Search

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is a condition seen in around 2–10% of patients with malignancy where the standard diagnostic workup fails to identify a specific tissue from which the tumor has arisen. As the survival of these patients is short, around 6–10 months, it becomes important to adopt newer technologies which aid in identifying the type of primary tumor so that the treatment can be guided based on the cancer type. Commonly used immunohistochemistry (IHC) panels may sometimes fail in providing a diagnosis as the CUP tissues contain usually either undifferentiated or dedifferentiate cells. Molecular cancer-classifier assay (MCCA) is an emerging diagnostic modality which is based on either gene expression profiling of the tumors or identification of epigenetic pattern of the tissues to make a probable diagnosis of the tissue from which the primary tumor may have arisen. Studies have shown that when tailored site-specific treatment was administered based on the outcomes of the MCCAs; an improvement in survival of the patients was seen. Recent NCCN guidelines suggest that the MCCAs should be used judiciously and on a case-to-case basis. The 2018 consensus statement from the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology recognizes that the MCCAs are helpful when used to complement IHC, allowing for more accurate diagnosis of the primary site of tumor.

Standard therapy for advanced ovarian cancer (OC) consists of radical debulking cytoreductive surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. An important risk factor for OC is genetic predisposition, with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations accounting for the majority of hereditary OC. Mutation in BRCA ultimately causes accumulation of genetic alterations because of the failure of cells to arrest and repair DNA damage or to undergo apoptosis, resulting in tumorigenesis. Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have emerged as a promising approach for managing BRCA-associated cancers, especially high-grade OC and breast cancers. They lead to synthetic lethality in BRCA-mutated cells by stalling the replication forks in homologous recombination-deficient (HR) cells. Four PARP inhibitors (olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib) are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for OC, breast, and pancreatic cancer indications and are being evaluated for other BRCA-associated cancers. Despite their clinical efficacy, cancer cells generally develop resistance to them through several mechanisms. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for developing strategies to counter resistance and identify the basic mechanisms of DNA damage response. This review focuses on the mechanism of action of PARP inhibitors, understanding various causes of resistance, and building strategies to overcome PARP inhibitor resistance.

To gain insights on the diverse practice patterns and treatment pathways for prostate cancer (PC) in India, the Urological Cancer Foundation convened the first Indian survey to discuss all aspects of PC, with the objective of guiding clinicians on optimizing management in PC. A modified Delphi method was used, wherein a multidisciplinary panel of oncologists treating PC across India developed a questionnaire related to screening, diagnosis and management of early, locally advanced and metastatic PC and participated in a web-based survey (WBS) (n = 62). An expert committee meeting (CM) (n = 48, subset from WBS) reviewed the ambiguous questions for better comprehension and reanalyzed the evidence to establish a revote for specific questions. The threshold for strong agreement and agreement was ≥90% and ≥75% agreement, respectively. Sixty-two questions were answered in the WBS; in the CM 31 questions were revoted and 4 questions were added. The panelists selected answers based on their best opinion and closest to their practice strategy, not considering financial constraints and access challenges. Of the 66 questions, strong agreement was reached for 17 questions and agreement was achieved for 22 questions. There were heterogeneous responses for 27 questions indicative of variegated management approaches. This is one of the first Indian survey, documenting the diverse clinical practice patterns in the management of PC in India. It aims to provide guidance in the face of technological advances, resource constraints and sparse high-level evidence.

