Search

Background: Early Gastric Cancer (EGC) reaches 25% of the gastric cancers surgically treated in some areas of Northeastern Italy and is usually characterized by a good prognosis. However, among EGCs classified according to Kodama’s criteria, Pen A subgroup is characterized by extensive submucosal invasion, lymph node metastases and worse prognosis, whereas Pen B subgroup by better prognosis. The aim of the study was to characterize the differences between Pen A, Pen B and locally advanced gastric cancer (T3N0) in order to identify biomarkers involved in aggressiveness and clinical outcome. Methods: We selected 33 Pen A, 34 Pen B and 20 T3N0 tumors and performed immunohistochemistry of mucins, copy number variation analysis of a gene panel, microsatellite instability (MSI), TP53 mutation and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) analyses. Results: Pen A subgroup was characterized by MUC6 overexpression (p = 0.021). Otherwise, the Pen B subgroup was significantly associated with the amplification of GATA6 gene (p = 0.002). The higher percentage of MSI tumors was observed in T3N0 group (p = 0.002), but no significant differences between EGC types were found. Finally, TP53 gene analysis showed that 32.8% of Pen tumors have a mutation in exons 5–8 and 50.0% presented LOH. Co-occurrence of TP53 mutation and LOH mainly characterized Pen A tumors (p = 0.022). Conclusions: Our analyses revealed that clinico-pathological parameters, microsatellite status and frequency of TP53 mutations do not seem to distinguish Pen subgroups. Conversely, the amplification of GATA6 was associated with Pen B, as well as the overexpression of MUC6 and the TP53mut/LOH significantly characterized Pen A.

E-cadherin is a key player in gastric cancer (GC) and germline alterations of CDH1, its encoding gene, are responsible for Hereditary Diffuse Gastric Cancer (HDGC) syndrome. This study aimed at elucidating the role of genetic variants and DNA methylation of CDH1 promoter and enhancers in the regulation of gene expression. For this purpose, we analyzed genetic variants of the CDH1 gene through Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) in a series of GC cell lines (NCI-N87, KATO-III, SNU-1, SNU-5, GK2, AKG, KKP) and the corresponding CDH1 expression levels. By bisulfite genomic sequencing, we analyzed the methylation status of CDH1 regulatory regions in 8 GC cell lines, in a series of 13 sporadic GC tissues and in a group of 20 HDGC CDH1-negative patients and 6 healthy controls. The NGS analysis on CDH1 coding and regulatory regions detected genetic alterations in 3 out of 5 GC cell lines lacking functional E-cadherin. CDH1 regulatory regions showed different methylation patterns in patients and controls, GC cell lines and GC tissues, expressing different E-cadherin levels. Our results showed that alterations in terms of genetic variants and DNA methylation patterns of both promoter and enhancers are associated with CDH1 expression levels and have a role in its regulation.

An expert consensus panel convened by the Italian Association for Inherited and Familial Gastrointestinal Tumors (Associazione Italiana per lo Studio della Familiarita ed Ereditarieta dei Tumori Gastrointestinali, AIFEG) reviewed the literature and agreed on a number of position statements regarding the definition and management of polyposis coli without an identified pathogenic mutation on the APC or MUTYH genes, defined in the document as NAMP (non-APC/MUTYH polyposis).

Breast cancer is the most frequent and lethal tumor in women and finding the best therapeutic strategy for each patient is an important challenge. PARP inhibitors (PARPis) are the first, clinically approved drugs designed to exploit synthetic lethality in tumors harboring BRCA1/2 mutations. Recent evidence indicates that PARPis have the potential to be used both in monotherapy and combination strategies in breast cancer treatment. In this review, we show the mechanism of action of PARPis and discuss the latest clinical applications in different breast cancer treatment settings, including the use as neoadjuvant and adjuvant approaches. Furthermore, as a class, PARPis show many similarities but also certain critical differences which can have essential clinical implications. Finally, we report the current knowledge about the resistance mechanisms to PARPis. A systematic PubMed search, using the entry terms “PARP inhibitors” and “breast cancer”, was performed to identify all published clinical trials (Phase I-II-III) and ongoing trials (ClinicalTrials.gov), that have been reported and discussed in this review.