Title |
Relevance of internal time and circadian robustness for cancer patients
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Cancer, April 2016
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12885-016-2319-9 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Elisabet Ortiz-Tudela, Pasquale F. Innominato, Maria Angeles Rol, Francis Lévi, Juan Antonio Madrid |
Abstract |
Adequate circadian timing of cancer treatment schedules (chronotherapy) can enhance tolerance and efficacy several-fold in experimental and clinical situations. However, the optimal timing varies according to sex, genetic background and lifestyle. Here, we compute the individual phase of the Circadian Timing System to decipher the internal timing of each patient and find the optimal treatment timing. Twenty-four patients (11 male; 13 female), aged 36 to 77 years, with advanced or metastatic gastro-intestinal cancer were recruited. Inner wrist surface Temperature, arm Activity and Position (TAP) were recorded every 10 min for 12 days, divided into three 4-day spans before, during and after a course of a set chronotherapy schedule. Pertinent indexes, I < O and a new biomarker, DI (degree of temporal internal order maintenance), were computed for each patient and period. Three circadian rhythms and the TAP rhythm grew less stable and more fragmented in response to treatment. Furthermore, large inter- and intra-individual changes were found for T, A, P and TAP patterns, with phase differences of up to 12 hours among patients. A moderate perturbation of temporal internal order was observed, but the administration of fixed chronomodulated chemotherapy partially resynchronized temperature and activity rhythms by the end of the study. The integrated variable TAP, together with the asynchrony among rhythms revealed by the new biomarker DI, would help in the personalization of cancer chronotherapy, taking into account individual circadian phase markers. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 33% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 18% |
Student > Bachelor | 11 | 15% |
Researcher | 10 | 14% |
Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
Other | 12 | 17% |
Unknown | 12 | 17% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 18% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 14% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 13% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
Psychology | 4 | 6% |
Other | 16 | 22% |
Unknown | 16 | 22% |