Adjuvant chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with resected non-small-cell lung cancer (E1505): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BackgroundAdjuvant chemotherapy for resected early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) provides a modest survival benefit. Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against VEGF, improves outcomes when added to platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced-stage non-squamous NSCLC. We aimed to evaluate the addition of bevacizumab to adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage resected NSCLC.MethodsWe did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial of adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and who had completely resected stage IB (≥4 cm) to IIIA (defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer 6th edition) NSCLC. We enrolled patients from across the US National Clinical Trials Network, including patients from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ECOG-ACRIN) affiliates in Europe and from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, within 6-12 weeks of surgery. The chemotherapy regimen for each patient was selected before randomisation and administered intravenously; it consisted of four 21-day cycles of cisplatin (75 mg/m2 on day 1 in all regimens) in combination with investigator's choice of vinorelbine (30 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8), docetaxel (75 mg/m2 on day 1), gemcitabine (1200 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8), or pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 on day 1). Patients in the bevacizumab group received bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously every 21 days starting with cycle 1 of chemotherapy and continuing for 1 year. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) to group A (chemotherapy alone) or group B (chemotherapy plus bevacizumab), centrally, using permuted blocks sizes and stratified by chemotherapy regimen, stage of disease, histology, and sex. No one was masked to treatment assignment, except the Data Safety and Monitoring Committee. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00324805.FindingsBetween June 1, 2007, and Sept 20, 2013, 1501 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups: 749 to group A (chemotherapy alone) and 752 to group B (chemotherapy plus bevacizumab). 383 (26%) of 1458 patients (with complete staging information) had stage IB, 636 (44%) had stage II, and 439 (30%) had stage IIIA disease (stage of disease data were missing for 43 patients). Squamous cell histology was reported for 422 (28%) of 1501 patients. All four cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens were used: 377 (25%) patients received vinorelbine, 343 (23%) received docetaxel, 283 (19%) received gemcitabine, and 497 (33%) received pemetrexed. At a median follow-up of 50·3 months (IQR 32·9-68·0), the estimated median overall survival in group A has not been reached, and in group B was 85·8 months (95% CI 74·9 to not reached); hazard ratio (group B vs group A) 0·99 (95% CI 0·82-1·19; p=0·90). Grade 3-5 toxicities of note (all attributions) that were reported more frequently in group B (the bevacizumab group) than in group A (chemotherapy alone) were overall worst grade (ie, all grade 3-5 toxicities; 496 [67%] of 738 in group A vs 610 [83%] of 735 in group B), hypertension (60 [8%] vs 219 [30%]), and neutropenia (241 [33%] vs 275 [37%]). The number of deaths on treatment did not differ between the groups (15 deaths in group A vs 19 in group B). Of these deaths, three in group A and ten in group B were considered at least possibly related to treatment.InterpretationAddition of bevacizumab to adjuvant chemotherapy did not improve overall survival for patients with surgically resected early-stage NSCLC. Bevacizumab does not have a role in this setting and should not be considered as an adjuvant therapy for patients with resected early-stage NSCLC.FundingNational Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health

Mechanisms of human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) regulation: clinical impacts in cancer

Background Limitless self-renewal is one of the hallmarks of cancer and is attained by telomere maintenance, essentially through telomerase (hTERT) activation. Transcriptional regulation of hTERT is believed to play a major role in telomerase activation in human cancers. Main body The dominant interest in telomerase results from its role in cancer. The role of telomeres and telomere maintenance mechanisms is well established as a major driving force in generating chromosomal and genomic instability. Cancer cells have acquired the ability to overcome their fate of senescence via telomere length maintenance mechanisms, mainly by telomerase activation. hTERT expression is up-regulated in tumors via multiple genetic and epigenetic mechanisms including hTERT amplifications, hTERT structural variants, hTERT promoter mutations and epigenetic modifications through hTERT promoter methylation. Genetic (hTERT promoter mutations) and epigenetic (hTERT promoter methylation and miRNAs) events were shown to have clinical implications in cancers that depend on hTERT activation. Knowing that telomeres are crucial for cellular self-renewal, the mechanisms responsible for telomere maintenance have a crucial role in cancer diseases and might be important oncological biomarkers. Thus, rather than quantifying TERT expression and its correlation with telomerase activation, the discovery and the assessment of the mechanisms responsible for TERT upregulation offers important information that may be used for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment monitoring in oncology. Furthermore, a better understanding of these mechanisms may promote their translation into effective targeted cancer therapies. Conclusion Herein, we reviewed the underlying mechanisms of hTERT regulation, their role in oncogenesis, and the potential clinical applications in telomerase-dependent cancers.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Multi-Institutional FASTQ File Exchange as a Means of Proficiency Testing for Next-Generation Sequencing Bioinformatics and Variant Interpretation

