liver cancer were randomly divided into 2 groups: HBV (Hepatitis B virus) cirrhosis and non-HBV cirrhosis. Their sleep quality was evaluated using a questionnaire and then the patients were divided into 2 groups according to these scores. The association between sleep disturbances and immune factors was analysed by logistic regression models. Over half the patient experienced poor sleep quality. Sleep disturbances were higher in patients with liver cancer of non-HBV cirrhosis than with that coming from the HBV virus. A rise in CD3+ T cells and a reduction in NK cells are associated with sleep disturbances in patients with non-HBV cirrhosis liver cancer. Medicines that can promote sleep and therefore improve immune function might be beneficial. Non-pharmacological sleep interventions to improve sleep quality, should be a safer choice where there are complex drug side effects.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Sleep-wake disturbance is prevalent in patients with liver cancer, but there is no direct evidence of its association and related biological mechanisms. Our study was to assess quality of sleep and to describe prevalence of sleep disturbances in patients with different etiologies of liver cancer, especially to explore whether sleep quality influences immune factors. METHODS A total of 210 patients with liver cancer from August 2015 to December 2015 were randomly divided into two groups including HBV cirrhosis and non-HBV cirrhosis. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) was used to evaluate their sleep quality, and then 202 patients enrolled in this study were divided into two groups according to their PSQI scores: PSQI ≤ 5 and PSQI > 5. The association between sleep disturbances and immune factors was analyzed by logistic regression models. RESULTS A total of 56.9% of liver cancer patients experienced poor sleep quality (PSQI > 5). The prevalence of sleep disturbances was significantly higher in patients with liver cancer of non-hepatitis B virus (HBV) cirrhosis than with that evolving from HBV cirrhosis (66.7% vs. 50%, p = 0.018). In non-HBV cirrhosis liver cancer patients, the PSQI > 5 group had a higher percentage of CD3+ T cells (71.06 ± 11.07 vs. 63.96 ± 14.18, p = 0.014) and lower natural killer (NK) cells (14.67 ± 9.65 vs. 20.5 ± 10.77, p = 0.014) compared with patients with PSQI ≤ 5. Logistic regression further confirmed that liver cancer patients without HBV cirrhosis are more prone to experience poor sleep with increased CD3+ T cells (OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.01-1.13, p = 0.030) and decreased NK cells (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.85-0.98, p = 0.014). Our results indicate that increased CD3+ T cells and decreased NK cells are both associated with sleep disturbances in patients with liver cancer of non-HBV cirrhosis. CONCLUSIONS Most liver cancer patients suffer from sleep disturbances, especially evolving from non-HBV cirrhosis. A rise in CD3+ T cells and a reduction in NK cells are associated with sleep disturbances in patients with liver cancer of non-HBV cirrhosis.
2.
Impact of 18-Month Soy Protein Supplementation on Steroid Hormones and Serum Biomarkers of Angiogenesis, Apoptosis, and the Growth Hormone/IGF-1 Axis: Results of a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial in Males Following Prostatectomy.
Bosland, MC, Huang, J, Schlicht, MJ, Enk, E, Xie, H, Kato, I
Nutrition and cancer. 2022;74(1):110-121
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Studies focusing on the effect of soy on risk for breast cancer are extensive, however there is very little research assessing its affects in men with prostate cancer. This post-hoc analysis of individuals enrolled in a randomised control trial looking at individuals on a soy protein isolate or milk protein placebo aimed to determine if soy had any effect on prostate cancer. The results showed that both circulating testosterone and its carrier molecule, sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG), were both decreased in individuals consuming the soy protein. All other hormones and measures related to cancer cell death and growth remained unaffected. It was concluded that 18 months of consumption of soy protein isolate reduced circulating testosterone and SHBG but had little effect on other measures related to cancer development. This study could be used by healthcare professionals that a diet high in soy may have limited effect on prostate cancer.
Abstract
Many studies have addressed the effects of dietary supplementation with soy protein on cancer risk and mortality, but there are only few randomized studies with soy in males. We used serum samples from a two-year trial of soy protein isolate supplementation in middle-aged to older males at risk of recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy to determine soy effects on steroid hormones involved in prostate cancer (testosterone, SHBG, and estradiol) and explore the effects on biomarkers of the growth hormone/IGF-1 axis, apoptosis, and angiogenesis. Compared with a casein-based placebo, 18 mo, of consumption of 19.2 g/day of whole soy protein isolate containing 24 mg genistein-reduced circulating testosterone and SHBG, but not free testosterone, and did not affect serum concentrations of estradiol, VEGF, IGF-1, IGFBP-3, IGF-1/IGFBP-3 ratio, soluble Fas, Fas-ligand, and sFas/Fas-ligand ratio. Thus, soy protein supplementation for 18 mo, affected the androgen axis, but the effects on other cancer biomarkers remain to be more definitively determined. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00765479).
3.
COVID-19 infection: the perspectives on immune responses.
Shi, Y, Wang, Y, Shao, C, Huang, J, Gan, J, Huang, X, Bucci, E, Piacentini, M, Ippolito, G, Melino, G
Cell death and differentiation. 2020;27(5):1451-1454
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
The SARS-CoV-2 infection triggers an immune response which varies greatly from one person to another. It can be roughly divided into three stages: stage I, an asymptomatic incubation period with or without detectable virus; stage II, non-severe symptomatic period with the presence of virus; stage III, severe respiratory symptomatic stage with high viral load. Currently around 15% of people infected end up in severe stage III. There appears to be a two-phase immune response; an early protective phase and a second inflammation-driven damaging phase. In phase one the adaptive immune system responds to the virus. Being in good general health is important in this phase to limiting the progression of the disease to a more severe stage. In phase two the innate immune system response to tissue damage caused by the virus could lead to widespread inflammation of the lungs and acute respiratory distress syndrome or respiratory failure. Therapeutically this raises the question of whether the immune response should be boosted in phase one and suppressed in phase two. There also appears to be an element of viral relapse in some patients discharged from hospital indicating that a virus-eliminating immune response may be difficult to achieve naturally. These same patients may also not respond to vaccines. Overall, it is still unclear why some people develop severe disease, whilst others do not. Overall immunity alone does not explain the differences in disease presentation.