Explore the vast range of titles available.

The management of cancer has been traditionally dependent on the primary tumour type and specific histologic subtypes. Recently, the introduction of molecular profiling tools and its increasing use in clinical practice has facilitated the emergence of novel genomically driven treatment options within the standard of care landscape as well as in the clinical trial setting. One such aberration is mutation in v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF), which results in hyperactivation of RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK signaling in the Mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPK) pathway. BRAF and Mitogen-activated protein kinase, extracellular signal-regulated kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitors, although being currently approved for melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and colon cancer, have reported activity across other various cancers harbouring BRAF aberrations. It has been proposed that combined MEK and BRAF inhibition could overcome the acquired resistance commonly developed among patients receiving BRAF or MEK inhibitors as monotherapy. We report five cases of BRAF V600E (substitution of glutamic acid for valine in codon 600) aberrant refractory metastatic cancers treated with dual BRAF/MEK combination inhibitor therapy leading to an excellent clinical and radiological response and protracted duration of disease control.

Background Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer remains a challenging condition to treat. Among the available therapeutic options, the androgen receptor signaling inhibitors abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA) and enzalutamide (Enza), are currently the most used first-line therapies in clinical practice. However, validated clinical indicators of prognosis in this setting are still lacking. In this study, we aimed to evaluate a prognostic model based on the time of metastatic disease presentation (after prior local therapy [PLT] or de-novo [DN]) and disease burden (low volume [LV] or high-volume [HV]) at AA/Enza onset for mCRPC patients receiving either AA or Enza as first-line. Methods A cohort of consecutive patients who started AA or Enza as first-line treatment for mCRPC between January 1st, 2015, and April 1st, 2019 was identified from the clinical and electronic registries of the 9 American and European participating centers. Patients were classified into 4 cohorts by the time of metastatic disease presentation (PLT or DN) and volume of disease (LV or HV; per the E3805 trial, HV was defined as the presence of visceral metastases and/or at least 4 bone metastases of which at least 1 out the axial/pelvic skeleton) at AA/Enza onset. The endpoint was overall survival defined as the time from AA or Enza initiation, respectively, to death from any cause or censored at the last follow-up visit, whichever occurred first. Results Of the 417 eligible patients identified, 157 (37.6%) had LV/PLT, 87 (20.9%) LV/DN, 64 (15.3%) HV/PLT, and 109 (26.1%) HV/DN. LV cohorts showed improved median overall survival (59.0 months; 95% CI, 51.0–66.9 months) vs. HV cohorts (27.5 months; 95% CI, 22.8–32.2 months; P = 0.0001), regardless of the time of metastatic presentation. In multivariate analysis, HV cohorts were confirmed associated with worse prognosis compared to those with LV (HV/PLT, HR = 1.87; p = 0.029; HV/DN, HR = 2.19; P = 0.002). Conclusion Our analysis suggests that the volume of disease could be a prognostic factor for patients starting AA or Enza as first-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, pending prospective clinical trial validation.

The androgen receptor (AR) pathway plays a fundamental role in the treatment of prostate cancer, from the localized stage to metastatic disease, even in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Despite the significant benefit for the earlier use of second-generation AR pathway inhibitors (ARPI), treatment resistance is still emerging. A deeper understanding of the biology of ARPI resistance is crucial for developing new therapeutic targets. In this review, we will explore the biology of second-generation ARPI resistance and discuss the evolving landscape of third-generation ARPI and steroid hormone inhibitors, which are shaping the future of prostate cancer therapeutics. Targeting the biosynthesis of steroid precursors with CYP11A1 inhibition, inducing AR degradation with proteolysis-targeting chimera degraders or restoring ARPI sensitivity with EZH2 inhibitors are among the most advanced strategies in development. Alongside these new drugs, AR genomic alterations and particularly AR mutations emerge as a promising biomarker for patient selection. These innovative therapeutics help bring more personalized approaches to patients with prostate cancer, aiming to overcome resistance and improve patient outcomes.

