The increasing burden on human malignant diseases became a major concern for healthcare practitioners, that must deal with tumor relapse and the inability to efficiently treat metastasis, in addition to side effects. Throughout the decades, many therapeutic strategies have been employed to improve the clinical outcomes of cancer patients and great efforts have been made to develop more efficient and targeted medicines. The malignant cell is characterized by genetic and epigenetic modifications, therefore targeting those specific drivers of carcinogenesis is highly desirable. Among the genome editing technologies, CRISPR/Cas9 stood as a promising candidate for cancer treatment alternatives, due to its low complexity design. First described as a defense mechanism of bacteria against invading foreign DNA, later it was shown that CRISPR components can be engineered to target specific DNA sequences in a test tube, a discovery that was awarded later with the Nobel Prize in chemistry for its rapid expansion as a reliable genome editing tool in many fields of research, including medicine. The present paper aims of describing CRISPR/Cas9 potential targets for malignant disorders, and the approaches used for achieving this goal. Aside from preclinical studies, we also present the clinical trials that use CRISPR-based technology for therapeutic purposes of cancer. Finally, a summary of the presented studies adds a more focused view of the therapeutic value CRISPR/Cas9 holds and the associated shortcomings.

Background and Aims: The world healthcare systems are currently challenged by the accumulating burden of colorectal cancer (CRC), and cancer registries represent an important segment for prevention and developing management plans, being useful in providing data regarding incidence, mortality, survival, exposure to carcinogens, lifestyle. Retrospective data from CRC patients in Romania was used to assess survival impact, costs, and cost-effectiveness considering three crucial aspects: pharmacology, chemo-/radio-therapy, and hospitalization for care and management of these patients. Methods: 423 CRC patients from the Institutional Cancer Registry of the Prof. Dr. Ion Chiricuta Institute of Oncology in Cluj-Napoca, Romania were included in the cost analysis. For the assessment of cost efficiency of the primary treatment strategy, we collected data regarding direct medical costs associated with surgery, radiotherapy and medication, as well as the afferent day or continuous hospitalization, for each patient. For the cost-effectiveness analysis we used the method of estimation of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results: No compelling differences regarding survival time were observed in different therapeutic options per CRC stage. Substantial differences in cost effectiveness among therapeutic options in the same stage of several thousand Euros in stages I-III, while for stage IV, the ICER was more than 100,000 Euros per life saved. Conclusions: Systematic evaluation of costs, cost-effectiveness, and survival impact, helps healthcare systems can make informed decisions to improve the management of colorectal cancer patients, optimizing outcomes while minimizing financial burden.

Background and aims. This study explores the impact of emotional health on cancer patients, acknowledging the controversies and lack of high-quality data in the field, particularly for rare cancers and younger patients. It highlights the significant prevalence of depression and anxiety among cancer patients, the inadequacies in addressing mental health during and after treatment, and the inconsistencies in prevalence rates due to varying study methodologies. This study unravels the importance of data regarding mental health status in a clinical dataset to accompany the biological sample to be included in a biobank. Methods. The study utilized a questionnaire to evaluate the opinions of cancer patients, clinicians, and researchers regarding the inclusion of mental health data in clinical datasets accompanying biological samples in biobanks. The study involved 120 participants (40 from each group), and the data were analyzed using statistical methods. Results. The study found significant differences in the perceived importance of including mental health information among the three groups. Patients showed a higher tendency (87.9%) to consider mental health questions relevant compared to researchers (72.08%) and clinicians (62.08%). The first four questions regarding emotional well-being received the highest positive responses, particularly from patients (94.3%). The findings underline the importance of addressing the mental health of cancer patients, which is often overlooked. The study emphasizes the necessity for integrating mental health data in biobanks and increasing psychological support for cancer patients. Conclusions. There are clear differences in how patients, researchers, and clinicians value emotional and psychological aspects. The study underscores the need for better education on modern medical practices and the benefits of comprehensive patient care, including mental health considerations.