Search results for: backward elimination

Authors: Mary-Ann N. Jallad, Dalal F. Jaber, Alexander M. Abdelnoor

Abstract:

Introduction: Current evidence confirms that both innate and adaptive immune systems are capable of recognizing and abolishing malignant cells. The emergence of cancerous tumors in patients is, therefore, an indication that certain cancer cells can resist elimination by the immune system through a process known as “immune evasion”. In fact, cancer cells often exploit regulatory mechanisms to escape immunity. Such mechanisms normally exist to control the immune responses and prohibit exaggerated or autoimmune reactions. Recently, immunotherapies have shown promising yet limited results. Therefore this study investigates several immunotherapeutic combinations and devises a triple immunotherapy which harnesses the innate and acquired immune responses towards the annihilation of malignant cells through overcoming their ability of immune evasion, consequently hampering malignant progression and eliminating established tumors. The aims of the study are to rule out acute/chronic toxic effects of the proposed treatment combinations, to assess the effect of these combinations on tumor growth and survival rates, and to investigate potential mechanisms underlying the phenotypic results through analyzing serum levels of anti-tumor cytokines, angiogenic factors and tumor progression indicator, and the tumor-infiltrating immune-cells populations. Methodology: For toxicity analysis, cancer-free C57BL/6 mice are randomized into 9 groups: Group 1 untreated, group 2 treated with sterile saline (solvent of used treatments), group 3 treated with Monophosphoryl-lipid-A, group 4 with anti-CTLA4-antibodies, group 5 with 1-Methyl-Tryptophan (Indolamine-Dioxygenase-1 inhibitor), group 6 with both MPLA and anti-CTLA4-antibodies, group 7 with both MPLA and 1-MT, group 8 with both anti-CTLA4-antibodies and 1-MT, and group 9 with all three: MPLA, anti-CTLA4-antibodies and 1-MT. Mice are monitored throughout the treatment period and for three following months. At that point, histological sections from their main organs are assessed. For tumor progression and survival analysis, a murine melanoma model is generated by injecting analogous mice with B16F10 melanoma cells. These mice are segregated into the listed nine groups. Their tumor size and survival are monitored. For a depiction of underlying mechanisms, melanoma-bearing mice from each group are sacrificed at several time-points. Sera are tested to assess the levels of Interleukin-12 (IL-12), Vascular-Endothelial-Growth Factor (VEGF), and S100B. Furthermore, tumors are excised for analysis of infiltrated immune cell populations including T-cells, macrophages, natural killer cells and immune-regulatory cells. Results: Toxicity analysis shows that all treated groups present no signs of neither acute nor chronic toxicity. Their appearance and weights were comparable to those of control groups throughout the treatment period and for the following 3 months. Moreover, histological sections from their hearts, kidneys, lungs, and livers were normal. Work is ongoing for completion of the remaining study aims. Conclusion: Toxicity was the major concern for the success of the proposed comprehensive combinational therapy. Data generated so far ruled out any acute or chronic toxic effects. Consequently, ongoing work is quite promising and may significantly contribute to the development of more effective immunotherapeutic strategies for the treatment of cancer patients.

Keywords: cancer immunotherapy, check-point blockade, combination therapy, melanoma

Procedia PDF Downloads 103

Authors: Murat Arıbaş, Uğur Özcan

Abstract:

Due to the increasing number of universities and academics, the fund of the universities for research activities and grants/supports given by government institutions have increased number and quality of academic research projects. Although every academic research project has a specific purpose and importance, limited resources (money, time, manpower etc.) require choosing the best ones from all (Amiri, 2010). It is a pretty hard process to compare and determine which project is better such that the projects serve different purposes. In addition, the evaluation process has become complicated since there are more than one evaluator and multiple criteria for the evaluation (Dodangeh, Mojahed and Yusuff, 2009). Mehrez and Sinuany-Stern (1983) determined project selection problem as a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem. If a decision problem involves multiple criteria and objectives, it is called as a Multi Attribute Decision Making problem (Ömürbek & Kınay, 2013). There are many MCDM methods in the literature for the solution of such problems. These methods are AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), ANP (Analytic Network Process), TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation), UTADIS (Utilities Additives Discriminantes), ELECTRE (Elimination et Choix Traduisant la Realite), MAUT (Multiattribute Utility Theory), GRA (Grey Relational Analysis) etc. Teach method has some advantages compared with others (Ömürbek, Blacksmith & Akalın, 2013). Hence, to decide which MCDM method will be used for solution of the problem, factors like the nature of the problem, types of choices, measurement scales, type of uncertainty, dependency among the attributes, expectations of decision maker, and quantity and quality of the data should be considered (Tavana & Hatami-Marbini, 2011). By this study, it is aimed to develop a systematic decision process for the grant support applications that are expected to be evaluated according to their scientific adequacy by multiple evaluators under certain criteria. In this context, project evaluation process applied by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) the leading institutions in our country, was investigated. Firstly in the study, criteria that will be used on the project evaluation were decided. The main criteria were selected among TÜBİTAK evaluation criteria. These criteria were originality of project, methodology, project management/team and research opportunities and extensive impact of project. Moreover, for each main criteria, 2-4 sub criteria were defined, hence it was decided to evaluate projects over 13 sub-criterion in total. Due to superiority of determination criteria weights AHP method and provided opportunity ranking great number of alternatives TOPSIS method, they are used together. AHP method, developed by Saaty (1977), is based on selection by pairwise comparisons. Because of its simple structure and being easy to understand, AHP is the very popular method in the literature for determining criteria weights in MCDM problems. Besides, the TOPSIS method developed by Hwang and Yoon (1981) as a MCDM technique is an alternative to ELECTRE method and it is used in many areas. In the method, distance from each decision point to ideal and to negative ideal solution point was calculated by using Euclidian Distance Approach. In the study, main criteria and sub-criteria were compared on their own merits by using questionnaires that were developed based on an importance scale by four relative groups of people (i.e. TUBITAK specialists, TUBITAK managers, academics and individuals from business world ) After these pairwise comparisons, weight of the each main criteria and sub-criteria were calculated by using AHP method. Then these calculated criteria’ weights used as an input in TOPSİS method, a sample consisting 200 projects were ranked on their own merits. This new system supported to opportunity to get views of the people that take part of project process including preparation, evaluation and implementation on the evaluation of academic research projects. Moreover, instead of using four main criteria in equal weight to evaluate projects, by using weighted 13 sub-criteria and decision point’s distance from the ideal solution, systematic decision making process was developed. By this evaluation process, new approach was created to determine importance of academic research projects.

Keywords: Academic projects, Ahp method, Research projects evaluation, Topsis method.

Procedia PDF Downloads 572