Background Brain metastases from sarcomatous lesions pose a management challenge owing to their rarity and the histopathological heterogeneity. Prognostic indices such as the Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) index have been developed for several primary tumour types presenting with brain metastases (e.g. lung, breast, melanoma), tailored to the specifics of different primary histologies and molecular profiles. Thus far, a prognostic index to direct treatment decisions is lacking for adult sarcoma patients with brain metastases. Methods We performed a multicentre analysis of a national group of expert sarcoma tertiary centres (French Sarcoma Group, GSF-GETO) with the participation of one Canadian and one Swiss centre. The study cohort included adult patients with a diagnosis of a bone or soft tissue sarcoma presenting parenchymal or meningeal brain metastases, managed between January 1992 and March 2012. We assessed the validity of the original GPA index in this patient population and developed a disease-specific Sarcoma-GPA index. Results The original GPA index is not prognostic for sarcoma brain metastasis patients. We have developed a dedicated Sarcoma-GPA index that identifies a sub-group of patients with particularly favourable prognosis based on histology, number of brain lesions and performance status. Conclusions The Sarcoma-GPA index provides a novel tool for sarcoma oncologists to guide clinical decision-making and outcomes research.

Biochemical recurrence is an evolving space in prostate cancer, with increasing multidisciplinary involvement. Androgen deprivation therapy has shown proof of its value in complementing salvage radiotherapy in high-risk biochemical relapsing patients; ongoing trials aim to further refine this treatment combination. As systemic treatments, and notably next-generation androgen receptor targeted agents, have moved towards early hormone-sensitive and non-metastatic stages, the prostate specific antigen (PSA)-relapse disease stage will be undoubtedly challenged by future evidence from such ongoing clinical trials. With the use of modern imaging and newer molecular technologies, including integration of tumoral genomic profiling and liquid biopsies in risk stratification, a path towards a precision oncology-focused approach will become a reality to guide in the future decisions for patients with a diagnosis of biochemical recurrence.

Background Metastatic germ cell tumor (mGCT) patients receiving chemotherapy have increased risk of life‐threatening venous thromboembolism (VTE). Identifying VTE risk factors may guide thromboprophylaxis in this highly curable population. Methods Data were collected from mGCT patients receiving first‐line platinum‐based chemotherapy at 22 centers. Predefined variables included International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) risk classification, long‐axis diameter of largest retroperitoneal lymph node (RPLN), Khorana score, and use of indwelling vascular access device (VAD). VTE occurring at baseline, during chemotherapy and within 90 days, was analyzed. Results Data from 1135 patients were collected. Median age was 31 years (range 10‐74). IGCCCG risk was 64% good, 20% intermediate, and 16% poor. VTE occurred in 150 (13%) patients. RPLN >3.5 cm demonstrated highest discriminatory accuracy for VTE (AUC 0.632, P < .001) and was associated with significantly higher risk of VTE in univariable analysis (22% vs 8%, OR 3.0, P < .001) and multivariable analysis (OR 1.8, P = .02). Other significant risk factors included, Khorana score ≥3 (OR 2.6, P = .008) and VAD use (OR 2.7, P < .001). Conclusions Large RPLN and VAD use are independent risk factors for VTE in mGCT patients receiving chemotherapy. VAD use should be minimized in this population and thromboprophylaxis might be considered for large RPLN. Venous thromboembolism can cause morbidity in germ cell tumor patients receiving chemotherapy; large retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy (RPLN) and indwelling vascular access devices (VAD) are significant VTE risk factors. VAD insertion should be avoided and thromboprophylaxis can be considered for large RPLN.

Summary Background Sorafenib is the only systemic treatment that has shown a significant benefit in overall survival (OS) and in progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. No standard of care currently exists for second-line treatment. The association of Gemcitabine-Oxaliplatine (GEMOX) has shown efficacy in the first-line setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of GEMOX after failure of at least one line of anti-angiogenic (AA) therapy. Patient and methods We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis of advanced HCC patients that received GEMOX chemotherapy after progression on at least one line of AA therapy. Results We analyzed a total of 40 patients that received a median of 7 cycles of GEMOX over a 6-year period. Grade 3/4 toxicity was observed in 25 % of patients, mainly neurotoxicity, thrombocytopenia and neutropenia in 12.5 %, 5 % and 5 % of patients respectively. Grade <3 toxicity was mainly hematological and neurotoxicity. In the sub-cohort of 35 patients evaluable for response, partial response was observed in 20 % of patients, while 46 % had stable disease. Median OS was 8.3 months, with a 6-month OS rate of 59 %. Median PFS was 3.1 months. Prognostic factors for OS in univariable analysis were the performance status and AFP levels at GEMOX start, and the BCLC score at diagnosis. None of these factors were prognostic for PFS or tumor response. Conclusion The GEMOX schedule seems to show clinical activity and an acceptable toxicity profile in advanced HCC patients who progressed after anti-angiogenic treatment. The observed median OS of over 8 months is encouraging in this population of heavily pretreated patients. These results would merit confirmation in a prospective randomized study.

