Does Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) Truly Exist as a Distinct Cancer Entity?

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) designates an enigmatic cancer entity with histologic confirmation of malignancy from a metastasis but no identifiable primary tumor in spite of a thorough diagnostic work-up. In this review, we discuss the validity of CUP as a distinct cancer entity as well as diagnostic pitfalls. As arguments against a distinct entity, the diagnosis of CUP is erroneous in some cases. Diagnostic pitfalls include incomplete diagnostics, uncertainty in classifying a lesion as either primary or metastasis and mistaking a relapse of an antecedent malignancy as CUP due to histologic and immunohistologic disparities. Given the high frequency of prior malignancies in CUP patients, relapse of an antecedent cancer should always be carefully excluded. Gene expression profiling-based classifier assays aim at aligning the molecular profile of CUP patients with established primary cancer patterns for highest congruency in order to identify the putative primary and treat accordingly. However, the spectrum of predicted putative primaries by molecular techniques is somewhat at odds with the primaries identified in autopsy series. Also, a first randomized clinical trial did not show superiority of primary-tailored therapy over unspecific platinum-based chemotherapy. CUP cases share an aggressive clinical course, atypical metastasis pattern, rapid progression of metastases, a generally poor response to chemotherapy and dismal outcome as distinct clinical features. Metastatic spread appears to take place in the early stages of tumor evolution, with CUP metastases subsequently undergoing genetic evolution toward a chromosomally highly complex and instable karyotype independent from the primary tumor. In clinical practice, the diagnosis of CUP is valid when no primary tumor is detectable. Treatment should ideally offer broad spectrum coverage across numerous malignancies and be well-established in CUP as is the case for carboplatin/paclitaxel and cisplatin / gemcitabine in particular, but it should also cover the most likely putative primary. The diligent diagnosis of CUP is warranted for clinical trials, making the eligibility process particularly laborious. In conclusion, we deem CUP a distinct cancer entity and the diagnosis accurate in most patient cases

Fludarabine-treosulfan compared to thiotepa-busulfan-fludarabine or FLAMSA as conditioning regimen for patients with primary refractory or relapsed acute myeloid leukemia: a study from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT)

Background: Limited data is available to guide the choice of the conditioning regimen for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) undergoing transplant with persistent disease. Methods: We retrospectively compared outcome of fludarabine-treosulfan (FT), thiotepa-busulfan-fludarabine (TBF), and sequential fludarabine, intermediate dose Ara-C, amsacrine, total body irradiation/busulfan, cyclophosphamide (FLAMSA) conditioning in patients with refractory or relapsed AML. Results: Complete remission rates at day 100 were 92%, 80%, and 88% for FT, TBF, and FLAMSA, respectively (p = 0.13). Non-relapse mortality, incidence of relapse, acute (a) and chronic (c) graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) rates did not differ between the three groups. Overall survival at 2 years was 37% for FT, 24% for TBF, and 34% for FLAMSA (p = 0.10). Independent prognostic factors for survival were Karnofsky performance score and patient CMV serology (p = 0.01; p = 0.02), while survival was not affected by age at transplant. The use of anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) was associated with reduced risk of grade III–IV aGVHD (p = 0.02) and cGVHD (p = 0.006), with no influence on relapse. Conclusions: In conclusion, FT, TBF, and FLAMSA regimens provided similar outcome in patients undergoing transplant with active AML. Survival was determined by patient characteristics as Karnofsky performance score and CMV serology, however was not affected by age at transplant. ATG appears able to reduce the incidence of acute and chronic GVHD without influencing relapse risk

Micronucleus formation in human cancer cells is biased by chromosome size.

Chromosomal instability is one of the hallmarks of cancer and caused by chromosome missegregation during mitosis, a process frequently associated with micronucleus formation. Micronuclei are formed when chromosomes fail to join a daughter nucleus during cell division and are surrounded by their own nuclear membrane. Although it has been commonly assumed that the gain or loss of specific chromosomes is random during compromised cell division, recent data suggest that the size of chromosomes can impact on chromosome segregation fidelity. To test whether chromosome missegregation rates scale with chromosome size in primary human cancer cells, we assessed chromosome sequestration into micronuclei in patient-derived primary NCH149 glioblastoma cells, which display high-level numerical chromosome instability (CIN), pronounced spontaneous micronucleus formation but virtually no structural CIN. The cells were analysed by interphase fluorescence-in-situ-hybridization (FISH) using chromosome-specific painting probes for all chromosomes. Overall, 33% of early passage NCH149 cells harbored micronuclei. Entrapment within a micronucleus clearly correlated with chromosome size with larger chromosomes being significantly more frequently missegregated into micronuclei than smaller chromosomes in primary glioblastoma cells. These findings extend the concept that chromosome size determines segregation fidelity by implying that size-specific micronucleus entrapment occurs in primary human cancer cells as well. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

A Challenging Task: Identifying Patients with Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) According to ESMO Guidelines: The CUPISCO Trial Experience

