Search

Background: Oesophageal (OeC) and gastric (GC) cancer patients are treated with similar multimodal therapy and have poor survival. There remains an urgent clinical need to identify biomarkers to individualise patient management and improve outcomes. Therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown promising results in other cancers. Proposed biomarkers to predict potential response to immune checkpoint inhibitors include DNA mismatch repair (MMR) and/ or EpsteineBarr virus (EBV) status. The aim of this study was to establish and compare EBV status and MMR status in large multi-centre series of OeC and GC. Methods: EBV was assessed by EBV-encoded RNA (EBER) in situ hybridisation and MMR protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in 988 OeC and 1213 GC from multiple centres. In a subset of OeC, microsatellite instability (MSI) was tested in parallel with MMR IHC. Results: Frequency of MMR deficiency (MMRdef) and MSI was low in OeC (0.8% and 0.6%, respectively) compared with GC (10.3%). None of the OeCs were EBER positive in contrast to 4.8% EBER positive GC. EBV positive GC patients were younger (p = 0.01), more often male (p = 0.001) and had a better overall survival (p = 0.012). MMRdef GC patients were older (p = 0.001) and showed more often intestinal-type histology (p = 0.022). Conclusions: This is the largest study to date indicating that EBV and MMRdef do not play a role in OeC carcinogenesis in contrast to GC. The potential clinical usefulness of determining MMRdef/EBV status to screen patients for eligibility for immune-targeting therapy differs between OeC and GC patients. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Background: Oesophageal (OeC) and gastric (GC) cancer patients are treated with similar multimodal therapy and have poor survival. There remains an urgent clinical need to identify biomarkers to individualise patient management and improve outcomes. Therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown promising results in other cancers. Proposed biomarkers to predict potential response to immune checkpoint inhibitors include DNA mismatch repair (MMR) and/ or EpsteineBarr virus (EBV) status. The aim of this study was to establish and compare EBV status and MMR status in large multi-centre series of OeC and GC.Methods: EBV was assessed by EBV-encoded RNA (EBER) in situ hybridisation and MMR protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in 988 OeC and 1213 GC from multiple centres. In a subset of OeC, microsatellite instability (MSI) was tested in parallel with MMR IHC.Results: Frequency of MMR deficiency (MMRdef) and MSI was low in OeC (0.8% and 0.6%, respectively) compared with GC (10.3%). None of the OeCs were EBER positive in contrast to 4.8% EBER positive GC. EBV positive GC patients were younger (p = 0.01), more often male (p = 0.001) and had a better overall survival (p = 0.012). MMRdef GC patients were older (p = 0.001) and showed more often intestinal-type histology (p = 0.022).Conclusions: This is the largest study to date indicating that EBV and MMRdef do not play a role in OeC carcinogenesis in contrast to GC. The potential clinical usefulness of determining MMRdef/EBV status to screen patients for eligibility for immune-targeting therapy differs between OeC and GC patients. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Objectives In a phase Ib trial, afatinib plus cetuximab demonstrated promising clinical activity (objective response rate [ORR]: 29%; median progression-free survival [PFS]: 4.7 months) in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with acquired resistance to erlotinib or gefitinib. Here, a separate cohort exploring afatinib plus cetuximab after progression on afatinib is reported. Materials and methods Patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC who progressed on erlotinib or gefitinib received afatinib 40 mg daily until progression, followed by afatinib daily plus cetuximab 500 mg/m2 every 2 weeks until progression or intolerable adverse events (AEs). Endpoints included safety, ORR, and PFS. Results Thirty-seven patients received afatinib monotherapy. Two (5%) patients responded; median PFS was 2.7 months. Thirty-six patients transitioned to afatinib plus cetuximab. Four (11%) patients responded; median PFS was 2.9 months. Median PFS with afatinib plus cetuximab for patients who received afatinib monotherapy for ≥12 versus

Background: Oesophageal (OeC) and gastric (GC) cancer patients are treated with similar multimodal therapy and have poor survival. There remains an urgent clinical need to identify biomarkers to individualise patient management and improve outcomes. Therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown promising results in other cancers. Proposed biomarkers to predict potential response to immune checkpoint inhibitors include DNA mismatch repair (MMR) and/ or EpsteineBarr virus (EBV) status. The aim of this study was to establish and compare EBV status and MMR status in large multi-centre series of OeC and GC. Methods: EBV was assessed by EBV-encoded RNA (EBER) in situ hybridisation and MMR protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in 988 OeC and 1213 GC from multiple centres. In a subset of OeC, microsatellite instability (MSI) was tested in parallel with MMR IHC. Results: Frequency of MMR deficiency (MMRdef) and MSI was low in OeC (0.8% and 0.6%, respectively) compared with GC (10.3%). None of the OeCs were EBER positive in contrast to 4.8% EBER positive GC. EBV positive GC patients were younger (p = 0.01), more often male (p = 0.001) and had a better overall survival (p = 0.012). MMRdef GC patients were older (p = 0.001) and showed more often intestinal-type histology (p = 0.022). Conclusions: This is the largest study to date indicating that EBV and MMRdef do not play a role in OeC carcinogenesis in contrast to GC. The potential clinical usefulness of determining MMRdef/EBV status to screen patients for eligibility for immune-targeting therapy differs between OeC and GC patients. