Definitive and adjuvant radiotherapy for sinonasal squamous cell carcinomas: a single institutional experience

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the disease outcomes of patients treated with definitive and adjuvant radiotherapy for squamous cell carcinomas of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses in a single institution. Methods: Between 2007–2012 patients were retrospectively identified from electronic databases who had undergone surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy or definitive radiotherapy for sinonasal squamous cell carcinomas with curative intent. Results: Fourty three patients with sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma were identified (22 nasal cavity, 21 paranasal sinuses). 31/43 (72 %) had T3 or T4 disease; nodal stage was N0 in 38, N1 in 4, Na/b in 0 and N2c in 1 patient. Median age was 67 years (range 41–86). 18 (42 %) received definitive and 25 (58 %) adjuvant radiotherapy. Radiotherapy was delivered using either conventional radiotherapy (n = 39) or intensity modulated radiotherapy (n = 4). Elective neck radiotherapy was delivered to two patients. Chemotherapy was delivered to 6/43 (14 %) of patients. Two-year local control, regional control, distant metastases free survival, progression free survival, cause specific survival and overall survival were 81 %, 90 %, 95 %, 71 %, 84 % and 80 % respectively. There was no significant difference in outcome comparing patients who underwent surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy with patients receiving definitive radiotherapy (2 year locoregional disease free survival 75 % and 70 % respectively, p = 0.98). Pooly differentiated tumours were significantly associated with inferior disease outcomes. Local, regional, combined local and regional, and distant failure occurred in 7 (16 %), 3 (7 %), 1 (2 %) and 2 (5 %) of patients; all 3 regional recurrences were in patients with nasal cavity squamous cell carcinomas who had not undergone elective neck treatment. Conclusions: Definitive or adjuvant radiotherapy provides an effective treatment for sinonasal malignancies. The main pattern of failure remains local, suggesting the need for investigation of intensified local therapy. Whilst remaining uncommon, the cases of regional failure mean that the merits of elective lymph node treatment should be considered on an individual basis

Guidance on the use of bisphosphonates in solid tumours: recommendations of an international expert panel

Bisphosphonates (BP) prevent, reduce, and delay cancer-related skeletal complications in patients, and have substantially decreased the prevalence of such events since their introduction. Today, a broad range of BP with differences in potency, efficacy, dosing, and administration as well as approved indications is available. In addition, results of clinical trials investigating the efficacy of BP in cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) have been recently published. The purpose of this paper is to review the current evidence on the use of BP in solid tumours and provide clinical recommendations. An interdisciplinary expert panel of clinical oncologists and of specialists in metabolic bone diseases assessed the widespread evidence and information on the efficacy of BP in the metastatic and nonmetastatic setting, as well as ongoing research on the adjuvant use of BP. Based on available evidence, the panel recommends amino-bisphosphonates for patients with metastatic bone disease from breast cancer and zoledronic acid for patients with other solid tumours as primary disease. Dosing of BP should follow approved indications with adjustments if necessary. While i.v. administration is most often preferable, oral administration (clodronate, IBA) may be considered for breast cancer patients who cannot or do not need to attend regular hospital care. Early-stage cancer patients at risk of developing CTIBL should be considered for preventative BP treatment. The strongest evidence in this setting is now available for ZOL. Overall, BP are well-tolerated, and most common adverse events are influenza-like syndrome, arthralgia, and when used orally, gastrointestinal symptoms. The dose of BP may need to be adapted to renal function and initial creatinine clearance calculation is mandatory according to the panel for use of any BP. Subsequent monitoring is recommended for ZOL and PAM, as described by the regulatory authority guidelines. Patients scheduled to receive BP (mainly every 3-4 weeks i.v.) should have a dental examination and be advised on appropriate measures for reducing the risk of jaw osteonecrosis. BP are well established as supportive therapy to reduce the frequency and severity of skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases from different cancer

Clinical significance of VEGF-A, -C and -D expression in esophageal malignancies

Vascular endothelial growth factors ( VEGF)- A, - C and - D are members of the proangiogenic VEGF family of glycoproteins. VEGF-A is known to be the most important angiogenic factor under physiological and pathological conditions, while VEGF-C and VEGF-D are implicated in the development and sprouting of lymphatic vessels, so called lymphangiogenesis. Local tumor progression, lymph node metastases and hematogenous tumor spread are important prognostic factors for esophageal carcinoma ( EC), one of the most lethal malignancies throughout the world. We found solid evidence in the literature that VEGF expression contributes to tumor angiogenesis, tumor progression and lymph node metastasis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma ( SCC), and many authors could show a prognostic value for VEGF-assessment. In adenocarcinoma (AC) of the esophagus angiogenic properties are acquired in early stages, particularly in precancerous lesions like Barrett's dysplasia. However, VEGF expression fails to give prognostic information in AC of the esophagus. VEGF-C and VEGF-D were detected in SCC and dysplastic lesions, but not in normal mucosa of the esophagus. VEGF-C expression might be associated with lymphatic tumor invasion, lymph node metastases and advanced disease in esophageal SCC and AC. Therapeutic interference with VEGF signaling may prove to be a promising way of anti-angiogenic co-treatment in esophageal carcinoma. However, concrete clinical data are still pending

Dutch Author Recognition Test

Book reading shows large individual variability and correlates with better language ability and more empathy. This makes reading exposure an interesting variable to study. Research in English suggests that an author recognition test is the most reliable objective assessment of reading frequency. In this article, we describe the efforts we made to build and test a Dutch author recognition test (DART for older participants and DART_R for younger participants). Our data show that the test is reliable and valid, both in the Netherlands and in Belgium (split-half reliability over .9 with university students, significant correlations with language abilities) and can be used with a young, non-university population. The test is free to use for research purposes

