Search

The Kit receptor has been proposed as a key molecular target for the treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Protein kinase B (PKB/Akt) and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) are intracellular kinases that regulate cell survival and proliferation and may play a role in Kit signal transduction. This study was designed to examine the expression and importance of Kit, PKB/Akt, and MAPK relative to standard clinical prognostic factors in SCLC.Kit, PKB/Akt, and MAPK expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry in SCLC biopsies. Clinical data were collected on tumor stage, weight loss, hematology, biochemistry, response to treatment, and survival. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate prognostic significance.Biopsies from 42 patients were evaluable, and significant Kit expression (/=35% cells) was detected in 51% of the tumors, phosphorylated PKB/Akt was detected in 62% of the tumors, and phosphorylated MAPK was detected in 48% of the tumors. Neither Kit nor PKB/Akt expression predicted for survival. Only increased expression of cytoplasmic MAPK was prognostic for survival (median, 1 year for negative staining versus 1.8 years for positive staining; P = 0.0054).Kit, PKB/Akt, and MAPK are expressed in a high percentage of SCLCs, and our data suggest that MAPK is an independent positive predictive factor in this malignancy.

// Lucia Kim 1,12,* , Mauro Saieg 1,13,* , Massimo Di Maio 2,14,* , Ciro Gallo 3,* , Charles Butts 4 , Fortunato Ciardiello 5 , Ronald Feld 6 , Dengxiao Cheng 6 , Vittorio Gebbia 7 , Marco Angelo Burgio 8 , Yasmin Alam 9 , Simona Signoriello 3 , Antonio Rossi 10 , Natasha Leighl 6 , Paolo Maione 10 , Alessandro Morabito 2 , Geoffrey Liu 6,** , Ming-Sound Tsao 1,** , Francesco Perrone 2,** and Cesare Gridelli 10,11,** 1 Department of Pathology, University Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center and Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada 2 National Cancer Institute, G. Pascale Foundation, IRCCS, Naples, Italy 3 Department of Mental Health and Preventive Medicine, Chair of Statistics, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy 4 Medical Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Canada 5 Medical Oncology, Second University, Naples, Italy 6 Division of Hematology and Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada 7 Medical Oncology, Casa di Cura La Maddalena, Palermo, Italy 8 Department of Medical Oncology, Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori IRCCS, Meldola, Italy 9 Medical Oncology, Windsor Regional Cancer Centre, Windsor, Canada 10 Department of Oncology/Hematology, Division of Medical Oncology, “S.G. Moscati” Hospital, Avellino, Italy 11 On behalf of the TORCH Investigators 12 Department of Pathology, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, South Korea 13 Santa Casa Medical School, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil 14 University of Turin, Turin, Italy * Co-first author ** Co-last author Correspondence to: Cesare Gridelli, email: // Keywords : NSCLC, EGFR TKI, biomarker analysis, predictive factors, prognostic factors Received : November 09, 2016 Accepted : February 01, 2017 Published : February 25, 2017 Abstract Background: The TORCH phase III trial compared the efficacy of first-line erlotinib followed by chemotherapy at progression (experimental arm) with the reverse sequence (standard arm) in unselected advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Here we report biomarker analyses. Methods: EGFR and KRAS mutation, expression of EGFR family members and of cMET and PTEN and EGFR and ABCG2 germline polymorphisms were tested on tumor tissue or blood samples to either confirm previously proposed predictive role or describe it in an explorative setting. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end-point, overall survival, response rate and side effects (diarrhoea and skin toxicity) were secondary end-points. Interactions between biomarkers and treatment were studied with multivariable models (either Cox model or logistic regression). Statistical analyses accounted for multiple comparisons. Results: At least one biomarker was assessed in 324 out of 760 patients in the TORCH study. EGFR mutation was more common in female ( P = 0.0001), East Asians ( P < 0.0001) and never smoker ( P < 0.0001) patients; low MET protein expression by IHC (H-score

Purpose Information about symptomatic toxicities of anticancer treatments is not based on direct report by patients, but rather on reports by clinicians in trials. Given the potential for under-reporting, our aim was to compare reporting by patients and physicians of six toxicities (anorexia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, and hair loss) within three randomized trials. Patients and Methods In one trial, elderly patients with breast cancer received adjuvant chemotherapy; in two trials, patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer received first-line treatment. Toxicity was prospectively collected by investigators (graded by National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria [version 2.0] or Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 3]). At the end of each cycle, patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaires, including toxicity-related symptom items. Possible answers were “not at all,” “a little,” “quite a bit,” and “very much.” Analysis was limited to the first three cycles. For each toxicity, agreement between patients and physicians and under-reporting by physicians (ie, toxicity reported by patients but not reported by physicians) were calculated. Results Overall, 1,090 patients (2,482 cycles) were included. Agreement between patients and physicians was low for all toxicities. Toxicity rates reported by physicians were always lower than those reported by patients. For patients who reported toxicity (any severity), under-reporting by physicians ranged from 40.7% to 74.4%. Examining only patients who reported “very much” toxicity, under-reporting by physicians ranged from 13.0% to 50.0%. Conclusion Subjective toxicities are at high risk of under-reporting by physicians, even when prospectively collected within randomized trials. This strongly supports the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes into toxicity reporting in clinical trials.