TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you are given an abstract of article. Your task is to generate title for this article. Preferred titles are under thirty words.
PROBLEM: CONTEXT In patients with brain metastases, it is unclear whether adding up-front whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) to stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has beneficial effects on mortality or neurologic function compared with SRS alone.
OBJECTIVE To determine if WBRT combined with SRS results in improvements in survival, brain tumor control, functional preservation rate, and frequency of neurologic death.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Randomized controlled trial of 132 patients with 1 to 4 brain metastases, each less than 3 cm in diameter, enrolled at 11 hospitals in Japan between October 1999 and December 2003.
INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned to receive WBRT plus SRS (65 patients) or SRS alone (67 patients).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were brain tumor recurrence, salvage brain treatment, functional preservation, toxic effects of radiation, and cause of death.
RESULTS The median survival time and the 1-year actuarial survival rate were 7.5 months and 38.5% (95% confidence interval, 26.7%-50.3%) in the WBRT + SRS group and 8.0 months and 28.4% (95% confidence interval, 17.6%-39.2%) for SRS alone (P = .42). The 12-month brain tumor recurrence rate was 46.8% in the WBRT + SRS group and 76.4% for SRS alone group (P<.001). Salvage brain treatment was less frequently required in the WBRT + SRS group (n = 10) than with SRS alone (n = 29) (P<.001). Death was attributed to neurologic causes in 22.8% of patients in the WBRT + SRS group and in 19.3% of those treated with SRS alone (P = .64). There were no significant differences in systemic and neurologic functional preservation and toxic effects of radiation.
CONCLUSIONS Compared with SRS alone, the use of WBRT plus SRS did not improve survival for patients with 1 to 4 brain metastases, but intracranial relapse occurred considerably more frequently in those who did not receive WBRT. Consequently, salvage treatment is frequently required when up-front WBRT is not used.
TRIAL REGISTRATION umin.ac.jp/ctr Identifier: C000000412.

SOLUTION: Stereotactic radiosurgery plus whole-brain radiation therapy vs stereotactic radiosurgery alone for treatment of brain metastases: a randomized controlled trial.

PROBLEM: The BCL-2 (B cell CLL/Lymphoma) family is comprised of approximately twenty proteins that collaborate to either maintain cell survival or initiate apoptosis(1). Following cellular stress (e.g., DNA damage), the pro-apoptotic BCL-2 family effectors BAK (BCL-2 antagonistic killer 1) and/or BAX (BCL-2 associated X protein) become activated and compromise the integrity of the outer mitochondrial membrane (OMM), though the process referred to as mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization (MOMP)(1). After MOMP occurs, pro-apoptotic proteins (e.g., cytochrome c) gain access to the cytoplasm, promote caspase activation, and apoptosis rapidly ensues(2). In order for BAK/BAX to induce MOMP, they require transient interactions with members of another pro-apoptotic subset of the BCL-2 family, the BCL-2 homology domain 3 (BH3)-only proteins, such as BID (BH3-interacting domain agonist)(3-6). Anti-apoptotic BCL-2 family proteins (e.g., BCL-2 related gene, long isoform, BCL-xL; myeloid cell leukemia 1, MCL-1) regulate cellular survival by tightly controlling the interactions between BAK/BAX and the BH3-only proteins capable of directly inducing BAK/BAX activation(7,8). In addition, anti-apoptotic BCL-2 protein availability is also dictated by sensitizer/de-repressor BH3-only proteins, such as BAD (BCL-2 antagonist of cell death) or PUMA (p53 upregulated modulator of apoptosis), which bind and inhibit anti-apoptotic members(7,9). As most of the anti-apoptotic BCL-2 repertoire is localized to the OMM, the cellular decision to maintain survival or induce MOMP is dictated by multiple BCL-2 family interactions at this membrane. Large unilamellar vesicles (LUVs) are a biochemical model to explore relationships between BCL-2 family interactions and membrane permeabilization(10). LUVs are comprised of defined lipids that are assembled in ratios identified in lipid composition studies from solvent extracted Xenopus mitochondria (46.5% phosphatidylcholine, 28.5% phosphatidylethanoloamine, 9% phosphatidylinositol, 9% phosphatidylserine, and 7% cardiolipin)(10). This is a convenient model system to directly explore BCL-2 family function because the protein and lipid components are completely defined and tractable, which is not always the case with primary mitochondria. While cardiolipin is not usually this high throughout the OMM, this model does faithfully mimic the OMM to promote BCL-2 family function. Furthermore, a more recent modification of the above protocol allows for kinetic analyses of protein interactions and real-time measurements of membrane permeabilization, which is based on LUVs containing a polyanionic dye (ANTS: 8-aminonaphthalene-1,3,6-trisulfonic acid) and cationic quencher (DPX: p-xylene-bis-pyridinium bromide)(11). As the LUVs permeabilize, ANTS and DPX diffuse apart, and a gain in fluorescence is detected. Here, commonly used recombinant BCL-2 family protein combinations and controls using the LUVs containing ANTS/DPX are described.

SOLUTION: Examining BCL-2 family function with large unilamellar vesicles.

PROBLEM: The aim of the present study was to analyze the stem cell marker, Nanog gene, for the diagnosis and prognosis of lung cancer cases, and to study its application in the diagnosis of lung cancer. In total, 100 patients diagnosed with lung cancer between April, 2013 and May, 2015 were included in the present study. The patients were randomly divided into group A (lung cancer) and group B (squamous cell lung carcinoma). RT-PCR was used to detect the cancer and adjacent tissues, and Nanog gene expression was detected in groups A and B in cells. The results showed that, analysis of Nanog gene expression in the two groups of patients varied to different degrees. There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to age, gender, disease stage and lymph node metastasis. Nanog gene expression in patients with carcinoma were significantly higher than that in the adjacent tissues (p<0.05). By contrast, differentiated and well-differentiated carcinoma tissue showed a significantly higher Nanog gene expression than poorly differentiated and undifferentiated carcinoma (p<0.05). The expression of Nanog in normal cells was significantly higher than that in normal lung tissues and benign lesions in lung cancer stem cells. Nanog was highly expressed in CD44+ cells, and Nanog expression in lung cancer stem cells was significantly higher (p<0.05). In conclusion, for groups A (lung cancer) and B (squamous cell lung carcinoma) the Nanog gene expression was significantly higher. The data of the present study show that the patients with stage III and IV lung cancer had a higher Nanog gene expression. In addition, there was a higher expression of Nanog in lung cancer patients. By contrast, a lower degree of cell differentiation was associated with strong Nanog gene expression in lung cancer.

SOLUTION:
Significance of stem cell marker Nanog gene in the diagnosis and prognosis of lung cancer