Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Stage IV CRC patients have poor prognosis with a five-year survival rate of 14%. Liver metastasis is the main cause of mortality in CRC patients. Since current screening tests have several drawbacks, effective stable non-invasive biomarkers such as microRNA (miRNA) are needed. We aim to investigate the expression of miRNA (miR-21, miR-19a, miR-23a, miR-29a, miR-145, miR-203, miR-155, miR-210, miR-31, and miR-345) in the plasma of 62 Lebanese Stage IV CRC patients and 44 healthy subjects using RT-qPCR, as well as to evaluate their potential for diagnosis of advanced CRC and its liver metastasis using the Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve. miR-21, miR-145, miR-203, miR-155, miR-210, miR-31, and miR-345 were significantly upregulated in the plasma of surgery naïve CRC patients when compared to healthy individuals. We identified two panels of miRNA that could be used for diagnosis of Stage IV CRC (miR-21 and miR-210) with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.731 and diagnostic accuracy of 69% and liver metastasis (miR-210 and miR-203) with an AUC = 0.833 and diagnostic accuracy of 72%. Panels of specific circulating miRNA, which require further validation, could be potential non-invasive diagnostic biomarkers for CRC and liver metastasis.

Disruptions in the human gut microbiome have been associated with a cycle of hepatocyte injury and regeneration characteristic of chronic liver disease. Evidence suggests that the gut microbiota can promote the development of hepatocellular carcinoma through the persistence of this inflammation by inducing genetic and epigenetic changes leading to cancer. As the gut microbiome is known for its effect on host metabolism and immune response, it comes as no surprise that the gut microbiome may have a role in the response to therapeutic strategies such as immunotherapy and chemotherapy for liver cancer. Gut microbiota may influence the efficacy of immunotherapy by regulating the responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Here, we review the mechanisms by which gut microbiota influences hepatic carcinogenesis, the immune checkpoint inhibitors currently being used to treat hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as summarize the current findings to support the potential critical role of gut microbiome in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) immunotherapy.

Clinical stage III melanoma, defined as resectable RECIST measurable nodal disease with or without in-transit metastases, represents approximately 15% of new melanoma diagnoses every year with additional cases presenting as recurrent nodal disease following previous treatment of a primary melanoma. The standard of care for patients with resectable clinical stage III melanoma is surgical resection, consisting of therapeutic lymph node dissection and/or resection of in-transit disease and consideration of adjuvant systemic therapy and occasionally adjuvant radiation. These patients have high rates of regional recurrence and progression to metastatic disease postsurgery, highlighting the need for better treatment options. With the success of immune checkpoint inhibitors in both the adjuvant and metastatic settings, the use of these agents in the neoadjuvant setting has been an emerging area of research interest. In this chapter, we will discuss the rationale for neoadjuvant immunotherapy; review impactful clinical trials; and define response monitoring, surgical considerations, emerging therapies, and unanswered questions for neoadjuvant therapy as a recent paradigm shift in the management of clinical stage III melanoma.

