FGFR4 Arg388 allele correlates with tumour thickness and FGFR4 protein expression with survival of melanoma patients

A single nucleotide polymorphism in the gene for FGFR4 (−Arg388) has been associated with progression in various types of human cancer. Although fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) belong to the most important growth factors in melanoma, expression of FGF receptor subtype 4 has not been investigated yet. In this study, the protein expression of this receptor was analysed in 137 melanoma tissues of different progression stages by immunohistochemistry. FGFR4 protein was expressed in 45% of the specimens and correlated with pTNM tumour stages (UICC, P=0.023 and AJCC, P=0.046), presence of microulceration (P=0.009), tumour vascularity (P=0.001), metastases (P=0.025), number of primary tumours (P=0.022), overall survival (P=0.047) and disease-free survival (P=0.024). Furthermore, FGFR4 Arg388 polymorphism was analysed in 185 melanoma patients by polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP). The Arg388 allele was detected in 45% of the melanoma patients and was significantly associated with tumour thickness (by Clark's level of invasion (P=0.004) and by Breslow in mm (P=0.02)) and the tumour subtype nodular melanoma (P=0.002). However, there was no correlation of the FGFR4 Arg388 allele with overall and disease-free survival. In conclusion, the Arg388 genotype and the protein expression of FGFR4 may be potential markers for progression of melanoma

Myeloablative Fractionated Busulfan for Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant in Older Patients or Patients With Comorbidities

Traditional conditioning regimens for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) provide suboptimal outcomes, especially for older patients and those with comorbidities. We hypothesized that a fractionated myeloablative busulfan dose delivered over an extended period would reduce nonrelapse mortality (NRM) while retaining antileukemic effects. Here, we performed a phase 2 trial for adults with hematological malignancies receiving matched related or unrelated allo-HCT. Participants received busulfan 80 mg/m2 as outpatients on days -20 and -13 before transplant. Fludarabine 40 mg/m2 was administered on days -6 to -3, followed by busulfan dosed to achieve a target area under the curve of 20 000 mol/min for the whole course. The primary end point was day-100 NRM. Seventy-eight patients were included, with a median age of 61 years (range, 39-70 years), who received transplantation for acute leukemia (24%), myelodysplastic syndrome (27%), or myeloproliferative disease/chronic myeloid leukemia (44%). HCT-specific comorbidity index (HCT-CI) was ≥3 in 34 (44%). With a median follow-up of 36.4 months (range, 2.9-51.5), the 100-day, 1-year, and 3-year NRM rates were 3.8%, 8%, and 9.3%, respectively, without a significant difference in age or HCT-CI score. The 1-year and 3-year relapse incidence was 10% and 18%, respectively. The 3-year overall survival was 80%, without a significant difference in age or HCT-CI score and was similar for patients aged \u3e60 years and those aged \u3c60 years as well as for those with HCT-CI ≥3 and HCT-CI \u3c3. Overall, a myeloablative fractionated busulfan regimen has low NRM without an increase in relapse rate, resulting in promising survival, even in older patients or in patients with comorbidities. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02861417

Three prophylaxis regimens (tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and cyclophosphamide; tacrolimus, methotrexate, and bortezomib; or tacrolimus, methotrexate, and maraviroc) versus tacrolimus and methotrexate for prevention of graft-versus-host disease with haemopoietic cell transplantation with reduced-intensity conditioning: a randomised phase 2 trial with a non-randomised contemporaneous control group (BMT CTN 1203).

BackgroundPrevention of graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) without malignant relapse is the overall goal of allogeneic haemopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). We aimed to evaluate regimens using either maraviroc, bortezomib, or post-transplantation cyclophosphamide for GvHD prophylaxis compared with controls receiving the combination of tacrolimus and methotrexate using a novel composite primary endpoint to identify the most promising intervention to be further tested in a phase 3 trial.MethodsIn this prospective multicentre phase 2 trial, adult patients aged 18-75 years who received reduced-intensity conditioning HCT were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by random block sizes to tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (cyclophosphamide 50 mg/kg on days 3 and 4, followed by tacrolimus starting on day 5 and mycophenolate mofetil starting on day 5 at 15 mg/kg three times daily not to exceed 1 g from day 5 to day 35); tacrolimus, methotrexate, and bortezomib (bortezomib 1·3 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 4, and 7 after HCT); or tacrolimus, methotrexate, and maraviroc (maraviroc 300 mg orally twice daily from day -3 to day 30 after HCT). Methotrexate was administered as a 15 mg/m2 intravenous bolus on day 1 and 10 mg/m2 intravenous bolus on days 3, 6, and 11 after HCT; tacrolimus was given intravenously at a dose of 0·05 mg/kg twice daily (or oral equivalent) starting on day -3 (except the post-transplantation cyclophosphamide, as indicated), with a target level of 5-15 ng/mL. Tacrolimus was continued at least until day 90 and was tapered off by day 180. Each study group was compared separately to a contemporary non-randomised prospective cohort of patients (control group) who fulfilled the same eligibility criteria as the trial, but who were treated with tacrolimus and methotrexate at centres not participating in the trial. The primary endpoint (GvHD-free, relapse-free survival [GRFS]) was defined as the time from HCT to onset of grade 3-4 acute GvHD, chronic GvHD requiring systemic immunosuppression, disease relapse, or death. The study was analysed by modified intention to treat. The study is closed to accrual and this is the planned analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02208037.FindingsBetween Nov 17, 2014, and May 18, 2016, 273 patients from 31 US centres were randomly assigned to the three study arms: 89 to tacrolimus, methotrexate, and bortezomib; 92 to tacrolimus, methotrexate, and maraviroc; 92 to tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide; and six were excluded. Between Aug 1, 2014, and Sept 14, 2016, 224 controls received tacrolimus and methotrexate. Controls were generally well matched except for more frequent comorbidities than the intervention groups and a different distribution of types of conditioning regimens used. Compared with controls, the hazard ratio for GRFS was 0·72 (90% CI 0·54-0·94; p=0·044) for tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide, 0·98 (0·76-1·27; p=0·92) for tacrolimus, methotrexate, and bortezomib, and 1·10 (0·86-1·41; p=0·49) for tacrolimus, methotrexate, and maraviroc. 238 patients experienced grade 3 or 4 toxicities: 12 (13%) had grade 3 and 67 (73%) grade 4 events with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide; ten (11%) had grade 3 and 68 (76%) had grade 4 events with tacrolimus, methotrexate, and bortezomib; and 18 (20%) had grade 3 and 63 (68%) had grade 4 events with tacrolimus, methotrexate, and maraviroc. The most common toxicities were haematological (77 [84%] for tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide; 73 [82%] for tacrolimus, methotrexate, and bortezomib; and 78 [85%] for tacrolimus, methotrexate, and maraviroc) and cardiac (43 [47%], 44 [49%], and 43 [47%], respectively).InterpretationTacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide was the most promising intervention, yielding the best GRFS; this regimen is thus being prospectively compared with tacrolimus and methotrexate in a phase 3 randomised trial.FundingUS National Health, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Cancer Institute; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease; and Millennium Pharmaceuticals

Immunohistochemistry in melanocytic proliferative lesions.

Contains fulltext : 58177.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)Melanoma incidence is rising worldwide. Early diagnosis is very important, as the most effective treatment for melanoma still consists of excision of the tumour before onset of the metastatic growth phase. Immunohistochemistry is a valuable tool for (dermato)pathologists to aid establishing diagnosis. Melanoma markers can be classified into two main categories: melanocytic differentiation markers and melanoma progression markers. Melanocytic differentiation markers are mostly used to distinguish poorly differentiated melanomas from non-melanocytic tumours and for staging of melanocytic proliferative lesions. Melanoma progression markers are most suitable to determine the level of malignancy and/or aggressiveness of tumour cells. This review describes the classification of melanoma markers, including commonly used and recently identified antigens with potential marker function. We characterize their expression profile in melanocytic proliferative lesions and their potential usefulness for diagnosis, prognosis, microstaging, immunotherapeutic purposes and evaluation of therapies