Robert Dood

Supplementary Table from Mortality Patterns of Synchronous Uterine and Ovarian Cancers: A SEER Registry Analysis

Background:The degree to which uterine cancer metastatic to the ovary is misdiagnosed as synchronous stage I uterine and ovarian cancers is unclear. We sought to determine whether patients with synchronous cancers had mortality patterns similar to either stage IIIA uterine, stage I uterine, or stage I ovarian cancers alone.Methods:The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was used to compare mortality of patients with synchronous stage I uterine and stage I ovarian cancers versus those with stage IIIA uterine, stage I uterine, or stage I ovarian cancers alone. We calculated age-adjusted mortality hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) accounting for calendar year and grade, adjuvant treatment, grade 1 endometrioid cancers, grade 3 endometrioid cancers, and stage IA cancers.Results:Among the 9,321 patients, we observed lower age-adjusted mortality in patients with stage I synchronous cancers (n = 937) compared to those with stage IIIA uterine (n = 531; HR, 0.45 95% CI, 0.35–0.58), stage I uterine (n = 6,919; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60–0.91), and stage I ovarian cancers (n = 934; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.41–0.67). Results were similar after taking into account diagnosis year and grade, and limiting to those receiving adjuvant therapy, grade 1 or grade 3 endometrioid cancers, or stage IA cancers.Conclusions:We observed lower mortality for synchronous stage I uterine and ovarian cancers, which was not explained by younger age, earlier stage, lower grade, histology type, or adjuvant therapy.Impact:The possible misdiagnosis associated with clinicopathologic of synchronous uterine and ovarian cancers does not appear to worsen survival on a population level.

Supplementary Figure 1. In vitro effects of PR silencing on onapristone sensitivity in PR-high-expressing uterine cancer cell line (Ishikawa). Supplementary Figure 2. In vitro effects of onapristone and trametinib in PR-weak-expressing uterine cancer cell line (SKUT2). Supplementary Figure 3. In vivo effects of therapy with onapristone in uterine cancer model. Supplementary Figure 4. In vivo effect of onapristone, trametinib, and the combination of both drugs on total PR expression in the ISHIKAWA model.

Supplementary Figure 1. In vitro effects of PR silencing on onapristone sensitivity in PR-high-expressing uterine cancer cell line (Ishikawa). Supplementary Figure 2. In vitro effects of onapristone and trametinib in PR-weak-expressing uterine cancer cell line (SKUT2). Supplementary Figure 3. In vivo effects of therapy with onapristone in uterine cancer model. Supplementary Figure 4. In vivo effect of onapristone, trametinib, and the combination of both drugs on total PR expression in the ISHIKAWA model.

CARS imaging of ex vivo ovarian cancer samples

Fig. S1. Sustained adrenergic signaling increases nerve counts in tumors. Fig. S2. Characterization of tumoral innervation. Fig. S3. NE induces BDNF expression. Fig. S4. NE-induced BDNF expression is mediated by ADRB3/Epac/Jnk. Fig. S5. BDNF increases nerve counts. Fig. S6. Adrenergic-mediated mTrkB activation leads to increased in vivo tumor nodule counts. Table S1. Alteration in pathways associated with neuronal growth and function after NE treatment (HeyA8 and SKOV3ip1 cells). Table S2. Association of Clinicopathologic variables with BDNF protein expression. Table S3. Association of Clinicopathologic variables with Nerve Counts.

CARS imaging of ex vivo ovarian cancer samples

CARS imaging of ex vivo ovarian cancer samples