Arutha Kulasinghe

Dr. Arutha Kulasinghe

Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
+1
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

13Years (2014-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
24 April 2022 in Current Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
YSYavar Shiravand
Yavar Shiravand
FKfaezeh Khodadadi
faezeh Khodadadi
SKSeyyed Mohammad Amin Kashani
Seyyed Mohammad Amin Kashani
SFSeyed reza Hosseini fard
Seyed reza Hosseini fard
SHShadi Hosseini
Shadi Hosseini
AKArutha Kulasinghe
Arutha Kulasinghe
The discovery of immune checkpoint proteins such as PD-1/PDL-1 and CTLA-4 represents a significant breakthrough in the field of cancer immunotherapy. Therefore, humanized monoclonal antibodies, targeting these immune checkpoint proteins have been utilized successfully in patients with metastatic melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, head and neck cancers and non-small lung cancer. The US FDA has successfully approved three different categories of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) such as PD-1 inhibitors (Nivolumab, Pembrolizumab, and Cemiplimab), PDL-1 inhibitors (Atezolimumab, Durvalumab and Avelumab), and CTLA-4 inhibitor (Ipilimumab). Unfortunately, not all patients respond favourably to these drugs, highlighting the role of biomarkers such as Tumour mutation burden (TMB), PDL-1 expression, microbiome, hypoxia, interferon-γ, and ECM in predicting responses to ICIs-based immunotherapy. The current study aims to review the literature and updates on ICIs in cancer therapy.

15 February 2021 in Nature Materials
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
BKBhavesh D. Kevadiya
Bhavesh D. Kevadiya
JMJatin Machhi
Jatin Machhi
JHJonathan Herskovitz
Jonathan Herskovitz
MOMaxim D. Oleynikov
Maxim D. Oleynikov
WBWilson R. Blomberg
Wilson R. Blomberg
HGHoward Eliot Gendelman
Howard Eliot Gendelman
1

1 May 2011 in Clinical Chemistry
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
TPTina Pfaffe
Tina Pfaffe
JCJustin Cooper-White
Justin Cooper-White
PBPeter Beyerlein
Peter Beyerlein
KKKaram Kostner
Karam Kostner
Chamindie K. PunyadeeraChamindie K. Punyadeera
Chamindie K. Punyadeera
BACKGROUND: Over the past 10 years, the use of saliva as a diagnostic fluid has gained attention and has become a translational research success story. Some of the current nanotechnologies have been demonstrated to have the analytical sensitivity required for the use of saliva as a diagnostic medium to detect and predict disease progression. However, these technologies have not yet been integrated into current clinical practice and work flow. CONTENT: As a diagnostic fluid, saliva offers advantages over serum because it can be collected noninvasively by individuals with modest training, and it offers a cost-effective approach for the screening of large populations. Gland-specific saliva can also be used for diagnosis of pathology specific to one of the major salivary glands. There is minimal risk of contracting infections during saliva collection, and saliva can be used in clinically challenging situations, such as obtaining samples from children or handicapped or anxious patients, in whom blood sampling could be a difficult act to perform. In this review we highlight the production of and secretion of saliva, the salivary proteome, transportation of biomolecules from blood capillaries to salivary glands, and the diagnostic potential of saliva for use in detection of cardiovascular disease and oral and breast cancers. We also highlight the barriers to application of saliva testing and its advancement in clinical settings. SUMMARY: Saliva has the potential to become a first-line diagnostic sample of choice owing to the advancements in detection technologies coupled with combinations of biomolecules with clinical relevance.

4 December 2020 in Medicinal Research Reviews
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HRHabib Sadeghi Rad
Habib Sadeghi Rad
JMJames Monkman
James Monkman
Majid Ebrahimi WarkianiMajid Ebrahimi Warkiani
Majid Ebrahimi Warkiani
RLRahul Ladwa
Rahul Ladwa
Kenneth O'ByrneKenneth O'Byrne
Kenneth O'Byrne
AKArutha Kulasinghe
Arutha Kulasinghe
Advances in immunotherapy have led to durable and long‐term benefits in a subset of patients across a number of solid tumor types. Understanding of the subsets of patients that respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors at the cellular level, and in the context of their tumor microenvironment (TME) is becoming increasingly important. The TME is composed of a heterogeneous milieu of tumor and immune cells. The immune landscape of the TME can inhibit or promote tumor initiation and progression; thus, a deeper understanding of tumor immunity is necessary to develop immunotherapeutic strategies. Recent developments have focused on characterizing the TME immune contexture (type, density, and function) to discover mechanisms and biomarkers that may predict treatment outcomes. This has, in part, been powered by advancements in spatial characterization technologies. In this review article, we address the role of specific immune cells within the TME at various stages of tumor progression and how the immune contexture determinants affecting tumor growth are used therapeutically.

31 October 2019 in British Journal of Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JBJuliana Müller Bark
Juliana Müller Bark
AKArutha Kulasinghe
Arutha Kulasinghe
BCBenjamin Chua
Benjamin Chua
BDBryan W. Day
Bryan W. Day
Chamindie K. PunyadeeraChamindie K. Punyadeera
Chamindie K. Punyadeera
Gliomas are the most common tumours of the central nervous system and the most aggressive form is glioblastoma (GBM). Despite advances in treatment, patient survival remains low. GBM diagnosis typically relies on imaging techniques and postoperative pathological diagnosis; however, both procedures have their inherent limitations. Imaging modalities cannot differentiate tumour progression from treatment-related changes that mimic progression, known as pseudoprogression, which might lead to misinterpretation of therapy response and delay clinical interventions. In addition to imaging limitations, tissue biopsies are invasive and most of the time cannot be performed over the course of treatment to evaluate ‘real-time’ tumour dynamics. In an attempt to address these limitations, liquid biopsies have been proposed in the field. Blood sampling is a minimally invasive procedure for a patient to endure and could provide tumoural information to guide therapy. Tumours shed tumoural content, such as circulating tumour cells, cell-free nucleic acids, proteins and extracellular vesicles, into the circulation, and these biomarkers are reported to cross the blood–brain barrier. The use of liquid biopsies is emerging in the field of GBM. In this review, we aim to summarise the current literature on circulating biomarkers, namely circulating tumour cells, circulating tumour DNA and extracellular vesicles as potential non-invasively sampled biomarkers to manage the treatment of patients with GBM.

1 October 2011 in Journal of Immunological Methods
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Chamindie K. PunyadeeraChamindie K. Punyadeera
Chamindie K. Punyadeera
GDGoce Dimeski
Goce Dimeski
KKKaram Kostner
Karam Kostner
PBPeter Beyerlein
Peter Beyerlein
JCJustin Cooper-White
Justin Cooper-White