International survey on invasive lobular breast cancer identifies priority research questions

There is growing awareness of the unique etiology, biology, and clinical presentation of invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC), but additional research is needed to ensure translation of findings into management and treatment guidelines. We conducted a survey with input from breast cancer physicians, laboratory-based researchers, and patients to analyze the current understanding of ILC, and identify consensus research questions. 1774 participants from 66 countries respondents self-identified as clinicians (N = 413), researchers (N = 376), and breast cancer patients and advocates (N = 1120), with some belonging to more than one category. The majority of physicians reported being very/extremely (41%) to moderately (42%) confident in describing the differences between ILC and invasive breast cancer of no special type (NST). Knowledge of histology was seen as important (73%) and as affecting treatment decisions (51%), and most agreed that refining treatment guidelines would be valuable (76%). 85% of clinicians have never powered a clinical trial to allow subset analysis for histological subtypes, but the majority would consider it, and would participate in an ILC clinical trials consortium. The majority of laboratory researchers, reported being and very/extremely (48%) to moderately (29%) confident in describing differences between ILC and NST. They reported that ILCs are inadequately presented in large genomic data sets, and that ILC models are insufficient. The majority have adequate access to tissue or blood from patients with ILC. The majority of patients and advocates (52%) thought that their health care providers did not sufficiently explain the unique features of ILC. They identified improvement of ILC screening/early detection, and identification of better imaging tools as top research priorities. In contrast, both researchers and clinicians identified understanding of endocrine resistance and identifying novel drugs that can be tested in clinical trials as top research priority. In summary, we have gathered information from an international community of physicians, researchers, and patients/advocates that we expect will lay the foundation for a community-informed collaborative research agenda, with the goal of improving management and personalizing treatment for patients with ILC

CDK4/6 inhibition triggers anti-tumor immunity

Cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) are fundamental drivers of the cell cycle and are required for the initiation and progression of various malignancies1,2. Pharmacologic inhibitors of CDK4/6 have shown significant activity against several solid tumors3,4. Their primary mechanism of action is thought to be the inhibition of phosphorylation of the retinoblastoma (RB) tumor suppressor, inducing G1 cell cycle arrest in tumor cells5. Here, we use murine models of breast carcinoma and other solid tumors to show that selective CDK4/6 inhibitors not only induce tumor cell cycle arrest, but also promote anti-tumor immunity. We confirm this phenomenon through transcriptomic analysis of serial biopsies from a clinical trial of CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment for breast cancer. The enhanced anti-tumor immune response has two underpinnings. First, CDK4/6 inhibitors activate tumor cell expression of endogenous retroviral elements, thus increasing intracellular levels of double-stranded RNA. This in turn stimulates production of type III interferons and hence enhances tumor antigen presentation. Second, CDK4/6 inhibitors markedly suppress the proliferation of regulatory T cells (Tregs). Mechanistically, the effects of CDK4/6 inhibitors on both tumor cells and Tregs are associated with reduced activity of the E2F target, DNA methyltransferase 1. Ultimately, these events promote cytotoxic T cell-mediated clearance of tumor cells, which is further enhanced by the addition of immune checkpoint blockade. Our findings indicate that CDK4/6 inhibitors increase tumor immunogenicity and provide rationale for new combination regimens comprising CDK4/6 inhibitors and immunotherapies as anti-cancer treatment

International survey on invasive lobular breast cancer identifies priority research questions

