Search

BACKGROUND: Local treatment options for locally recurrent pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LR-PAC) are limited, with median survival time (MST) of 9-13 months (mos) following recurrence. MRI-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy (MRgSBRT) provides the ability to dose escalate while sparing normal tissue. Here we report on the early outcomes of MRgSBRT for LR-PAC. METHODS: Patients with prior resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma with local recurrence treated with MRgSBRT at a single tertiary referral center from 5-2021 to 2-2023 were identified from our prospective database. MRgSBRT was delivered to 40-50 Gy in 4-5 fractions with target and OAR delineation per institutional standards. Endpoints included local control per RECIST v1.1, distant failure, overall survival (OS), and acute and chronic toxicities per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, v5. RESULTS: Fifteen patients with LR-PAC were identified with median follow-up of 10.6 mos (2.8-26.5 mos) from MRgSBRT. There were 8 females and 7 males, with a median age of 69 years (50-83). One patient underwent neoadjuvant radiation for 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions followed by resection, and one underwent adjuvant radiation for 45 Gy in 25 fractions prior to recurrence. MRgSBRT was delivered a median of 18.8 mos (3.5-52.8 mos) following resection. OS following recurrence at 6 and 12 mos were 87% and 51%, respectively, with a median survival time of 14.1 mos (3.2-27.4 mos). Three patients experienced local failure at 5.9, 7.8, and 16.6 months from MgSBRT with local control of 92.3% and 83.9% at 6 and 12 months. 10 patients experienced distant failure at a median of 2.9 mos (0.3-6.7 mos). Grade 1-2 acute GI toxicity was noted in 47% of patients, and chronic GI toxicity in 31% of patients. No grade > 3 toxicities were noted. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report on toxicity and outcomes of MRgSBRT for LR-PAC in the literature. MRgSBRT is a safe, feasible treatment modality with the potential for improved local contro

The retinoblastoma tumor suppressor (RB) is a critical regulator of E2F-dependent transcription, controlling a multitude of protumorigenic networks including but not limited to cell-cycle control. Here, genome-wide assessment of E2F1 function after RB loss in isogenic models of prostate cancer revealed unexpected repositioning and cooperation with oncogenic transcription factors, including the major driver of disease progression, the androgen receptor (AR). Further investigation revealed that observed AR/E2F1 cooperation elicited novel transcriptional networks that promote cancer phenotypes, especially as related to evasion of cell death. These observations were reflected in assessment of human disease, indicating the clinical relevance of the AR/E2F1 cooperome in prostate cancer. Together, these studies reveal new mechanisms by which RB loss induces cancer progression and highlight the importance of understanding the targets of E2F1 function. SIGNIFICANCE: This study identifies that RB loss in prostate cancer drives cooperation between AR and E2F1 as coregulators of transcription, which is linked to the progression of advanced disease.

Mechanisms regulating DNA repair processes remain incompletely defined. Here, the circadian factor CRY1, an evolutionally conserved transcriptional coregulator, is identified as a tumor specific regulator of DNA repair. Key findings demonstrate that CRY1 expression is androgen-responsive and associates with poor outcome in prostate cancer. Functional studies and first-in-field mapping of the CRY1 cistrome and transcriptome reveal that CRY1 regulates DNA repair and the G2/M transition. DNA damage stabilizes CRY1 in cancer (in vitro, in vivo, and human tumors ex vivo), which proves critical for efficient DNA repair. Further mechanistic investigation shows that stabilized CRY1 temporally regulates expression of genes required for homologous recombination. Collectively, these findings reveal that CRY1 is hormone-induced in tumors, is further stabilized by genomic insult, and promotes DNA repair and cell survival through temporal transcriptional regulation. These studies identify the circadian factor CRY1 as pro-tumorigenic and nominate CRY1 as a new therapeutic target.

BACKGROUND: As of 2016, almost 16 million individuals were cancer survivors, including over 3.5 million survivors of breast cancer. Because cancer survivors are living longer and have unique health care needs, the Institute of Medicine proposed a survivor care plan as a way to alleviate the many medical, emotional, and care coordination problems of survivors. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study for breast cancer survivors was undertaken to: (1) examine self-reported changes in knowledge, confidence, and activation from before receipt to after receipt of a survivor care plan; and (2) describe survivor preferences for, and satisfaction with, a technology-based survivor care plan. METHODS: A single group pretest-posttest design was used to study breast cancer survivors in an academic cancer center and a community cancer center during their medical visit after they completed chemotherapy. The intervention was a technology-based survivor care plan. Measures were taken before, immediately after, and 1 month after receipt of the survivor care plan. RESULTS: A total of 38 breast cancer survivors agreed to participate in the study. Compared to baseline levels before receipt of the survivor care plan, participants reported increased knowledge both immediately after its receipt at the academic center (P<.001) and the community center (P<.001) as well as one month later at the academic center (P=.002) and the community center (P<.001). Participants also reported increased confidence immediately following receipt of the survivor care plan at the academic center (P=.63) and the community center (P=.003) and one month later at both the academic center (P=.63) and the community center (P<.001). Activation was increased from baseline to post-survivor care plan at both the academic center (P=.05) and community center (P<.001) as well as from baseline to 1-month follow-up at the academic center (P=.56) and the community center (P<.001). Overall, community center participants had lower knowled