Explore the vast range of titles available.

Therapy-refractory disease is one of the main contributors of treatment failure in cancer. In colorectal cancer (CRC), SPARC can function as a sensitizer to conventional chemotherapy by enhancing apoptosis by interfering with the activity of Bcl-2. Here, we examine a novel mechanism by which SPARC further potentiates apoptosis via its modulation of the unfolded protein response (UPR). Using mass spectrometry to identify SPARC-associated proteins, GRP78 was identified as a protein partner for SPARC in CRC. In vitro studies conducted to assess the signaling events resulting from this interaction, included induction of ER stress with tunicamycin, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), and irinotecan (CPT-11). We found that the interaction between GRP78 and SPARC increased during exposure to 5-FU, CPT-11, and tunicamycin, resulting in an attenuation of GRP78’s inhibition of apoptosis. In addition, we also show that SPARC can sensitize CRC cells to PERK/eIF2α and IRE1α/XBP-1 UPR signaling by interfering with ER stress following binding to GRP78, which leads to ER stress-associated cell death in CRC cells. In line with these findings, a lower expression of GRP78 relative to SPARC in CRC is associated with a lower IC 50 for 5-FU in either sensitive or therapy-refractory CRC cells. Interestingly, this observation correlates with tissue microarray analysis of 143 human CRC, where low GRP78 to SPARC expression level was prognostic of higher survival rate ( P  = 0.01) in individuals with CRC. This study demonstrates that modulation of UPR signaling by SPARC promotes ER stress-associated death and potentiates apoptosis. This may be an effective strategy that can be combined with current treatment options to improve therapeutic efficacy in CRC.

BackgroundGoblet cell carcinoids (GCCs) of the appendix are rare mucinous neoplasms, for which optimal therapy is poorly described. We examined prognostic clinical and treatment factors in a population-based cohort.MethodsPatients diagnosed with GCC from 1984 to 2014 were identified from the British Columbia Cancer Agency and the Vancouver Lower Mainland Pathology Archive.ResultsOf 88 cases with confirmed appendiceal GCCs, clinical data were available in 86 cases (annual population incidence: 0.66/1,000,000). Median age was 54 years (range 25–91) and 42 patients (49%) were male. Metastasis at presentation was the strongest predictor of overall survival (OS), with median OS not reached for stage I–III patients, and measuring 16.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.1–29] for stage IV patients. In 67 stage I–III patients, 51 (76%) underwent completion hemicolectomy and 9 (17%) received adjuvant 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. No appendicitis at initial presentation and Tang B histology were the only prognostic factors, with inferior 5-year recurrence-free survival (53 vs. 83% with appendicitis, p = 0.02; 45% Tang B vs. 89% Tang A, p < 0.01). Of 19 stage IV patients, 10 (62.5%) received 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy and 11 (61%) underwent multiorgan resection (MOR) ± hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Low mitotic rate and MOR ± HIPEC were associated with improved 2-year OS, but only MOR ± HIPEC remained significant on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio 5.4, 95% CI 1.4–20.9; p = 0.015).ConclusionsIn this population-based cohort, we demonstrate excellent survival outcomes in stage I–III appendiceal GCCs and clinical appendicitis. Hemicolectomy remains the standard treatment. In metastatic disease, outcomes remain poor, although MOR ± HIPEC may improve survival.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has impacted the treatment landscape for mCRC, leading to improved outcomes through the use of molecularly targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recommend, at a minimum, initial testing to assess RAS, BRAF, HER2, and microsatellite instability (MSI)/mismatch repair (MMR) status, as these results determine therapeutic eligibility. Broader testing to identify the eligibility for tumor-agnostic therapy for a tumor mutation burden (TMB), NTRK gene fusions, and RET fusions is encouraged for all patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients with metastatic disease may develop progressive disease, often as a result of adaptive resistance mechanisms and selective therapeutic pressure on disease heterogeneity. Repeat biomarker testing at progression has the potential to define these resistance mechanisms and to guide the next therapy or clinical trial enrollment. While these practices have become more commonplace, unified guidelines have yet to be established. In this review of the literature, we evaluate the advantages and pitfalls of sequential biomarker testing during disease progression in patients with mCRC.

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) are rare heterogeneous tumors that have been steadily increasing in both incidence and prevalence during the past few decades. Pancreatic NETs are categorized as functional (F) or nonfunctional (NF) based on their ability to secrete hormones that elicit clinically relevant symptoms. Specialized diagnostic tests are required for diagnosis. Treatment options are diverse and include surgical resection, intraarterial hepatic therapy, and peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). Systemic therapy options include targeted agents as well as chemotherapy when indicated. Diagnosis and management should occur through a collaborative team of health care practitioners well-experienced in managing pNETs. Recent advances in pNET treatment options have led to the development of the Canadian consensus document described in this report. The discussion includes the epidemiology, classification, pathology, clinical presentation and prognosis, imaging and laboratory testing, medical and surgical management, and recommended treatment algorithms for pancreatic neuroendocrine cancers.