Melittin, a cytolytic peptide derived from honeybee venom, has demonstrated potent anticancer activity through mechanisms such as membrane disruption, apoptosis induction, and modulation of key signaling pathways. Melittin exerts its anticancer activity by interacting with key molecular targets, including downregulation of the PI3K/Akt and NF-κB signaling pathways, and by inducing mitochondrial apoptosis through reactive oxygen species generation and cytochrome c release. However, its clinical application is hindered by its systemic and hemolytic toxicity, rapid degradation in plasma, poor pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity, necessitating the development of targeted delivery strategies to enable safe and effective treatment. Nanoparticle-based delivery systems have emerged as a promising strategy for overcoming these challenges, offering improved tumor targeting, reduced off-target effects, and enhanced stability. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the mechanisms through which melittin exerts its anticancer effects and evaluates the development of various melittin-loaded nanocarriers, including liposomes, polymeric nanoparticles, dendrimers, micelles, and inorganic systems. It also summarizes the preclinical evidence for melittin nanotherapy across a wide range of cancer types, highlighting both its cytotoxic and immunomodulatory effects. The potential of melittin nanoparticles to overcome multidrug resistance and synergize with chemotherapy, immunotherapy, photothermal therapy, and radiotherapy is discussed. Despite promising in vitro and in vivo findings, its clinical translation remains limited. Key barriers include toxicity, manufacturing scalability, regulatory approval, and the need for more extensive in vivo validation. A key future direction is the application of computational tools, such as physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling and artificial-intelligence-based modeling, to streamline development and guide its clinical translation. Addressing these challenges through focused research and interdisciplinary collaboration will be essential to realizing the full therapeutic potential of melittin-based nanomedicines in oncology. Overall, this review synthesizes the findings from over 100 peer-reviewed studies published between 2008 and 2025, providing an up-to-date assessment of melittin-based nanomedicine strategies across diverse cancer types.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a systemic disease that can be life-threatening involving immune and inflammatory responses, and that can result in potentially lethal complications, including venous thrombo-embolism (VTE). Forming an integrative approach to thrombo-prophylaxis and coagulation treatment for COVID-19 patients ensues. We aim at reviewing the literature for anticoagulation in the setting of COVID-19 infection to provide a summary on anticoagulation for this patient population. COVID-19 infection is associated with a state of continuous inflammation, which results in macrophage activation syndrome and an increased rate of thrombosis. Risk assessment models to predict the risk of thrombosis in critically ill patients have not yet been validated. Currently published guidelines suggest the use of prophylactic intensity over intermediate intensity or therapeutic intensity anticoagulant for patients with critical illness or acute illness related to COVID-19 infection. Critically ill COVID-19 patients who are diagnosed with acute VTE are considered to have a provoking factor, and, therefore, treatment duration should be at least 3 months. Patients with proximal deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism should receive parenteral over oral anticoagulants with low-molecular-weight heparin or fondaparinux preferred over unfractionated heparin. In patients with impending hemodynamic compromise due to PE, and who are not at increased risk for bleeding, reperfusion may be necessary. Internists should remain updated on new emerging evidence regarding anticoagulation for COVID-19 patients. Awaiting these findings, we invite internists to perform individualized decisions that are unique for every patient and to base them on clinical judgment for risk assessment.

Worldwide genetic counseling practices are variable and often not reported in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We present the follow-up genetic counseling, breast screening, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in a cohort of study patients with either BRCA pathogenic mutations or BRCA variant of unknown significance (VUS). Chart review and phone calls for the collection of information. Out of a cohort of 250 patients, 14 had deleterious mutations and 31 had a VUS, of whom 19 had primary early breast cancer. We collected information about genetic counseling, screening, CPM and RRSO. Fourteen patients with deleterious mutations (7 BRCA1 and 7 BRCA2) and 19 patients with VUS mutations (20 VUS, 4 BRCA1, 16 BRCA2; 1 patient had both) were surveyed. Of 14 patients with deleterious BRCA mutations, 57.14% (8/14 patients) received genetic counseling from their oncologist. Subsequently 85.71% (12/14) are undergoing mammography screening and 35.71% (5/14) breast screening magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Furthermore, 50% of them underwent CPM and 57.14% underwent RRSO. Of 19 patients with VUS mutations, 10.5% received genetic counseling from their oncologist; 78.9% were undergoing regular screening mammogram and 31.5% were undergoing breast MRI; one patient underwent CPM and two patients RRSO. Within three years from knowing they have a mutation, 50% of patients with germline BRCA mutations had undergone CPM and 60% RRSO, the majority of them had screening mammography surveillance but only 50% had screening MRI. Follow-up of patients with VUS with mammography was 78% but MRI was only 31%. Lack of MRI surveillance reflects both limited resources and insufficient counseling. Genetic counseling was done by medical oncologists, which reflects a trend in LMIC. Our Data shows the importance of the need for professional genetic counselors and optimal surveillance in Lebanon and other LMICs.