A Phase I study of the angiogenesis inhibitor SU5416 (semaxanib) in solid tumours, incorporating dynamic contrast MR pharmacodynamic end points

SU5416 (Z-3-[(2,4-dimethylpyrrol-5-yl)methylidenyl]-2-indolinone; semaxanib) is a small molecule inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)2. A Phase I dose escalation study was performed. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) was used as a pharmacodynamic assessment tool. In all, 27 patients were recruited. SU5416 was administered twice weekly by fixed rate intravenous infusion. Patients were treated in sequential cohorts of three patients at 48, 65, 85 110 and 145 mg m−2. A further dose level of 190 mg m−2 after a 2-week lead in period at a lower dose was completed; thereafter, the cohort at 145 mg m−2 was expanded. SU5416 showed linear pharmacokinetics to 145 mg m−2 with a large volume of distribution and rapid clearance. A significant degree of interpatient variability was seen. SU5416 was well tolerated, by definition a maximum-tolerated dose was not defined. No reproducible changes were seen in DCE-MRI end points. Serial assessments of VEGF in a cohort of patients treated at 145 mg m−2 did not show a statistically significant treatment-related change. Parallel assessments of the impact of SU5416 on coagulation profiles in six patients showed a transient effect within the fibrinolytic pathway. Clinical experience showed that patients who had breaks of therapy longer than a week could not have treatment reinitiated at a dose of 190 mg m−2 without unacceptable toxicity. The 145 mg m−2 dose level is thus the recommended dose for future study

Age at first childbirth and oral contraceptive use are associated with risk of androgen receptor-negative breast cancer: the Malmö Diet and Cancer Cohort.

Risk factors for breast cancer vary according to breast cancer subtype. This study analyzes the impact of potential risk factors in breast cancer by androgen receptor (AR) status

CAG and GGC repeat polymorphisms in the androgen receptor gene and breast cancer susceptibility in BRCA1/2 carriers and non-carriers

Variation in the penetrance estimates for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations carriers suggests that other genetic polymorphisms may modify the cancer risk in carriers. A previous study has suggested that BRCA1 carriers with longer lengths of the CAG repeat in the androgen receptor (AR) gene are at increased risk of breast cancer (BC). We genotyped 188 BRCA1/2 carriers (122 affected and 66 unaffected with breast cancer), 158 of them of Ashkenazi origin, 166 BC cases without BRCA1/2 mutations and 156 Ashkenazi control individuals aged over 56 for the AR CAG and GGC repeats. In carriers, risk analyses were conducted using a variant of the log-rank test, assuming two sets of risk estimates in carriers: penetrance estimates based on the Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium (BCLC) studies of multiple case families, and lower estimates as suggested by population-based studies. We found no association of the CAG and GGC repeats with BC risk in either BRCA1/2 carriers or in the general population. Assuming BRCA1/2 penetrance estimates appropriate to the Ashkenazi population, the estimated RR per repeat adjusted for ethnic group (Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi) was 1.05 (95%CI 0.97–1.17) for BC and 1.00 (95%CI 0.83–1.20) for ovarian cancer (OC) for CAG repeats and 0.96 (95%CI 0.80–1.15) and 0.90 (95%CI 0.60–1.22) respectively for GGC repeats. The corresponding RR estimates for the unselected case–control series were 1.00 (95%CI 0.91–1.10) for the CAG and 1.05 (95%CI 0.90–1.22) for the GGC repeats. The estimated relative risk of BC in carriers associated with ≥28 CAG repeats was 1.08 (95%CI 0.45–2.61). Furthermore, no significant association was found if attention was restricted to the Ashkenazi carriers, or only to BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers. We conclude that, in contrast to previous observations, if there is any effect of the AR repeat length on BRCA1 penetrance, it is likely to be weak. © 2001 Cancer Research Campaign http://www.bjcancer.co

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field