BACKGROUND CUPISCO is an ongoing randomized phase II trial (NCT03498521) comparing molecularly guided therapy versus platinum-based chemotherapy in patients newly diagnosed with "unfavorable" cancer of unknown primary (CUP). MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients with an unfavorable CUP diagnosis, as defined by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and available cancer tissue for molecular sequencing are generally eligible. Potential patients with CUP entering screening undergo a review involving reference histopathology and clinical work-up by a central eligibility review team (ERT). Patients with "favorable" CUP, a strongly suspected primary site of origin, lack of tissue, or unmet inclusion criteria are excluded. RESULTS As of April 30, 2020, 628 patients had entered screening and 346 (55.1%) were screen failed. Screen fails were due to technical reasons (n = 89), failure to meet inclusion and exclusion criteria not directly related to CUP diagnosis (n = 89), and other reasons (n = 33). A total of 124 (35.8%) patients were excluded because unfavorable adeno- or poorly differentiated CUP could not be confirmed by the ERT. These cases were classified into three groups ineligible because of (a) histologic subtype, such as squamous and neuroendocrine, or favorable CUP; (b) evidence of a possible primary tumor; or (c) noncarcinoma histology. CONCLUSION Experience with CUPISCO has highlighted challenges with standardized screening in an international clinical trial and the difficulties in diagnosing unfavorable CUP. Reconfirmation of unfavorable CUP by an ERT in a clinical trial can result in many reasons for screen failures. By sharing this experience, we aim to foster understanding of diagnostic challenges and improve diagnostic pathology and clinical CUP algorithms. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE A high unmet need exists for improved treatment of cancer of unknown primary (CUP); however, study in a trial setting is faced with the significant challenge of definitively distinguishing CUP from other cancer types. This article reports the authors' experience of this challenge so far in the ongoing CUPISCO trial, which compares treatments guided by patients' unique genetic signatures versus standard chemotherapy. The data presented will aid future decision-making regarding diagnosing true CUP cases; this will have far-reaching implications in the design, execution, and interpretation of not only CUPISCO but also future clinical studies aiming to find much-needed treatment strategies

Integrated Histogenetic Analysis Reveals BAP1-Mutated Epithelioid Mesothelioma in a Patient With Cancer of Unknown Primary

This case report presents a male patient with epithelioid mesothelioma that was initially misdiagnosed as cancer of unknown primary (CUP) and correctly identified using molecular panel sequencing. The patient had a prior history of colon and breast cancer. To assess the enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes, retrosternal lymphadenectomy was performed in 2016. The lymph nodes were histologically deemed unrelated to the known breast cancer by the reference pathologist, thus leading to the diagnosis of a CUP syndrome. When the patient presented to our center, targeted deep sequencing of both breast cancer and presumed CUP was performed to address the clonal relationship between both malignancies. A missense mutation in BAP1 was revealed in both samples, with coverage data indicating a germline event. The patient was subsequently counseled by a human geneticist and underwent genetic testing, which confirmed the germline nature of this mutation. Collectively, these data led to the diagnosis of BAP1 (BRCA1-associated protein-1) tumor predisposition syndrome (TPDS). With the knowledge of an underlying BAP1 mutation and its known frequent association with epithelioid mesothelioma, the histology was reassessed and the diagnosis was revised to epithelioid mesothelioma. At this point, peritoneal involvement of mesothelioma could be diagnosed and histologically confirmed. This case illustrates the potential of integrated histopathologic and molecular diagnostics in helping to decipher CUP syndromes and establish the correct diagnosis. Additionally, this case highlights typical features of BAP1 TPDS with its general susceptibility to cancers, with pleural and peritoneal mesotheliomas as most prevalent clinical entities and the typically more benign course of these epithelioid mesotheliomas compared with BAP1-unrelated cases of mesotheliomas

Cancer-of-Unknown-Primary-Origin: A SEER–Medicare Study of Patterns of Care and Outcomes among Elderly Patients in Clinical Practice

Knowledge of contemporary patterns of cancer-of-unknown-primary-origin (CUP) diagnostic work-up, treatment, and outcomes in routine healthcare is limited. Thus, we examined data from elderly patients diagnosed with CUP in real-world US clinical practice. From the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare-linked database, we included patients ≥ 66 years old with CUP diagnosed between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015. We analyzed baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, methods of diagnostic work-up (biopsy, immunohistochemistry, imaging), treatment-related factors, and survival. CUP diagnosis was histologically confirmed in 2813/4562 patients (61.7%). Overall, 621/4562 (13.6%) patients received anticancer pharmacotherapy; among these, 97.3% had a histologically confirmed tumor and 83.1% received all three procedures. Among those with a histologically confirmed tumor, increasing age, increasing comorbidity score, not receiving all three diagnostic measures, and having a not-further specified histologic finding of only ‘malignant neoplasm’ were all negatively associated with receipt of anticancer pharmacotherapy. Median overall survival was 1.2 months for all patients. Median time between CUP diagnosis and treatment initiation was 41 days. Limited diagnostic work-up was common and most patients did not receive anticancer pharmacotherapy. The poor outcomes highlight a substantial unmet need for further research into improving diagnostic work-up and treatment effectiveness in CUP