Next-generation sequencing is becoming increasingly common in clinical laboratories worldwide and is revolutionizing clinical molecular testing. However, the large amounts of raw data produced by next-generation sequencing assays and the need for complex bioinformatics analyses present unique challenges. Proficiency testing in clinical laboratories has traditionally been designed to evaluate assays in their entirety; however, it can be alternatively applied to separate assay components. We developed and implemented a multi-institutional proficiency testing approach to directly assess custom bioinformatics and variant interpretation processes. Six clinical laboratories, all of which use the same commercial library preparation kit for next-generation sequencing analysis of tumor specimens, each submitted raw data (FASTQ files) from four samples. These 24 file sets were then deidentified and redistributed to five of the institutions for analysis and interpretation according to their clinically validated approach. Among the laboratories, there was a high rate of concordance in the calling of single-nucleotide variants, in particular those we considered clinically significant (100% concordance). However, there was significant discordance in the calling of clinically significant insertions/deletions, with only two of seven being called by all participating laboratories. Missed calls were addressed by each laboratory to improve their bioinformatics processes. Thus, through our alternative proficiency testing approach, we identified the bioinformatic detection of insertions/deletions as an area of particular concern for clinical laboratories performing next-generation sequencing testing

Morphologically and immunohistochemically undifferentiated gastric neoplasia in a patient with multiple metastatic malignant melanomas: a case report

Introduction: Malignant melanoma is a neoplasia which frequently involves the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). GIT metastases are difficult to diagnose because they often recur many years after treatment of the primary cutaneous lesion and also manifest clinically at an advanced stage of the neoplasia. Furthermore, GIT metastases can appear in various morphological forms, and therefore immunohistochemistry is often useful in distinguishing between a malignant melanoma and other malignancies. Case presentation: We report the case of a 60-year-old man with a multiple metastatic melanoma who underwent an upper endoscopy to clarify the possible involvement of the gastric wall with a mass localized in the upper abdomen involving the pancreas and various lymph nodes, which was previously described with computed tomography. Clinically, the patient reported a progressive loss of appetite, nausea and vomiting. The upper endoscopy and histological examination revealed a gastric location of an undifferentiated neoplasm with an absence of immunohistochemical characteristics referable to the skin malignant melanoma that was removed previously. Conclusion: The present case report shows the difficulty in diagnosing a metastatic melanoma in the GIT and therefore, it seems worthwhile to consider metastatic malignant melanoma in the differential diagnosis of undifferentiated neoplasia. © 2008 Alghisi et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Neoadjuvant Osimertinib for the Treatment of Stage I-IIIA Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor–Mutated Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase II Multicenter Study

PurposeTo assess the safety and efficacy of the third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor osimertinib as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with surgically resectable stage I-IIIA EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Patients and methodsThis was a multi-institutional phase II trial of neoadjuvant osimertinib for patients with surgically resectable stage I-IIIA (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] V7) EGFR-mutated (L858R or exon 19 deletion) NSCLC (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03433469). Patients received osimertinib 80 mg orally once daily for up to two 28-day cycles before surgical resection. The primary end point was major pathological response (MPR) rate. Secondary safety and efficacy end points were also assessed. Exploratory end points included pretreatment and post-treatment tumor mutation profiling.ResultsA total of 27 patients were enrolled and treated with neoadjuvant osimertinib for a median 56 days before surgical resection. Twenty-four (89%) patients underwent subsequent surgery; three (11%) patients were converted to definitive chemoradiotherapy. The MPR rate was 14.8% (95% CI, 4.2 to 33.7). No pathological complete responses were observed. The ORR was 52%, and the median DFS was 40.9 months. One treatment-related serious adverse event (AE) occurred (3.7%). No patients were unable to undergo surgical resection or had surgery delayed because of an AE. The most common co-occurring tumor genomic alterations were in TP53 (42%) and RBM10 (21%).ConclusionTreatment with neoadjuvant osimertinib in surgically resectable (stage IA-IIIA, AJCC V7) EGFR-mutated NSCLC did not meet its primary end point for MPR rate. However, neoadjuvant osimertinib did not lead to unanticipated AEs, surgical delays, nor result in a significant unresectability rate