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE It is thought that the mechanism of action of anticancer chemotherapeutic agents is mainly due to a direct inhibition of tumour cell proliferation. In tumour specimens, the endothelial cell proliferation rate increases, suggesting that the therapeutic effects of anticancer agents could also be attributed to inhibition of tumour angiogenesis. Hence, we investigated the potential effects of [Pt (O,O′-acac)(γ-acac)(DMS)] ([Pt(DMS)]), a new platinum drug for non-genomic targets, on human renal carcinoma and compared them with those of the well-established anticancer drug, cisplatin. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH Tumour growth, tumour cell proliferation and microvessel density were investigated in a xenograft model of renal cell carcinoma, developed by injecting Caki-1 cells into BALB/c nude mice. The antiangiogenic potential of compounds was also investigated using HUVECs. KEY RESULTS Treatment of the Caki-1 cells with cisplatin or [Pt(DMS)] resulted in a dose-dependent inhibition of cell survival, but the cytotoxicity of [Pt(DMS)] was approximately fivefold greater than that of cisplatin. [Pt(DMS)] was much more effective than cisplatin at inhibiting tumour growth, proliferation and angiogenesis in vivo, as well as migration, tube formation and MMP1, MMP2 and MMP9 secretion of endothelial cells in vitro. Whereas, cisplatin exerted a greater cytotoxic effect on HUVECs, but did not affect tube formation or the migration of endothelial cells. In addition, treatment of the xenograft mice with [Pt(DMS)] decreased VEGF, MMP1 and MMP2 expressions in tumours. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The antiangiogenic and antitumour activities of [Pt(DMS)] provide a solid starting point for its validation as a suitable candidate for further pharmacological testing.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus trastuzumab (NCT) increases the rate of pathological complete response (pCR) and event-free survival (EFS) compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) alone in women with HER2 positive breast cancer (BC). pCR in this setting is associated with improved EFS. Whether NCT preferentially improves EFS in comparison to NC followed by adjuvant trastuzumab initiated postoperatively (NCAT) has not been addressed. Using clinical data from women with HER2 positive BC treated at 7 European institutions between 2007 and 2010 we sought to investigate the impact on breast cancer outcomes of concomitant (NCT) versus sequential (NCAT) treatment in HER2 positive early BC. The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for event free survival with NCT compared with NCAT was 0.63 (95% CI 0.37–1.08; p = 0.091). Multivariable analysis revealed that treatment group, tumour size and ER status were significantly associated with EFS from diagnosis. In the whole group NCT was associated with a reduced risk of an event relative to NCAT, an effect that was confined to ER negative (HR: 0.25; 95% CI, 0.10–0.62; p = 0.003) as opposed to ER positive tumours (HR: 1.07; 95% CI, 0.46–2.52; p = 0.869). HER2 positive/ER negative BC treated with NC gain greatest survival benefit when trastuzumab is administered in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant period rather than in the adjuvant period alone. These data support the early introduction of targeted combination therapy in HER2 positive/ER negative BC.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of afatinib in EGFR-mutant metastatic NSCLC patients with acquired resistance to erlotinib or gefitinib.We retrospectively analyzed the outcome of patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC treated with afatinib after failure of chemotherapy and EGFR TKIs.A total of 96 individuals were included in the study. According to EGFR status, most patients (n = 63; 65.6%) harbored a deletion in exon 19, and de novo T790M mutation was detected in 2 cases (T790M and exon 19). Twenty-four (25%) patients underwent repeated biopsy immediately before starting afatinib and secondary T790M was detected in 8 (33%) samples. Among the 86 patients evaluable for efficacy, response rate was 11.6%, with a median progression free-survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of 3.9 and 7.3 months, respectively. No significant difference in PFS and OS was observed according to type of last therapy received before afatinib, type of EGFR mutation or adherence to Jackman criteria, and patients benefiting from afatinib therapy had longer PFS and OS (P.001). Outcome results for repeated biopsy patients were similar to the whole population, with no evidence of response in T790M-positive patients. All patients were evaluable for toxicity, and 81% experienced an AE of any grade, with grade 3 to 4 AEs, mainly diarrhea and skin toxicity, occurring in 19 (20%) patients.Our results showed that afatinib has only modest efficacy in a real life population of EGFR mutant NSCLC patients with acquired resistance to erlotinib or gefitinib.