•  Introduction •  Proteolytic roles of UPS in DNA repair ‐  MGMT repair pathway ‐  MMR pathway ‐  BER pathway ‐  NER pathway ‐  DSB repair pathway ‐  PRR pathway ‐  FA pathway •  Non‐proteolytic roles of UPS in DNA repair ‐  FA pathway ‐  BER pathway ‐  DSB repair pathway ‐  PRR pathway ‐  NER pathway •  Conclusive remarks DNA repair is a fundamental cellular function, indispensable for cell survival, especially in conditions of exposure to environmental or pharmacological effectors of DNA damage. The regulation of this function requires a flexible machinery to orchestrate the reversal of harmful DNA lesions by making use of existing proteins as well as inducible gene products. The accumulation of evidence for the involvement of ubiquitin‐proteasome system (UPS) in DNA repair pathways, that is reviewed here, has expanded its role from a cellular waste disposal basket to a multi‐dimensional regulatory system. This review is the first of two that attempt to illustrate the nature and interactions of all different DNA repair pathways where UPS is demonstrated to be involved, with special focus on cancer‐ and chemotherapy‐related DNA‐damage repair. In this first review, we will be presenting the proteolytic and non‐proteolytic roles of UPS in the post‐translational regulation of DNA repair proteins, while the second review will focus on the UPS‐dependent transcriptional response of DNA repair after DNA damage and stress.

Up to 25% of patients with metastatic prostate cancer present with germline or somatic DNA damage repair alterations, some of which are associated with aggressive disease and poor outcomes. New data have brought poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors into sharp focus in the treatment of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Olaparib improved survival after at least one new hormonal therapy (NHT) in a cohort of patients harboring BRCA1 , BRCA2 or ATM mutations in the PROfound trial, while rucaparib, talazoparib and niraparib demonstrated compelling activity in phase II trials. While patients with prostate cancer and BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations may derive greatest benefit of PARP inhibition, the magnitude of benefit seems much lower in the context of most other homologous recombination gene mutations. Several PARP inhibitors are currently developed in combination with conventional therapy, including chemotherapy, NHT, and alpha-particle emitters, at different disease stages. Herein, we review the rationale for PARP inhibition in patients with prostate cancer, discuss the impact of PARP inhibitors on outcomes, and explore underlying challenges for future developments.

Bortezomib represents the first proteasome inhibitor (PI) with demonstrated antitumor activity in the clinical setting, particularly for treatment of hematological malignancies. At the preclinical level, its action is shown to be mediated by induction of growth arrest and apoptosis in many tumor types, including androgen-dependent (AD) and androgen-independent (AI) prostate cancer (PCa) cells. Hypoxia-inducible factor-1α (HIF-1α), which is directly involved in tumor growth, is one of the most studied and promising molecular targets for anti-cancer therapy and is often overexpressed in PCa. Bortezomib has been reported to impair tumor growth by also inhibiting HIF-1α. In this study, we investigated the effect of bortezomib on the expression, activity and localization of HIF-1α in LNCaP (AD) and PC3 (AI) PCa cells. First, we show that hypoxic upregulation of HIF-1α protein levels and activity involves both the PI3K/Akt/mTOR and p44/42 MAPK pathways. Second, bortezomib inhibits expression of HIF-1α protein under both normoxic and hypoxic conditions, represses HIF-1 transcriptional activity and attenuates the release of vascular endothelial growth factor. These effects correlate with the ability of bortezomib to cause dephosphorylation of phospho-Akt, phospho-p70S6K, and phospho-S6RP, thus inactivating a pathway known to be required for HIF-1α protein expression at the translational level. Furthermore, bortezomib also abrogates p44/42 MAPK phosphorylation, which results to reduced nuclear translocation of HIF-1α. Taken together, these results suggest that bortezomib inhibits HIF-1α protein synthesis and its nuclear targeting through suppression of PI3K/Akt/mTOR and MAPK pathways, respectively, in both AD and AI PCa cells.