@article{LapaKircherSchirbeletal.2017,
  author    = {Lapa, Constantin and Kircher, Stefan and Schirbel, Andreas and Rosenwald, Andreas and Kropf, Saskia and Pelzer, Theo and Walles, Thorsten and Buck, Andreas K. and Weber, Wolfgang A. and Wester, Hans-Juergen and Herrmann, Ken and L{\"u}ckerath, Katharina},
  title     = {Targeting CXCR4 with [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor: a suitable theranostic approach in pleural mesothelioma?},
  series = {Oncotarget},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Oncotarget},
  number    = {57},
  doi       = {10.18632/oncotarget.18235},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-169989},
  pages     = {96732-96737},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) is a key factor for tumor growth and metastasis in several types of human cancer. This study investigated the feasibility of CXCR4-directed imaging with positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) using [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Six patients with pleural mesothelioma underwent [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor-PET/CT. 2′-[\(^{18}\)F]fluoro-2′-deoxy-D-glucose ([\(^{18}\)F]FDG)-PET/CT (4/6 patients) and immunohistochemistry obtained from biopsy or surgery (all) served as standards of reference. Additionally, 9 surgical mesothelioma samples were available for histological work-up. Whereas [\(^{18}\)F]FDG-PET depicted active lesions in all patients, [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor-PET/CT recorded physiologic tracer distribution and none of the 6 patients presented [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor-positive lesions. This finding paralleled results of immunohistochemistry which also could not identify relevant CXCR4 surface expression in the samples analyzed. In contrast to past reports, our data suggest widely absence of CXCR4 expression in pleural mesothelioma. Hence, robust cell surface expression should be confirmed prior to targeting this chemokine receptor for diagnosis and/or therapy.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WiegeringRiegelWagneretal.2017,
  author    = {Wiegering, Armin and Riegel, Johannes and Wagner, Johanna and Kunzmann, Volker and Baur, Johannes and Walles, Thorsten and Dietz, Ulrich and Loeb, Stefan and Germer, Christoph-Thomas and Steger, Ulrich and Klein, Ingo},
  title     = {The impact of pulmonary metastasectomy in patients with previously resected colorectal cancer liver metastases},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {3},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0173933},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-158036},
  pages     = {e0173933},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Background 40-50\% of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) will develop liver metastases (CRLM) during the course of the disease. One third of these patients will additionally develop pulmonary metastases. Methods 137 consecutive patients with CRLM, were analyzed regarding survival data, clinical, histological data and treatment. Results were stratified according to the occurrence of pulmonary metastases and metastases resection. Results 39\% of all patients with liver resection due to CRLM developed additional lung metastases. 44\% of these patients underwent subsequent pulmonary resection. Patients undergoing pulmonary metastasectomy showed a significantly better five-year survival compared to patients not qualified for curative resection (5-year survival 71.2\% vs. 28.0\%; p = 0.001). Interestingly, the 5-year survival of these patients was even superior to all patients with CRLM, who did not develop pulmonary metastases (77.5\% vs. 63.5\%; p = 0.015). Patients, whose pulmonary metastases were not resected, were more likely to redevelop liver metastases (50.0\% vs 78.6\%; p = 0.034). However, the rate of distant metastases did not differ between both groups (54.5 vs.53.6; p = 0.945). Conclusion The occurrence of colorectal lung metastases after curative liver resection does not impact patient survival if pulmonary metastasectomy is feasible. Those patients clearly benefit from repeated resections of the liver and the lung metastases.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KunzGoettlichWallesetal.2017,
  author    = {Kunz, Meik and G{\"o}ttlich, Claudia and Walles, Thorsten and Nietzer, Sarah and Dandekar, Gudrun and Dandekar, Thomas},
  title     = {MicroRNA-21 versus microRNA-34: Lung cancer promoting and inhibitory microRNAs analysed in silico and in vitro and their clinical impact},
  series = {Tumor Biology},
  volume    = {39},
  journal   = {Tumor Biology},
  number    = {7},
  doi       = {10.1177/1010428317706430},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-158399},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {MicroRNAs are well-known strong RNA regulators modulating whole functional units in complex signaling networks. Regarding clinical application, they have potential as biomarkers for prognosis, diagnosis, and therapy. In this review, we focus on two microRNAs centrally involved in lung cancer progression. MicroRNA-21 promotes and microRNA-34 inhibits cancer progression. We elucidate here involved pathways and imbed these antagonistic microRNAs in a network of interactions, stressing their cancer microRNA biology, followed by experimental and bioinformatics analysis of such microRNAs and their targets. This background is then illuminated from a clinical perspective on microRNA-21 and microRNA-34 as general examples for the complex microRNA biology in lung cancer and its diagnostic value. Moreover, we discuss the immense potential that microRNAs such as microRNA-21 and microRNA-34 imply by their broad regulatory effects. These should be explored for novel therapeutic strategies in the clinic.},
  language  = {en}
}