Lung cancer, one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers worldwide has long relied on testing for the molecular biomarkers EGFR/ALK. However, achieving superior clinical outcomes for patients with lung cancer requires developing comprehensive techniques beyond contemporary EGFR/ALK testing. Current technologies are on par with molecular testing for EGFR/ALK in terms of efficacy, most of them failing to offer improvements perhaps primarily due to skepticism among clinicians, despite being recommended in the NCCN guidelines. The present study endeavored to minimize chemotherapy-dependence in EGFR/ALK-negative patient cohorts, and use evidence-based methods to identify ways to improve clinical outcomes. In total, 137 lung cancer cases obtained from 'PositiveSelect NGS data', comprising 91 males and 46 females, were investigated. EGFR- and ALK-positivity was used for data dichotomization to understand the therapeutic utility of rare gene alterations beyond just EGFR/ALK. Statistics obtained from PositiveSelect were collated with data from international studies to construct a meta-analysis intended to achieve better clinical outcomes. Upon dichotomization, 23% of cases harbored EGFR variants indicating that treating with EGFR TKIs would be beneficial; the remaining 77% exhibited no EGFR variants that would indicate favorable results using specific currently available chemotherapy practices. Similarly, 28% of cases had EGFR+ALK variants favoring EGFR/ALK-based targeted therapeutics; the remaining 72% harbored no EGFR/ALK variants with known beneficial chemotherapy routes. The present study aimed to overcome current inadequacies of targeted therapies in patients with a conventional EGFR/ALK-positive diagnosis and those in EGFR+ALK-negative cohorts. Upon analysis of the negative cohorts, significant and clinically relevant single nucleotide variants were identified in KRAS, ERBB2, MET and RET, with frequencies of 7, 1, 2 and 3% in patients who were EGFR-negative and 6, 1, 1, and 3% in patients who were EGFR and ALK-negative, respectively, enabling the use of targeted therapeutics aside from EGFR/ALK TKIs. From the results of the current study only 35% of the two negative arms (EGFR negative and EGFR+ALK negative) would be recommended NCCN or off-label chemotherapy; prior to the current study, the entire cohorts would have been recommended this treatment. The present study emphasizes the potential of comprehensive genomics in identifying hallmarks of lung cancer beyond EGFR/ALK, using broad-spectrum genetic testing and data-sharing among medical professionals to circumvent ineffective chemotherapy.

Lung cancer, one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers worldwide has long relied on testing for the molecular biomarkers EGFR/ALK. However, achieving superior clinical outcomes for patients with lung cancer requires developing comprehensive techniques beyond contemporary EGFR/ALK testing. Current technologies are on par with molecular testing for EGFR/ALK in terms of efficacy, most of them failing to offer improvements perhaps primarily due to skepticism among clinicians, despite being recommended in the NCCN guidelines. The present study endeavored to minimize chemotherapy-dependence in EGFR/ALK-negative patient cohorts, and use evidence-based methods to identify ways to improve clinical outcomes. In total, 137 lung cancer cases obtained from ‘PositiveSelect NGS data’, comprising 91 males and 46 females, were investigated. EGFR- and ALK-positivity was used for data dichotomization to understand the therapeutic utility of rare gene alterations beyond just EGFR/ALK. Statistics obtained from PositiveSelect were collated with data from international studies to construct a meta-analysis intended to achieve better clinical outcomes. Upon dichotomization, 23% of cases harbored EGFR variants indicating that treating with EGFR TKIs would be beneficial; the remaining 77% exhibited no EGFR variants that would indicate favorable results using specific currently available chemotherapy practices. Similarly, 28% of cases had EGFR+ALK variants favoring EGFR/ALK-based targeted therapeutics; the remaining 72% harbored no EGFR/ALK variants with known beneficial chemotherapy routes. The present study aimed to overcome current inadequacies of targeted therapies in patients with a conventional EGFR/ALK-positive diagnosis and those in EGFR+ALK-negative cohorts. Upon analysis of the negative cohorts, significant and clinically relevant single nucleotide variants were identified in KRAS, ERBB2, MET and RET, with frequencies of 7, 1, 2 and 3% in patients who were EGFR-negative and 6, 1, 1, and 3% in patients who were EGFR and ALK-negative, respectively, enabling the use of targeted therapeutics aside from EGFR/ALK TKIs. From the results of the current study only 35% of the two negative arms (EGFR negative and EGFR+ALK negative) would be recommended NCCN or off-label chemotherapy; prior to the current study, the entire cohorts would have been recommended this treatment. The present study emphasizes the potential of comprehensive genomics in identifying hallmarks of lung cancer beyond EGFR/ALK, using broad-spectrum genetic testing and data-sharing among medical professionals to circumvent ineffective chemotherapy.