Associations of CDH1 germline variant location and cancer phenotype in families with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC)

INTRODUCTION: Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) is a cancer syndrome associated with variants in E-cadherin (CDH1), diffuse gastric cancer and lobular breast cancer. There is considerable heterogeneity in its clinical manifestations. This study aimed to determine associations between CDH1 germline variant status and clinical phenotypes of HDGC. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-two HDGC families, including six previously unreported families, were identified. CDH1 gene-specific guidelines released by the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) CDH1 Variant Curation Expert Panel were applied for pathogenicity classification of truncating, missense and splice site CDH1 germline variants. We evaluated ORs between location of truncating variants of CDH1 and incidence of colorectal cancer, breast cancer and cancer at young age (gastric cancer at \u3c40 or breast cancer \u3c50 years of age). RESULTS: Frequency of truncating germline CDH1 variants varied across functional domains of the E-cadherin receptor gene and was highest in linker (0.05785 counts/base pair; p=0.0111) and PRE regions (0.10000; p=0.0059). Families with truncating CDH1 germline variants located in the PRE-PRO region were six times more likely to have family members affected by colorectal cancer (OR 6.20, 95% CI 1.79 to 21.48; p=0.004) compared with germline variants in other regions. Variants in the intracellular E-cadherin region were protective for cancer at young age (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.64; p=0.0071) and in the linker regions for breast cancer (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.99; p=0.0493). Different CDH1 genotypes were associated with different intracellular signalling activation levels including different p-ERK, p-mTOR and β-catenin levels in early submucosal T1a lesions of HDGC families with different CDH1 variants. CONCLUSION: Type and location of CDH1 germline variants may help to identify families at increased risk for concomitant cancers that might benefit from individualised surveillance and intervention strategies

Gastric Adenocarcinoma: A Multimodal Approach

Despite its declining incidence, gastric cancer (GC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. A multimodal approach to GC is critical to ensure optimal patient outcomes. Pretherapy fine resolution contrast-enhanced cross-sectional imaging, endoscopic ultrasound and staging laparoscopy play an important role in patients with newly diagnosed ostensibly operable GC to avoid unnecessary non-therapeutic laparotomies. Currently, margin negative gastrectomy and adequate lymphadenectomy performed at high volume hospitals remain the backbone of GC treatment. Importantly, adequate GC surgery should be integrated in the setting of a multimodal treatment approach. Treatment for advanced GC continues to expand with the emergence of additional lines of systemic and targeted therapies

Percutaneous hepatic perfusion with melphalan for unresectable liver metastasis

Percutaneous hepatic perfusion (PHP) is an investigative technique for treating patients with diffuse unresectable metastatic liver disease. The technique has been clinically evaluated and shows great treatment potential for regional therapy to the liver. The advantage of PHP lies in its minimally invasive approach and ability to be repeated when compared to isolated hepatic perfusion. In a literature search, 135 publications were screened and 16 of these publications, including clinical trials and reviews, contributed to this review of PHP with melphalan. Melphalan is an alkylating agent that, when used as the chemotherapeutic agent in PHP, has shown potential for significant control of tumor burden in the liver, especially in metastatic ocular melanoma. In the current landscape of liver directed therapy, PHP is a viable option for those with unresectable metastatic disease to the liver. This article will focus on the technical aspects of PHP and describe the current data available from clinical trials, including outcomes of patients treated with this minimally invasive approach

Why Do Long-Distance Travelers Have Improved Pancreatectomy Outcomes?

© 2017 American College of Surgeons Background Centralization of complex surgical care has led patients to travel longer distances. Emerging evidence suggested a negative association between increased travel distance and mortality after pancreatectomy. However, the reason for this association remains largely unknown. We sought to unravel the relationships among travel distance, receiving pancreatectomy at high-volume hospitals, delayed surgery, and operative outcomes. Study Design We identified 44,476 patients who underwent pancreatectomy for neoplasms between 2004 and 2013 at the reporting facility from the National Cancer Database. Multivariable analyses were performed to examine the independent relationships between increments in travel distance mortality (30-day and long-term survival) after adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidity, cancer stage, and time trend. We then examined how additional adjustment of procedure volume affected this relationship overall and among rural patients. Results Median travel distance to undergo pancreatectomy increased from 16.5 to 18.7 miles (p for trend \u3c 0.001). Although longer travel distance was associated with delayed pancreatectomy, it was also related to higher odds of receiving pancreatectomy at a high-volume hospital and lower postoperative mortality. In multivariable analysis, difference in mortality among patients with varying travel distance was attenuated by adjustment for procedure volume. However, longest travel distance was still associated with a 77% lower 30-day mortality rate than shortest travel among rural patients, even when accounting for procedure volume. Conclusions Our large national study found that the beneficial effect of longer travel distance on mortality after pancreatectomy is mainly attributable to increase in procedure volume. However, it can have additional benefits on rural patients that are not explained by volume. Distance can represent a surrogate for rural populations