Search

Abstract Background Cisplatin, mitomycin C and anthracyclines demonstrate high activity in BRCA1-deficient tumors. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the triplet combination of these drugs in BRCA1-driven high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas (HGSOCs). Methods Ten HGSOC patients with germ-line BRCA1 mutation received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) consisting of mitomycin C 10 mg/m2 (day 1), doxorubicin 30 mg/m2 (days 1 and 8) and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 (day 1), given every 4 weeks (MAP regimen). The comparator group included 16 women, who received standard NACT combination of paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 and carboplatin (6 AUC), given every 3 weeks (TCbP scheme). Results None of the patients treated by the MAP scheme demonstrated complete pathologic response in ovaries, while 4 women showed absence of tumor cells in surgically excised omental specimens. When chemotherapy response scores (CRS) were considered, poor responsiveness (CRS 1) was not observed in the MAP group, but was common for the TCbP regimen (6/16 (38 %) for ovaries and 5/16 (31 %) for omentum; p = 0.05 and 0.12, respectively). Median treatment-free interval (TFI) was not reached in women treated by the MAP, but was 9.5 months for the TCbP scheme (p = 0.1). The rate of the recurrence within 1 year after the completion of the treatment was 4/10 (40 %) for the MAP and 10/13 (77 %) for the TCbP (p = 0.1). Conclusions The attempt to intensify NACT by administering combination of 3 drugs did not result in high rate of complete pathologic responses. However, there was a trend towards higher efficacy of the MAP regimen versus conventional TCbP scheme with regard to CRS and clinical outcomes.

Abstract Background Many cancer patients undergo sophisticated laboratory testing, which requires proper interpretation and interaction between different specialists. Case presentation We describe a patient with an extensive family history of cancer, who was diagnosed with bilateral breast cancer and two lung cancer lumps by the age of 40 years. She submitted a lung cancer specimen to a genetic profiling service, which reported the presence of the EGFR mutation (a combination of G719S and L833V substitutions) and the TP53 с.322_327del (p.G108_F109del) mutation in the tumor tissue. Possible therapeutic options were discussed at a medical conference, where one of the discussants raised a concern that the identified TP53 mutation may not necessarily be somatic, but reflect the germ-line status of the gene. Review of clinical records and follow-up dialog with the patient revealed, that she previously provided her blood for DNA analysis in two laboratories. The first laboratory utilized a custom NGS assay and did not detect the TP53 mutation, instead pointed to a potential pathogenic significance of the MSH6 c.2633 T > C (p.V878A) allele. The second laboratory revealed the TP53 с.322_327del (p.G108_F109del) allele but stated in the written report that it has an unknown pathogenic significance. To resolve the possible uncertainty regarding the role of the TP53 с.322_327del (p.G108_F109del) variant, we suggested that the patient invite her second cousin for genetic testing, as she was affected by neuroblastoma at the age of 3 years. This analysis revealed the presence of the same TP53 variant. Conclusion We provide point-by-point discussion, reviewing multiple laboratory mistakes and clinical misinterpretations occurred with this patient. This case report exemplifies the need to involve rigorous clinical expertise in the daily practice of medical laboratory facilities.