Molecular prognostic and predicitive markers of therapy response in sporadic colon cancer

Colon cancer is the third most frequent malignancy in the Western world. Average 5 year-survival is around 70% and depends on the stage of the disease being very poor (under 10% 5-year survival) for stage IV patients and excellent (more than 90% 5 year survival) for stage I patients. The prognosis of patients with stage II varies between 80 and 60% 5-year survival. The causes of this variation remain unclear. Furthermore, the prognosis of patients with stage III has improved significantly, reaching 70% 5-year survival, since the introduction of adjuvant chemotherapy. However, still 30% of the patients with stage III disease that do not respond to chemotherapy. Therefore, reliable predictive and prognostic markers in stage II and III colon carcinoma are necessary to be able to elucidate whether a patient is going to respond to therapy or not and to be able to offer personalized treatment. In this research project, we aimed to identify predictive markers of therapy response in stage III disease and prognostic markers in stage II and III colon carcinoma. The first three chapters focus on the value of known single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in genes involved in the activation, metabolism of chemotherapeutic drugs like 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin as well as in the repair of DNA damage caused by these drugs as predictive markers for therapy response. In the remaining chapters , the focus is placed on the identification of molecular prognostic markers in stages II and III. Several mutations in known cancer driver genes and genes involved in signal transduction have been studied.Fontys Hogescholen, Instituut TNW; Onderzoeksfonds Catharina Ziekenhuis Eindhoven; Roche Nederland BV; Pfizer BV.UBL - phd migration 201

Dilemmas for the pathologist in the oncologic assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy specimens

A pancreatoduodenectomy specimen is complex, and there is much debate on how it is best approached by the pathologist. In this review, we provide an overview of topics relevant for current clinical practice in terms of gross dissection, and macro- and microscopic assessment of the pancreatoduodenectomy specimen with a suspicion of suspected pancreatic cancer. Tumor origin, tumor size, degree of differentiation, lymph node status, and resection margin status are universally accepted as prognostic for survival. However, different guidelines diverge on important issues, such as the diagnostic criteria for evaluating the completeness of resection. The macroscopic assessment of the site of origin in periampullary tumors and cystic lesions is influenced by the grossing method. Bi-sectioning of the head of the pancreas may offer an advantage in this respect, as this method allows for optimal visualization of the periampullary area. However, a head-to-head comparison of the assessment of clinically relevant parameters, using axial slicing versus bi-sectioning, is not available yet and the gold standard to compare both techniques prospectively might be subject of debate. Further studies are required to validate the various dissection protocols used for pancreatoduodenectomy specimens and their specific value in the assessment of pathological parameters relevant for prognosis

The homeobox gene MEIS1 is methylated in BRAFp.V600E mutated colon tumors

Development of colorectal cancer (CRC) can occur both via gene mutations in tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes, as well as via epigenetic changes, including DNA methylation. Site-specific methylation in CRC regulates expression of tumor-associated genes. Right-sided colon tumors more frequently have BRAFp.V600E mutations and have higher methylation grades when compared to left-sided malignancies. The aim of this study was to identify DNA methylation changes associated with BRAFp.V600E mutation status. We performed methylation profiling of colon tumor DNA, isolated from frozen sections enriched for epithelial cells by macro-dissection, and from paired healthy tissue. Single gene analyses comparing BRAFp.V600E with BRAF wild type revealed MEIS1 as the most significant differentially methylated gene (log2 fold change: 0.89, false discovery rate-adjusted P-value 2.8*10-9). This finding was validated by methylation-specific PCR that was concordant with the microarray data. Additionally, validation in an independent cohort (n=228) showed a significant association between BRAF p.V600E and MEIS1 methylation (OR: 13.0, 95% CI: 5.2 - 33.0, P<0.0001). MEIS1 methylation was associated with decreased MEIS1 gene expression in both patient samples and CRC cell lines. The same was true for gene expression of a truncated form of MEIS1, MEIS1D27, which misses exon 8 and has a proposed tumor suppression function. To trace the origin of MEIS1 promoter methylation, 14 colorectal tumors were flow-sorted. Four out of eight BRAFp.V600E tumor epithelial fractions (50%) showed MEIS1 promoter methylation, as well as three out of eight BRAFp.V600E stromal fractions (38%). Only one out of six BRAF wild type showed MEIS1 promoter methylation in both the epithelial tumor and stromal fractions (17%). In conclusion, BRAFp.V600E colon tumors showed significant MEIS1 promoter methylation, which was associated with decreased MEIS1 gene expression. Copyright

Selection of optimal molecular targets for tumor-specific imaging in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Discrimination of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) from chronic pancreatitis (CP) or peritumoral inflammation is challenging, both at preoperative imaging and during surgery, but it is crucial for proper therapy selection. Tumor-specific molecular imaging aims to enhance this discrimination and to help select and stratify patients for resection. We evaluated various biomarkers for the specific identification of PDAC and associated lymph node metastases. Using immunohistochemistry (IHC), expression levels and patterns were investigated of integrin avβ6, carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecule 5 (CEACAM5), Cathepsin E (Cath E), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), hepatocyte growth factor receptor (c-MET), thymocyte differentiation antigen 1 (Thy1), and urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR). In a first cohort, multiple types of pancreatic tissue were evaluated (n=62); normal pancreatic tissue (n=8), CP (n=7), PDAC (n=9), tumor associated lymph nodes (n=32), and PDAC after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (n=6). In a second cohort, tissues were investigated (n=55) with IHC and immunofluorescence (IF) for concordance of biomarker expression in all tissue types, obtained from an individual patient. Integrin avβ6 and CEACAM5 showed significantly higher expression levels in PDAC versus normal pancreatic tissue (P=0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively) and CP (P=0.003 and P < 0.001, respectively). Avβ6 and CEACAM5 expression identified tumor-positive lymph nodes correctly in 84% and 68%, respectively, and in 100% of tumor-negative nodes for both biomarkers. In conclusion, avβ6 and CEACAM5 are excellent biomarkers to differentiate PDAC from surrounding tissue and to identify lymph node metastases. Individually or combined, these biomarkers are promising targets for tumor-specific molecular imaging of PDAC

Evaluating predictive pharmacogenetic signatures of adverse events in colorectal cancer patients treated with fluoropyrimidines

The potential clinical utility of genetic markers associated with response to fluoropyrimidine treatment in colorectal cancer patients remains controversial despite extensive study. Our aim was to test the clinical validity of both novel and previously identified markers of adverse events in a broad clinical setting. We have conducted an observational pharmacogenetic study of early adverse events in a cohort study of 254 colorectal cancer patients treated with 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine. Sixteen variants of nine key folate (pharmacodynamic) and drug metabolising (pharmacokinetic) enzymes have been analysed as individual markers and/or signatures of markers. We found a significant association between TYMP S471L (rs11479) and early dose modifications and/or severe adverse events (adjusted OR = 2.02 [1.03; 4.00], p = 0.042, adjusted OR = 2.70 [1.23; 5.92], p = 0.01 respectively). There was also a significant association between these phenotypes and a signature of DPYD mutations (Adjusted OR = 3.96 [1.17; 13.33], p = 0.03, adjusted OR = 6.76 [1.99; 22.96], p = 0.002 respectively). We did not identify any significant associations between the individual candidate pharmacodynamic markers and toxicity. If a predictive test for early adverse events analysed the TYMP and DPYD variants as a signature, the sensitivity would be 45.5 %, with a positive predictive value of just 33.9 % and thus poor clinical validity. Most studies to date have been under-powered to consider multiple pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variants simultaneously but this and similar individualised data sets could be pooled in meta-analyses to resolve uncertainties about the potential clinical utility of these markers

Axial slicing versus bivalving in the pathological examination of pancreatoduodenectomy specimens (APOLLO): a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Background: In pancreatoduodenectomy specimens, dissection method may affect the assessment of primary tumour origin (i.e. pancreatic, distal bile duct or ampullary adenocarcinoma), which is primarily determined macroscopically. This is the first study to prospectively compare the two commonly used techniques, i.e. axial slicing and bivalving. Methods: In four centres, a randomized controlled trial was performed in specimens of patients with a suspected (pre)malignant tumour in the pancreatic head. Primary outcome measure was the level of certainty (scale 0–100) regarding tumour origin by four independent gastrointestinal pathologists based on macroscopic assessment. Secondary outcomes were inter-observer agreement and R1 rate. Results: In total, 128 pancreatoduodenectomy specimens were randomized. The level of certainty in determining the primary tumour origin did not differ between axial slicing and bivalving (mean score 72 [sd 13] vs. 68 [sd 16], p = 0.21), nor did inter-observer agreement, both being moderate (kappa 0.45 vs. 0.47). In pancreatic cancer specimens, R1 rate (60% vs. 55%, p = 0.71) and the number of harvested lymph nodes (median 16 vs. 17, p = 0.58) were similar. Conclusion: This study demonstrated no differences in determining the tumour origin between axial slicing and bivalving. Both techniques performed similarly regarding inter-observer agreement, R1 rate, and lymph node harvest

Molecular prognostic and predicitive markers of therapy response in sporadic colon cancer

Colon cancer is the third most frequent malignancy in the Western world. Average 5 year-survival is around 70% and depends on the stage of the disease being very poor (under 10% 5-year survival) for stage IV patients and excellent (more than 90% 5 year survival) for stage I patients. The prognosis of patients with stage II varies between 80 and 60% 5-year survival. The causes of this variation remain unclear. Furthermore, the prognosis of patients with stage III has improved significantly, reaching 70% 5-year survival, since the introduction of adjuvant chemotherapy. However, still 30% of the patients with stage III disease that do not respond to chemotherapy. Therefore, reliable predictive and prognostic markers in stage II and III colon carcinoma are necessary to be able to elucidate whether a patient is going to respond to therapy or not and to be able to offer personalized treatment. In this research project, we aimed to identify predictive markers of therapy response in stage III disease and prognostic markers in stage II and III colon carcinoma. The first three chapters focus on the value of known single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in genes involved in the activation, metabolism of chemotherapeutic drugs like 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin as well as in the repair of DNA damage caused by these drugs as predictive markers for therapy response. In the remaining chapters , the focus is placed on the identification of molecular prognostic markers in stages II and III. Several mutations in known cancer driver genes and genes involved in signal transduction have been studied