There is growing awareness of the unique etiology, biology, and clinical presentation of invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC), but additional research is needed to ensure translation of findings into management and treatment guidelines. We conducted a survey with input from breast cancer physicians, laboratory-based researchers, and patients to analyze the current understanding of ILC, and identify consensus research questions. 1774 participants from 66 countries respondents self-identified as clinicians (N = 413), researchers (N = 376), and breast cancer patients and advocates (N = 1120), with some belonging to more than one category. The majority of physicians reported being very/extremely (41%) to moderately (42%) confident in describing the differences between ILC and invasive breast cancer of no special type (NST). Knowledge of histology was seen as important (73%) and as affecting treatment decisions (51%), and most agreed that refining treatment guidelines would be valuable (76%). 85% of clinicians have never powered a clinical trial to allow subset analysis for histological subtypes, but the majority would consider it, and would participate in an ILC clinical trials consortium. The majority of laboratory researchers, reported being and very/extremely (48%) to moderately (29%) confident in describing differences between ILC and NST. They reported that ILCs are inadequately presented in large genomic data sets, and that ILC models are insufficient. The majority have adequate access to tissue or blood from patients with ILC. The majority of patients and advocates (52%) thought that their health care providers did not sufficiently explain the unique features of ILC. They identified improvement of ILC screening/early detection, and identification of better imaging tools as top research priorities. In contrast, both researchers and clinicians identified understanding of endocrine resistance and identifying novel drugs that can be tested in clinical trials as top research priority. In summary, we have gathered information from an international community of physicians, researchers, and patients/advocates that we expect will lay the foundation for a community-informed collaborative research agenda, with the goal of improving management and personalizing treatment for patients with ILC

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and targeted therapies: A promising strategy

Neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer has emerged as an important setting for the development of targeted drugs. Because tumor material is available before treatment, at the moment of surgery, and possibly during treatment, precise correlations can be made between target identification, target blockade, and tumor response. Significant improvements have already been achieved by introducing targeted agents to neoadjuvant modalities. In the HER2 patient population, anti-HER2 targeted therapies have consistently demonstrated increased rates of pathological complete response. In the hormone receptor-positive setting, identifying early surrogate markers able to predict response to treatment has the potential to accelerate the development of targeted therapies. Ongoing neoadjuvant research programs such as NeoBIG and I-SPY 2 (Investigation of Serial Studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response with Imaging And moLecular Analysis 2) are scientifically strong and will most likely demonstrate that the "neoadjuvant step" can lead directly to large, phase III adjuvant registration trials. This implies that the time between drug discovery and regulatory approval can be significantly shortened, which ultimately benefits patients. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.SCOPUS: ar.kinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Targeting the cellular signaling: BRAF inhibition and beyond for the treatment of metastatic malignant melanoma

Although advances in cytotoxic treatments have been obtained in several neoplasias, in metastatic melanoma there was no drug able to significantly change the natural history of the disease in the last 30 years. In the last decade, translational research identified important mechanisms in malignant transformation, invasion, and progression. Signaling pathways can be abnormally activated by oncogenes. The identification of oncogenic mutated kinases implicated in this process provides an opportunity for new target therapies. The melanoma dependence on BRAF-mutated kinase allowed the development of inhibitors that produced major responses in clinical trials. This is the beginning of a novel class of drugs in metastatic melanoma; the identification of the transduction signaling networking and other "druggable" kinases is in active research. In this paper, we discuss the ongoing research on cellular signaling inhibition, resistance mechanisms, and strategies to overcome treatment failure. © 2012 Felipe Ades and Otto Metzger-Filho.SCOPUS: re.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Differences between invasive lobular and invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: results and therapeutic implications

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is the second most common histologic subtype of breast cancer (BC): ILC differs from invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in its clinicopathological characteristics and responsiveness to systemic therapy. From the clinical standpoint, data suggest that ILC derives a distinct benefit from systemic therapy compared to IDC. In addition, comprehensive molecular analyses have been reported for ILCs, confirming that these tumors have specific genomic profiles compared to IDC. Despite these differences, clinical trials and practical clinical guidelines tend to treat BC as a single entity. Here we discuss these clinical and molecular data and their therapeutic implications

Molecular targeted therapy in prevalent tumors: learning from the past and future perspectives.

Important advances have been achieved with molecular targeted agents in clinical oncology. Breast, colon, and lung cancer, are now commonly treated with a combination of chemotherapy and targeted agents. In this article the authors discuss the limitations of targeted therapy development, failures of previous studies, and possible strategies for an intelligent drug development. Initial attempts to block mTOR in breast cancer, the magnitude of benefit obtained with anti-EGFR therapy in lung cancer, and the narrowing use of anti-EGFR therapy in colon cancer based on KRAS status are discussed.Journal ArticleReviewSCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe