MiR-200c-3p modulates cisplatin resistance in biliary tract cancer by ZEB1-independent mechanisms

Biliary tract cancer is a major global health issue in cancer-related mortality. Therapeutic options are limited, and cisplatin-based treatment schedules represent the mainstay of first-line therapeutic strategies. Although the gain of survival by the addition of cisplatin to gemcitabine is moderate, acquired cisplatin resistance frequently leads to treatment failures with mechanisms that are still poorly understood. Epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) is a dynamic process that changes the shape, function, and gene expression pattern of biliary tract cancer cells. In this study, we explored the influence of the EMT-regulating miR-200c-3p on cisplatin sensitivity in biliary tract cancer cells. Using gain of function experiments, we demonstrated that miR-200c-3p regulates epithelial cell markers through the downregulation of the transcription factor ZEB1. MiR-200c-3p upregulation led to a decreased sensitivity against cisplatin, as observed in transient overexpression models as well as in cell lines stably overexpressing miR-200c-3p. The underlying mechanism seems to be independent of miR-200c-3p’s influence on ZEB1 expression, as ZEB1 knockdown resulted in the opposite effect on cisplatin resistance, which was abolished when ZEB1 knockdown and miR-200c-3p overexpression occurred in parallel. Using a gene panel of 40 genes that were previously associated with cisplatin resistance, two (Dual Specificity Phosphatase 16 (DUSP16) and Stratifin (SFN)) were identified as significantly (>2 fold, p-value < 0.05) up-regulated in miR-200c-3p overexpressing cells. In conclusion, miR-200c-3p might be an important contributor to cisplatin resistance in biliary tract cancer, independently of its interaction with ZEB1

Comparison of three commercial decision support platforms for matching of next-generation sequencing results with therapies in patients with cancer

Objective Precision oncology depends on translating molecular data into therapy recommendations. However, with the growing complexity of next-generation sequencing-based tests, clinical interpretation of somatic genomic mutations has evolved into a formidable task. Here, we compared the performance of three commercial clinical decision support tools, that is, NAVIFY Mutation Profiler (NAVIFY; Roche), QIAGEN Clinical Insight (QCI) Interpret (QIAGEN) and CureMatch Bionov (CureMatch). Methods In order to obtain the current status of the respective tumour genome, we analysed cell-free DNA from patients with metastatic breast, colorectal or non-small cell lung cancer. We evaluated somatic copy number alterations and in parallel applied a 77-gene panel (AVENIO ctDNA Expanded Panel). We then assessed the concordance of tier classification approaches between NAVIFY and QCI and compared the strategies to determine actionability among all three platforms. Finally, we quantified the alignment of treatment suggestions across all decision tools. Results Each platform varied in its mode of variant classification and strategy for identifying druggable targets and clinical trials, which resulted in major discrepancies. Even the frequency of concordant actionable events for tier I-A or tier I-B classifications was only 4.3%, 9.5% and 28.4% when comparing NAVIFY with QCI, NAVIFY with CureMatch and CureMatch with QCI, respectively, and the obtained treatment recommendations differed drastically. Conclusions Treatment decisions based on molecular markers appear at present to be arbitrary and dependent on the chosen strategy. As a consequence, tumours with identical molecular profiles would be differently treated, which challenges the promising concepts of genome-informed medicine

Benefit of second-line therapy for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a tri-center propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND: The level of evidence for palliative second-line therapy in advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (aESCC) is limited. This is the first study that reports efficacy data comparing second-line therapy + active symptom control (ASC) versus ASC alone in aESCC. METHODS: We conducted a tri-center retrospective cohort study (n = 166) including patients with aESCC who had experienced disease progression on palliative first-line therapy. A propensity score model using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was implemented for comparative efficacy analysis of overall survival (OS) in patients with second-line + ASC (n = 92, 55%) versus ASC alone (n = 74, 45%). RESULTS: The most frequent second-line regimens used were docetaxel (36%) and paclitaxel (18%). In unadjusted primary endpoint analysis, second-line + ASC was associated with significantly longer OS compared with ASC alone [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.35–0.69, p < 0.0001]. However, patients in the second-line + ASC group were characterized by more favorable baseline features including a better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, a longer first-line treatment duration and lower C-reactive protein levels. After rigorous adjusting for baseline confounders by re-weighting the data with the IPTW the favorable association between second-line and longer OS weakened but prevailed. The median OS was 6.1 months in the second-line + ASC group and 3.2 months in the ASC group, respectively (IPTW-adjusted HR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.24–0.69, p = 0.001). Importantly, the benefit of second-line was consistent across several clinical subgroups, including patients with ECOG performance status ⩾1 and age ⩾65 years. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events associated with palliative second-line therapy were hematological toxicities. CONCLUSION: This real-world study supports the concept that systemic second-line therapy prolongs survival in patients with aESCC