Bojie Chen

Head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCCs) arising from different anatomical sites present with different incidences and characteristics, which requires a personalized treatment strategy. Despite the extensive research that has conducted on this malignancy, HNSCC still has a poor overall survival rate. Many attempts have been made to improve the outcomes, but one of the bottlenecks is thought to be the lack of an effective biomarker with high sensitivity and specificity. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are secreted by various cells and participate in a great number of intercellular communications. Based on liquid biopsy, EV detection in several biofluids, such as blood, saliva, and urine, has been applied to identify the existence and progression of a variety of cancers. In HNSCC, tumor-derived EVs exhibit many functionalities by transporting diverse cargoes, which highlights their importance in tumor screening, the determination of multidisciplinary therapy, prediction of prognosis, and evaluation of therapeutic effects. This review illustrates the classification and formation of EV subtypes, the cargoes conveyed by these vesicles, and their respective functions in HNSCC cancer biology, and discloses their potential as biomarkers during the whole process of tumor diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up.

BRAFV600E mutation is highly prevalent in patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC), and TERT promoter (TERTp) mutation is strongly associated with cancer‐related mortality. However, predictive power of the two mutations remains inconclusive. We aimed to verify the prognostic effects of both mutations to assess the value of mutation detection for risk stratification in terms of PTC prognosis and tumour invasion, to guide PTC diagnosis and treatment. We conducted a literature search in the MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science and CENTRAL (Cochrane library) databases, from inception to February 2020. Basic characteristics, prognoses and clinicopathological features were collected from the included studies for further analysis. Twelve studies involving 4184 PTC patients were enrolled in our analysis. In total, 2412 (57.6%) of the patients carried either BRAFV600E or TERTp mutation, and 290 (6.9%) patients had both mutations. TERTp mutation was more common in patients with BRAFV600E mutation (RR = 1.75 [95% CI 1.44‐2.13]). Patients with both mutations had a worse prognosis compared with those with a single mutation (vs BRAFV600E only: RR = 5.34 [4.20‐6.78] vs TERTp only: RR = 2.12 [1.41‐3.19]). TERTp mutation alone independently increased the risk of a poor prognosis (RR = 2.90 [1.93‐4.35]) in terms of mortality (RR = 15.09 [7.75‐29.37]), disease persistence (RR = 4.00 [2.03‐7.90]), recurrence (RR = 4.34 [4.20‐6.78]), lymph node metastasis (RR = 1.57 [1.24‐1.99]) and distant metastasis (RR = 2.94 [1.13‐7.65]). We found that PTC patients with BRAFV600E mutation were more likely to have TERTp mutation. TERTp mutation was an independent predictive factor for poor prognosis of PTC patients, but the predictive value of BRAFV600E mutation remains inconclusive. Patients with both mutations have remarkably higher risks of adverse outcomes compared with those with a single mutation. PTC patients could benefit from mutation detection for aiding risk stratification (BRAF + TERT+ > BRAF − TERT+ > BRAF + TERT−).