Insulin-like growth factors (IGF-1 and IGF-2) bind to the IGF-1 receptor (IGF-1R), increasing cell proliferation and survival. Ganitumab is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that blocks IGF-1R. We tested the efficacy and safety of adding ganitumab to endocrine treatment for patients with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. We did this phase 2 trial in outpatient clinics and hospitals. We enrolled postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with endocrine treatment. They were randomly assigned (2:1) with a central randomisation schedule to receive intravenous ganitumab 12 mg per kg bodyweight or placebo in combination with open-label intramuscular fulvestrant (500 mg on day 1, then 250 mg on days 15, 29, and every 28 days) or oral exemestane (25 mg once daily) on a 28-day cycle. Patients, investigators, study monitors, and the sponsor staff were masked to treatment allocation. Response was assessed every 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. We analysed overall survival as one of our secondary endpoints. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00626106. We screened 189 patients and enrolled 156 (106 in the ganitumab group and 50 in the placebo group). Median progression-free survival did not differ significantly between the ganitumab and placebo groups (3·9 months, 80% CI 3·6–5·3 vs 5·7 months, 4·4–7·4; hazard ratio [HR] 1·17, 80% CI 0·91–1·50; p=0·44). However, overall survival was worse in the the ganitumab group than in the placebo group (HR 1·78, 80% CI 1·27–2·50; p=0·025). With the exception of hyperglycaemia, adverse events were generally similar between groups. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event was neutropenia—reported by six of 106 (6%) patients in the ganitumab group and one of 49 (2%) in the placebo group. Hyperglycaemia was reported by 12 of 106 (11%) patients in the ganitumab group (with six patients having grade 3 or 4 hyperglycaemia) and none of 49 in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported by 27 of 106 (25%) patients in the ganitumab group and nine of 49 (18%) patients in the placebo group. Addition of ganitumab to endocrine treatment in women with previously treated hormone-receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer did not improve outcomes. Our results do not support further study of ganitumab in this subgroup of patients. Amgen.

Background The impact of palliative resection of the primary tumor on outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains unclear. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the association between palliative resection and overall survival (OS) in a population-based cohort of mCRC. Methods Patients diagnosed with mCRC between 2006 and 2008 and treated at the BC Cancer Agency were reviewed. Survival analysis was conducted using Kaplan–Meier methods. Cox proportional hazards regression models were fitted to evaluate the relationship between palliative resection and OS while controlling for potential confounders, such as age, gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, carcinoembryonic antigen level, primary tumor location, metastatic site and number, and receipt of systemic therapy. To adjust for the heterogeneity and selection bias between the group that underwent palliative resection and the group that did not, a propensity score–matched analysis was also performed. Results A total of 517 patients were included. Among these cases, 378 (73 %) patients underwent palliative resection of their primary tumor, and 139 (27 %) patients did not. A total of 327 patients (63 %) were treated with palliative chemotherapy. Palliative resection was associated with a longer median OS (17.9 vs. 7.9 months) and more favorable unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for death (HR 0.46, 95 % CI 0.37–0.56, p  < 0.0001 and HR 0.56, 95 % CI 0.40–0.78, p  = 0.0007, respectively) when compared with no resection. In a propensity score–matched analysis, prognosis was also more favorable in the resected group ( p  = 0.0017). Conclusions In this cohort of mCRC patients, palliative resection of the primary tumor was associated with improved OS.

Background An increasing number of hepatic artery infusion (HAI) programs have been established worldwide. Practice patterns for this complex therapy across these programs have not been reported. This survey aimed to identify current practice patterns in HAI therapy with the long-term goal of defining best practices and performing prospective studies. Methods Using SurveyMonkey TM , a 28-question survey assessing current practices in HAI was developed by 12 HAI Consortium Research Network (HCRN) surgical oncologists. Content analysis was used to code textual responses, and the frequency of categories was calculated. Scores for rank-order questions were generated by calculating average ranking for each answer choice. Results Thirty-six (72%) HCRN members responded to the survey. The most common intended initial indications for HAI at new programs were unresectable colorectal liver metastases (uCRLM; 100%) and unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (uIHC; 56%). Practice patterns evolved such that uCRLM (94%) and adjuvant therapy for CRLM (adjCRLM; 72%) have become the most common current indications for HAI at established centers. Referral patterns for pump placement differed between uCRLM and uIHC, with most patients referred while receiving second- and first-line therapy, respectively, with physicians preferring to evaluate patients for HAI while receiving first-line therapy for CRLM. Concern for extrahepatic disease was ranked as the most important factor when considering a patient for HAI. Conclusions Indication and patient selection factors for HAI therapy are relatively uniform across most HCRN centers. The increasing use of adjuvant HAI therapy and overall consistency of practice patterns among HCRN centers provides a robust environment for prospective data collection and randomized clinical trials.

