Expertise in surgical neuro-oncology. Results of a survey by the EANS neuro-oncology section

Introduction: Technical advances and the increasing role of interdisciplinary decision-making may warrant formal definitions of expertise in surgical neuro-oncology. Research question: The EANS Neuro-oncology Section felt that a survey detailing the European neurosurgical perspective on the concept of expertise in surgical neuro-oncology might be helpful. Material and methods: The EANS Neuro-oncology Section panel developed an online survey asking questions regarding criteria for expertise in neuro-oncological surgery and sent it to all individual EANS members. Results: Our questionnaire was completed by 251 respondents (consultants: 80.1%) from 42 countries. 67.7% would accept a lifetime caseload of >200 cases and 86.7% an annual caseload of >50 as evidence of neuro-oncological surgical expertise. A majority felt that surgeons who do not treat children (56.2%), do not have experience with spinal fusion (78.1%) or peripheral nerve tumors (71.7%) may still be considered experts. Majorities believed that expertise requires the use of skull-base approaches (85.8%), intraoperative monitoring (83.4%), awake craniotomies (77.3%), and neuro-endoscopy (75.5%) as well as continuing education of at least 1/year (100.0%), a research background (80.0%) and teaching activities (78.7%), and formal interdisciplinary collaborations (e.g., tumor board: 93.0%). Academic vs. non-academic affiliation, career position, years of neurosurgical experience, country of practice, and primary clinical interest had a minor influence on the respondents’ opinions. Discussion and conclusion: Opinions among neurosurgeons regarding the characteristics and features of expertise in neuro-oncology vary surprisingly little. Large majorities favoring certain thresholds and qualitative criteria suggest a consensus definition might be possible

HDAC Inhibition Overcomes Acute Resistance to MEK Inhibition in BRAF-Mutant Colorectal Cancer by Downregulation of c-FLIPL

PURPOSE: Activating mutations in the BRAF oncogene are found in 8-15% of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and have been associated with poor survival. In contrast to BRAF mutant (MT) melanoma, inhibition of the MAPK pathway is ineffective in the majority of BRAFMT CRC patients. Therefore, identification of novel therapies for BRAFMT CRC is urgently needed. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: BRAFMT and WT CRC models were assessed in vitro and in vivo. Small molecule inhibitors of MEK1/2, MET and HDAC were employed, over-expression and siRNA approaches were applied, and cell death was assessed by flow cytometry, Western blotting, cell viability and caspase activity assays. RESULTS: Increased c-MET-STAT3 signalling was identified as a novel adaptive resistance mechanism to MEK inhibitors (MEKi) in BRAFMT CRC models in vitro and in vivo. Moreover, MEKi treatment resulted in acute increases in transcription of the endogenous caspase-8 inhibitor c-FLIP(L) in BRAFMT cells, but not in BRAFWT cells, and inhibition of STAT3 activity abrogated MEKi-induced c-FLIP(L) expression. In addition, treatment with c-FLIP-specific siRNA or HDAC inhibitors abrogated MEKi-induced upregulation of c-FLIP(L) expression and resulted in significant increases in MEKi-induced cell death in BRAFMT CRC cells. Notably, combined HDAC inhibitor/MEKi treatment resulted in dramatically attenuated tumor growth in BRAFMT xenografts. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that c-MET/STAT3-dependent upregulation of c-FLIP(L) expression is an important escape mechanism following MEKi treatment in BRAFMT CRC. Thus, combinations of MEKi with inhibitors of c-MET or c-FLIP (eg. HDAC inhibitors) could be potential novel treatment strategies for BRAFMT CRC

Supplementary Figure S7 from HDAC Inhibition Overcomes Acute Resistance to MEK Inhibition in <i>BRAF</i>-Mutant Colorectal Cancer by Downregulation of c-FLIP_L

Supplementary Figure S7. MEK1/2 regulates levels of decoy MET in BRAFMT in vitro and in vivo models.</p