Randomized trial to compare the efficacy and toxicity of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) with methotrexate mitoxantrone (MM) in advanced carcinoma of the breast

One hundred and sixteen patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive CMF (cyclophosphamide 600 mg m−2 day 1 and 8 i.v., 5-fluorouracil 600 mg m−2 day 1 and 8 i.v.,, methotrexate 40 mg m−2 day 1 and 8 i.v., monthly for 6 cycles) or MM (methotrexate 30 mg m−2, mitoxantrone 6.5 mg m−2, both i.v. day 1 3-weekly for 8 cycles) as first line treatment with chemotherapy. Objective responses occurred in 17 patients out of 58 (29%) who received CMF and nine out of 58 (15%) who received MM; 95% confidence interval for difference in response rates (–1%–29%), P = 0.07. No statistically significant differences were seen in overall survival or time to progression between the two regimes although a tendency towards a shorter progression time on the MM regime must be acknowledged. There was, however, significantly reduced haematological toxicity (P < 0.001) and alopecia (P < 0.001) and fewer dose reductions and delays in patients randomized to MM. No statistically significant differences were seen between the two regimes in terms of quality of life (QOL). However, some association between QOL and toxicity was apparent overall with pooled QOL estimates tending to indicate a worsening in psychological state with increasing maximum toxicity over treatment. Despite the fact that results surrounding response rates and time to progression did not reach statistical significance, their possible compatibility with an improved outcome on CMF treatment must be borne in mind. However, MM is a well-tolerated regimen with fewer side-effects than CMF, which with careful patient management and follow-up, therefore, may merit consideration as a first-line treatment to palliate patients with metastatic breast cancer who are infirm or elderly. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig

Surrogate markers and survival in women receiving first-line combination anthracycline chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer

Surrogate markers may help predict the effects of first-line treatment on survival. This metaregression analysis examines the relationship between several surrogate markers and survival in women with advanced breast cancer after receiving first-line combination anthracycline chemotherapy 5-fluorouracil, adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (FAC) or 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (FEC) . From a systematic literature review, we identified 42 randomised trials. The surrogate markers were complete or partial tumour response, progressive disease and time to progression. The treatment effect on survival was quantified by the hazard ratio. The treatment effect on each surrogate marker was quantified by the odds ratio (or ratio of median time to progression). The relationship between survival and each surrogate marker was assessed by a weighted linear regression of the hazard ratio against the odds ratio. There was a significant linear association between survival and complete or partial tumour response (P<0.001, R2=34%), complete tumour response (P=0.02, R2=12%), progressive disease (P<0.001, R2=38%) and time to progression (P<0.0001, R2=56%); R2 is the proportion of the variability in the treatment effect on survival that is explained by the treatment effect on the surrogate marker. Time to progression may be a useful surrogate marker for predicting survival in women receiving first-line anthracycline chemotherapy and could be used to estimate the survival benefit in future trials of first-line chemotherapy compared to FAC or FEC. The other markers, tumour response and progressive disease, were less good

Prognostic value of performance status assessed by patients themselves, nurses, and oncologists in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Accuracy in the assessment of performance status by oncologists has not been well evaluated. We investigated possible discrepancies in the assessment of performance status among patients, nurses, and oncologists, and evaluated the prognostic importance of each assessment. Two hundred and six inpatients with inoperable, advanced non-small cell lung cancer were investigated prospectively. Weighted Kappa statistics for inter-observer agreement were 0.53 between oncologists and patients and 0.63 between oncologists and nurses. There was a significant difference among the assessments by the three groups (P < 0.001). Oncologists gave the healthiest performance status assessment, nurses an intermediate assessment, and patients the poorest. When included separately in the Cox model, the assessment by each group was significantly correlated with survival. However, the assessment by the patients themselves failed to distinguish survival of patients with performance status 1 and 2. Among the three models including patient-, nurse-, and oncologist-assessed PS, that including oncologist-assessed PS best fitted to the observed survival data. These results showed that the assessment by the patients themselves is different from those by the nurses and the oncologists and provided additional support for the use of the assessment by oncologists in clinical oncology. © 2001 Cancer Research Campaign http://www.bjcancer.co