Due to differences in natural history and therapy, clinical trials of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have recently been subdivided into unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) and metastatic disease. We aimed to evaluate prognostic factors in LAPC patients who were treated with first‐line chemotherapy and describe patterns of disease progression. Patients with LAPC who initiated first‐line palliative chemotherapy, 2001–2011 at the BC Cancer Agency were included. A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify clinicopathologic variables, treatment, and subsequent sites of metastasis. Kaplan–Meier and Cox‐regression survival analyses were performed. A total of 244 patients were included in this study. For the majority of patients (94.3%), first‐line therapy was single‐agent gemcitabine. About 144 (59%) patients developed distant metastatic disease and the most frequent metastatic sites included peritoneum/omentum (42.3%), liver (41%), lungs (13.9%), and distant lymph nodes (9%). Median overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort was 11.7 months (95% CI, 10.6–12.8). Development of distant metastases was associated with significantly inferior survival (HR 3.56, 95% CI 2.57–4.93), as was ECOG 2/3 versus 0/1 (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.28–2.23), CA 19.9 > 1000 versus ≤1000 (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.19–2.14) and female gender, (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.19–2.08). In this population‐based study, 41% of LAPC patients treated with first‐line chemotherapy died without evidence of distant metastases. Prognostic factors for LAPC were baseline performance status, elevated CA 19.9, gender, and development of distant metastasis. Results highlight the heterogeneity of LAPC and the importance of locoregional tumor control. Recently, patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have been subdivided into two groups: those with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) and metastatic disease. This study identifies prognostic factors and the patterns of progression of LAPC which may influence the way that this disease is treated. This study demonstrates the heterogeneity of patients in this population and emphasizes the importance of locoregional tumor control.

Radioligand therapy (RLT) with [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE is a standard of care for adult patients with somatostatin-receptor (SSTR)-positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). Taking advantage of this precision nuclear medicine approach requires diligent monitoring and surveillance, from the use of diagnostic SSTR-targeted radioligand imaging for the selection of patients through treatment and assessments of response. Published evidence-based guidelines assist the multidisciplinary healthcare team by providing acceptable approaches to care; however, the sheer heterogeneity of GEP-NETs can make these frameworks difficult to apply in individual clinical circumstances. There are also contradictions in the literature regarding the utility of novel approaches in monitoring and surveilling patients with GEP-NETs receiving RLT. This article discusses the emerging evidence on imaging, clinical biochemistry, and tumor assessment criteria in the management of patients receiving RLT for GEP-NETs; additionally, it documents our own best practices. This allows us to offer practical guidance on how to effectively implement monitoring and surveillance measures to aid patient-tailored clinical decision-making.

SummaryBackground Resistance to Epidermal Growth Factor inhibition (EGFRi) in patients with KRAS wild-type (wt) Colorectal Cancer (CRC) may occur as a result of PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling. We conducted a study to establish the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and response rate of panitumumab, an EGFRi, plus BKM120, a PI3K inhibitor, in advanced CRC. Methods Patients with chemotherapy refractory KRAS wt CRC, who were EGFRi naive were enrolled. A 3 + 3 dose escalation design was utilized. The starting dose of panitumumab was 6 mg/kg iv every 2 weeks with BKM120 at 60 mg oral daily. Results Nineteen patients were treated and 17 were evaluable for response. The starting dose was not tolerable (mucositis, fatigue). At dose level (DL) 1, three of six patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity, DL − 1 had no significant toxicity. Panitumumab 6 mg/kg iv q 2 weeks with BKM120 60 mg given 5 out of 7 days per week was declared the RP2D. One patient (5.9%) who was PTEN and PIK3CA negative by IHC had a partial response, seven had stable disease, and nine had disease progression. Conclusion Panitumumab (6 mg/kg iv q 2 weeks) with BKM120 60 mg given 5 out of 7 days per week was declared the RP2D. Toxicities including fatigue, rash and mucositis. There was little evidence of activity in this biomarker unselected cohort.