Vessel co-option mediates resistance to anti-angiogenic therapy in liver metastases

The efficacy of angiogenesis inhibitors in cancer is limited by resistance mechanisms that are poorly understood. Notably, instead of through the induction of angiogenesis, tumor vascularization can occur through the nonangiogenic mechanism of vessel co-option. Here we show that vessel co-option is associated with a poor response to the anti-angiogenic agent bevacizumab in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases. Moreover, we find that vessel co-option is also prevalent in human breast cancer liver metastases, a setting in which results with anti-angiogenic therapy have been disappointing. In preclinical mechanistic studies, we found that cancer cell motility mediated by the actin-related protein 2/3 complex (Arp2/3) is required for vessel co-option in liver metastases in vivo and that, in this setting, combined inhibition of angiogenesis and vessel co-option is more effective than the inhibition of angiogenesis alone. Vessel co-option is therefore a clinically relevant mechanism of resistance to anti-angiogenic therapy and combined inhibition of angiogenesis and vessel co-option might be a warranted therapeutic strategy

Multicenter phase II trial of temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma multiforme at first relapse

Background: Recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is resistant to most therapeutic endeavors, with low response rates and survival rarely exceeding six months. There are no clearly established chemotherapeutic regimens and the aim of treatment is palliation with improvement in the quality of life. Patients and methods: We report an open-label, uncontrolled, multicenter phase II trial of temozolomide in 138 patients (intent-to-treat [ITI] population) with glioblastoma multiforme at first relapse and a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) ≥ 70. One hundred twenty-eight patients were histologically confirmed with GBM or gliosarcoma (GS) by independent central review. Chemotherapy-naïve patients were treated with temozolomide 200 mg/m2/day2/day orally for the first five days of a 28-day cycle. Patients previously treated with nitrosourea- containing adjuvant chemotherapy received 150 mg/m2/day for the first five days of a 28-day cycle. In the absence of grade 3 or 4 toxicity, patients on the 150 mg/m2 dose schedule were eligible for a 200 mg/m2 dose on the next cycle. Results: The primary endpoint was six-month progression-free survival assessed with strict radiological and clinical criteria. Secondary endpoints included radiological response and Health-related Quality of Life (HQL). Progression-free survival at six months was 18% (95% confidence interval (CI): 11%-26%) for the eligible-histology population. Median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 2.1 months and 5.4 months, respectively. The six-month survival rate was 46%. The objective response rate (complete response and partial response) determined by independent central review of gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans was 8% for both the ITT and eligible-histology populations, with an additional 43%;A and 45% of patients, respectively, having stable disease (SD). Objectively assessed response and maintenance of a progression-free status were both associated with HQL benefits (characterized by improvements over baseline in HQL domains). Temozolomide had an acceptable safety profile, with only 9% of therapy cycles requiring a dose reduction due to thrombocytopenia. There was no evidence of cumulative hematologic toxicity. Conclusions: Temozolomide demonstrated modest clinical efficacy, with an acceptable safety profile and measurable improvement in quality of life in patients with recurrent GBM. The use of this drug should be explored further in an adjuvant setting and in combination with other agent

Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma after response to platinum therapy (ARIEL3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Rucaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, has anticancer activity in recurrent ovarian carcinoma harbouring a BRCA mutation or high percentage of genome-wide loss of heterozygosity. In this trial we assessed rucaparib versus placebo after response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with high-grade, recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinoma. Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 87 hospitals and cancer centres across 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma, had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, had achieved complete or partial response to their last platinum-based regimen, had a cancer antigen 125 concentration of less than the upper limit of normal, had a performance status of 0–1, and had adequate organ function. Patients were ineligible if they had symptomatic or untreated central nervous system metastases, had received anticancer therapy 14 days or fewer before starting the study, or had received previous treatment with a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. We randomly allocated patients 2:1 to receive oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo in 28 day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six, stratified by homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval after the penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to the most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival evaluated with use of an ordered step-down procedure for three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations (carcinoma associated with deleterious germline or somatic BRCA mutations), patients with homologous recombination deficiencies (BRCA mutant or BRCA wild-type and high loss of heterozygosity), and the intention-to-treat population, assessed at screening and every 12 weeks thereafter. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01968213; enrolment is complete. Findings: Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, we randomly allocated 564 patients: 375 (66%) to rucaparib and 189 (34%) to placebo. Median progression-free survival in patients with a BRCA-mutant carcinoma was 16·6 months (95% CI 13·4–22·9; 130 [35%] patients) in the rucaparib group versus 5·4 months (3·4–6·7; 66 [35%] patients) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·23 [95% CI 0·16–0·34]; p<0·0001). In patients with a homologous recombination deficient carcinoma (236 [63%] vs 118 [62%]), it was 13·6 months (10·9–16·2) versus 5·4 months (5·1–5·6; 0·32 [0·24–0·42]; p<0·0001). In the intention-to-treat population, it was 10·8 months (8·3–11·4) versus 5·4 months (5·3–5·5; 0·36 [0·30–0·45]; p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in the safety population (372 [99%] patients in the rucaparib group vs 189 [100%] in the placebo group) were reported in 209 (56%) patients in the rucaparib group versus 28 (15%) in the placebo group, the most common of which were anaemia or decreased haemoglobin concentration (70 [19%] vs one [1%]) and increased alanine or aspartate aminotransferase concentration (39 [10%] vs none). Interpretation: Across all primary analysis groups, rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer who had achieved a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. ARIEL3 provides further evidence that use of a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in the maintenance treatment setting versus placebo could be considered a new standard of care for women with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer following a complete or partial response to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy. Funding: Clovis Oncology