Over the last years, repurposed agents have provided growing evidence of fast implementation in oncology treatment such as certain antimalarial, anthelmintic, antibiotics, anti-inflammatory, antihypertensive, antihyperlipidemic, antidiabetic agents. In this study, the four agents of choice were present in our patients’ daily treatment for nonmalignant-associated pathology and have known, light toxicity profiles. It is quite common for a given patient’s daily administration schedule to include two or three of these drugs for the duration of their treatment. We chose to review the latest literature concerning metformin, employed as a first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes; mebendazole, as an anthelmintic; atorvastatin, as a cholesterol-lowering drug; propranolol, used in cardiovascular diseases as a nonspecific inhibitor of beta-1 and beta-2 adrenergic receptors. At the same time, certain key action mechanisms make them feasible antitumor agents such as for mitochondrial ETC inhibition, activation of the enzyme adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase, amelioration of endogenous hyperinsulinemia, inhibition of selective tyrosine kinases (i.e., VEGFR2, TNIK, and BRAF), and mevalonate pathway inhibition. Despite the abundance of results from in vitro and in vivo studies, the only solid data from randomized clinical trials confirm metformin-related oncological benefits for only a small subset of nondiabetic patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and early-stage colorectal cancer. At the same time, clinical studies confirm metformin-related detrimental/lack of an effect for lung, breast, prostate cancer, and glioblastoma. For atorvastatin we see a clinical oncological benefit in patients and head and neck cancer, with a trend towards radioprotection of critical structures, thus supporting the role of atorvastatin as a promising agent for concomitant association with radiotherapy. Propranolol-related increased outcomes were seen in clinical studies in patients with melanoma, breast cancer, and sarcoma.

The microbiota is the complex community of microorganisms that populate a particular environment in the human body, whereas the microbiome is defined by the entire habitat—microorganisms and their environment. The most abundant and, therefore, the most studied microbiome is that of the gastrointestinal tract. However, the microbiome of the female reproductive tract is an interesting research avenue, and this article explores its role in disease development. The vagina is the reproductive organ that hosts the largest number of bacteria, with a healthy profile represented mainly by Lactobacillus spp. On the other hand, the female upper reproductive tract (uterus, Fallopian tubes, ovaries) contains only a very small number of bacteria. Previously considered sterile, recent studies have shown the presence of a small microbiota here, but there are still debates on whether this is a physiologic or pathologic occurrence. Of particular note is that estrogen levels significantly influence the composition of the microbiota of the female reproductive tract. More and more studies show a link between the microbiome of the female reproductive tract and the development of gynecological cancers. This article reviews some of these findings.

Background: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) plays an important role in tumor progression in ovarian cancer, but the complex mechanism and interaction with oxidative stress are not fully understood. Methods: A prospective study included 52 patients with ovarian adenocarcinoma stage IIIA-IV. Serum VEGF and reactive oxygen species (ROS) such as malondialdehyde and ceruloplasmin were measured. Results: VEGF levels were elevated (mean 1014.7 ± 165 pg/mL), especially in patients with macroscopic residual disease (1058 vs. 810 pg/mL, p = 0.0001). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 6 and 40 months in patients with a very high VEGF (over 1200 pg/mL), 11 and 48 months in patients with VEGF between 1000–1200 pg/mL, 18 and 84 months in patients with VEGF between 800–1000 pg/mL, and not reached in patients with normal VEGF. Increased VEGF values were associated with a 2.6-fold increased risk of disease progression (HR = 2.60, 95% CI 1.69–3.99), and a 1.4-fold increased risk of death (HR = 1.4, 95% CI 1.15–1.91, p = 0.002). Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were used to validate VEGF as a prognostic factor and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.814, p = 0.036 for PFS and 0.729, p = 0.043, for OS. There was a positive correlation between VEGF and malondialdehyde, Pearson coefficient of 0.35, p = 0.0001. Conclusions: VEGF and malondialdehyde are important prognostic markers in ovarian cancer, especially in macroscopic residual disease, and there is a positive correlation between angiogenesis and oxidative stress.

Background/Objectives: Malnutrition is a key determinant of quality of life (QoL) in patients with head and neck cancers (HNCs), influencing treatment outcomes and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs). Despite there being numerous studies on nutritional status and QoL, there is no standardized risk or prognostic model integrating clinical and demographic factors. Methods: A literature search was conducted in September 2024 in Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science, covering studies published between 2013 and 2024. Articles were selected based on their relevance to AEs, nutritional interventions, and QoL assessments in HNC patients. Results: The key factors influencing QoL in HNC patients include age, sex, weight, BMI, educational level, and tumor features. Mucositis was identified as the most significant food intake-impairing AE, contributing to malnutrition and reduced QoL. Current QoL assessments rely on descriptive questionnaires, which lack personalization and predictive capabilities. Digital tools, including machine learning models and digital twins, offer potential solutions for risk prediction and personalized nutritional interventions. Conclusions: Despite significant research efforts, QoL assessment in HNC patients remains non-uniform, and risk models integrating nutritional status are lacking. A comprehensive, personalized approach is needed, leveraging digital tools to improve nutritional intervention strategies.

Metastatic lesions of the spine occur in up to 40% of cancer patients and are a frequent source of pain and neurologic deficit due to cord compression. Palliative radiotherapy is the main first-intent local treatment in the form of single-fraction radiotherapy or fractionated courses. Reirradiation is a viable option for inoperable patients where spinal decompression is needed but with an increased risk of radiation-induced myelopathy (RM) and subsequent neurologic damage. This review summarizes reported data on local treatment options after initial irradiation in patients with relapsed spine metastasis and key dosimetric correlations between the risk of spinal cord injury and reirradiation technique, total dose, and time between treatments. The Linear Quadratic (LQ) model was used to convert all the published doses into biologically effective doses and normalize them to EQD2. For 3D radiotherapy, authors used cumulative doses from 55.2 Gy2/2 to 65.5 Gy2/2 EQD2 with no cases of RM mentioned. We found little evidence of RM after SBRT in the papers that met our criteria of inclusion, usually at the median reported dose to critical neural tissue around 93.5 Gy2/2. There is a lack of consistency in reporting the spinal cord dose, which leads to difficulty in pooling data.

In 2021, the 5th edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System (WHO-CNS5) was published as the sixth volume of the international standard for brain and spinal cord tumor classification. The most remarkable practical change in the current classification involves grading gliomas according to molecular characterization. IDH mutant (10%) and IDH wild-type tumors (90%) are two different entities that possess unique biological features and various clinical outcomes regarding treatment response and overall survival. This article presents two comparative cases that highlight the clinical importance of these new classification standards. The first clinical case aimed to provide a comprehensive argument for determining the IDH status in tumors initially appearing as low-grade astrocytoma upon histologic examination, thus underlining the importance of the WHO-CNS5. The second case showed the implications of the histologic overdiagnosis of glioblastoma using the previous classification system with a treatment span of 7 years that proceeded through full-dose re-irradiation up to metronomic therapy. The new WHO-CNS5 classification significantly impacted complex neurooncological cases, thus changing the initial approach to a more precise therapeutic management.