Pathology & Oncology Research / Molecular Profiling of Thymoma and Thymic Carcinoma : Genetic Differences and Potential Novel Therapeutic Targets

Thymoma and thymic carcinoma are thymic epithelial tumors (TETs). We performed a molecular profiling to investigate the pathogenesis of TETs and identify novel targets for therapy. We analyzed 37 thymomas (18 type A, 19 type B3) and 35 thymic carcinomas. The sequencing of 50 genes detected nonsynonymous mutations in 16 carcinomas affecting ALK, ATM, CDKN2A, ERBB4, FGFR3, KIT, NRAS and TP53. Only two B3 thymomas had a mutation in noncoding regions of the SMARCB1 and STK11 gene respectively. Three type A thymomas harbored a nonsynonymous HRAS mutation. Fluorescence in situ hybridization detected in 38 % of carcinomas a CDKN2A, in 32 % a TP53 and in 8 % an ATM gene deletion, whereas only one B3 thymoma exhibited a CDKNA deletion, and none of the type A thymomas showed a gene loss. Sequencing of the total miRNA pool of 5 type A thymomas and 5 thymic carcinomas identified the C19MC miRNA cluster as highly expressed in type A thymomas, but completely silenced in thymic carcinomas. Furthermore, the miRNA cluster C14MC was downregulated in thymic carcinomas. Among non-clustered miRNAs, the upregulation of miR-21, miR-9-3 and miR-375 and the downregulation of miR-34b, miR-34c, miR-130a and miR-195 in thymic carcinomas were most significant. The expression of ALK, HER2, HER3, MET, phospho-mTOR, p16INK4A, PDGFRA, PDGFRB, PD-L1, PTEN and ROS1 was investigated by immunohistochemistry. PDGFRA was increased in thymic carcinomas and PD-L1 in B3 thymomas and thymic carcinomas. In summary, our results reveal genetic differences between thymomas and thymic carcinomas and suggest potential novel targets for therapy.(VLID)354444

Are hospitalized or ambulatory patients with heart failure treated in accordance with European Society of Cardiology guidelines? Evidence from 12 440 patients of the ESC Heart Failure Long-Term Registry.

AIMS: To evaluate how recommendations of European guidelines regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for heart failure (HF) are adopted in clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ESC-HF Long-Term Registry is a prospective, observational study conducted in 211 Cardiology Centres of 21 European and Mediterranean countries, members of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). From May 2011 to April 2013, a total of 12 440 patients were enrolled, 40.5% with acute HF and 59.5% with chronic HF. Intravenous treatments for acute HF were heterogeneously administered, irrespective of guideline recommendations. In chronic HF, with reduced EF, renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid antagonists (MRAs) were used in 92.2, 92.7, and 67.0% of patients, respectively. When reasons for non-adherence were considered, the real rate of undertreatment accounted for 3.2, 2.3, and 5.4% of the cases, respectively. About 30% of patients received the target dosage of these drugs, but a documented reason for not achieving the target dosage was reported in almost two-thirds of them. The more relevant reasons for non-implantation of a device, when clinically indicated, were related to doctor uncertainties on the indication, patient refusal, or logistical/cost issues. CONCLUSION: This pan-European registry shows that, while in patients with acute HF, a large heterogeneity of treatments exists, drug treatment of chronic HF can be considered largely adherent to recommendations of current guidelines, when the reasons for non-adherence are taken into account. Observations regarding the real possibility to adhere fully to current guidelines in daily clinical practice should be seriously considered when clinical practice guidelines have to be written