Mutations of CCAAT/enhancer–binding protein alpha (CEBPAmu) are found in 10% to 15% of de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cases. Double-mutated CEBPA (CEBPAdm) is associated with a favorable prognosis; however, single-mutated CEBPA (CEBPAsm) does not seem to improve prognosis. We investigated CEBPAmu for prognosis in 1028 patients with AML, registered in the Multi-center Collaborative Program for Gene Sequencing of Japanese AML. It was found that CEBPAmu in the basic leucine zipper domain (bZIP) was strongly associated with a favorable prognosis, but CEBPAmu out of the bZIP domain was not. The presence of CEBPAmu in bZIP was a strong indicator of a higher chance of achieving complete remission (P < .001), better overall survival (OS; P < .001) and a lower risk of relapse (P < .001). The prognostic significance of CEBPAmu in bZIP was also observed in the subgroup with CEBPAsm (all patients: OS, P = .008; the cumulative incidence of relapse, P = .063; patients aged ≤70 years and with intermediate-risk karyotype: OS, P = .008; cumulative incidence of relapse, P = .026). Multivariate analysis of 744 patients aged ≤70 years showed that CEBPAmu in bZIP was the most potent predictor of OS (hazard ratio, 0.3287; P < .001). CEBPAdm was validated as a cofounding factor, which was overlapping with CEBPAmu in bZIP. In summary, these findings indicate that CEBPAmu in bZIP is a potent marker for AML prognosis. It holds potential in the refinement of treatment stratification and the development of targeted therapeutic approaches in CEBPA-mutated AML.

Epigenetic alterations caused by aberrant DNA methylation have a crucial role in cancer development, and the DNA-demethylating agent decitabine, is used to treat hematopoietic malignancy. Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) have shown sensitivity to decitabine; however, the underlying mechanism of its anticancer effect and its effectiveness in treating TNBCs are not fully understood. We analyzed the effects of decitabine on nine TNBC cell lines and examined genes associated with its cytotoxic effects. According to the effect of decitabine, we classified the cell lines into cell death (D)-type, growth inhibition (G)-type, and resistant (R)-type. In D-type cells, decitabine induced the expression of apoptotic regulators and, among them, NOXA was functionally involved in decitabine-induced apoptosis. In G-type cells, induction of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, p21, and cell cycle arrest were observed. Furthermore, decitabine enhanced the cytotoxic effect of cisplatin mediated by NOXA in D-type and G-type cells. In contrast, the sensitivity to cisplatin was high in R-type cells, and no enhancing effect by decitabine was observed. These results indicate that decitabine enhances the proapoptotic effect of cisplatin on TNBC cell lines that are less sensitive to cisplatin, indicating the potential for combination therapy in TNBC.

We report the case of a 61-year-old man with chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, who underwent unrelated peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. Fusariosis was suspected prior to identification of the fungal species, and voriconazole and liposomal amphotericin B combination therapy were administered. The patient developed fusarium-related endophthalmitis, accompanied by eye pain. Despite vitrectomy, the endophthalmitis was poorly controlled, and the left eye was enucleated. No recurrence of fusariosis was observed until death following multiple-organ failure due to steroid-resistant graft-versus-host disease.

Background: No accurate prognostic tool is available for patients with cancer who spend their final days at home. In this study, we examined whether performance status (PS) and the palliative prognostic index (PPI), a well-known prognostic tool in palliative care units, could be used to predict prognosis in the home care setting at the time of intervention by home physicians. Subjects and Methods: Using medical records, we conducted a retrospective analysis of 132 patients who were referred to the Home Clinic Naginoki for home care for terminal stages of carcinoma in situ. Based on the status at the time of the first visit, the PPI-Low group was defined as those scoring six or below and the PPI-High group as those scoring greater than six. Results: The PPI-high group had a significantly poorer prognosis within 21 days than the PPI-low group (21-day-OS; Low 71.4% vs. High 13.2%; p<0.001). The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS alone predicted better prognosis in the group with PS of one or two (21-day survival 90.1%), and the PPI score further significantly stratified the prognosis for patients with PS three or four, with a trend toward poor prognosis (p ≤ 0.005). Conclusion: ECOG PS 1 or 2 has a favorable prognosis and that using PPI in ECOG PS 3 or 4 leads to a more accurate prognosis prediction. PPI evaluated during the hospital-based treatment of patients with terminal cancer can also be used to predict prognosis if the patient is transitioned to a home care environment.