Hypoxia: The Cornerstone of Glioblastoma Domènech, Marta; Hernández, Ainhoa; Plaja, Andrea ...
International journal of molecular sciences,
11/2021, Letnik:
22, Številka:
22
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Glioblastoma is the most aggressive form of brain tumor in adults and is characterized by the presence of hypervascularization and necrosis, both caused by a hypoxic microenvironment. In this review, ...we highlight that hypoxia-induced factor 1 (HIF-1), the main factor activated by hypoxia, is an important driver of tumor progression in GB patients. HIF-1α is a transcription factor regulated by the presence or absence of O
. The expression of HIF-1 has been related to high-grade gliomas and aggressive tumor behavior. HIF-1 promotes tumor progression via the activation of angiogenesis, immunosuppression, and metabolic reprogramming, promoting cell invasion and survival. Moreover, in GB, HIF-1 is not solely modulated by oxygen but also by oncogenic signaling pathways, such as MAPK/ERK, p53, and PI3K/PTEN. Therefore, the inhibition of the hypoxia pathway could represent an important treatment alternative in a disease with very few therapy options. Here, we review the roles of HIF-1 in GB progression and the inhibitors that have been studied thus far, with the aim of shedding light on this devastating disease.
Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive malignancy characterized by a rapid progression and a high resistance to treatments. Unlike other solid tumors, there has been a scarce improvement in ...emerging treatments and survival during the last years. A better understanding of SCLC biology has allowed for the establishment of a molecular classification based on four transcription factors, and certain therapeutic vulnerabilities have been proposed. The universal inactivation of
and
, along with the absence of mutations in known targetable oncogenes, has hampered the development of targeted therapies. On the other hand, the immunosuppressive microenvironment makes the success of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which have achieved a modest improvement in overall survival in patients with extensive disease, difficult. Currently, atezolizumab or durvalumab, in combination with platinum-etoposide chemotherapy, is the standard of care in first-line setting. However, the magnitude of the benefit is scarce and no predictive biomarkers of response have yet been established. In this review, we describe SCLC biology and molecular classification, examine the SCLC tumor microenvironment and the challenges of predictive biomarkers of response to new treatments, and, finally, assess clinical and molecular characteristics of long-term survivor patients in order to identify possible prognostic factors and treatment vulnerabilities.
Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy is the recommended treatment, with the highest level of evidence, for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). ...However, only a minority of patients receive this treatment, mainly due to patient comorbidities, the relatively small survival benefit, and the lack of predictive biomarkers to select those patients most likely to benefit from this multimodal approach. In addition, adjuvant chemotherapy has been recommended for patients with high-risk MIBC, although randomized trials have not provided conclusive evidence on the impact of this approach. At present, however, this situation is changing, largely due to our improved knowledge of the molecular biology of bladder cancer, which has enabled us to identify new prognostic and predictive biomarkers that can be used to select the most appropriate treatment for each patient. Moreover, new active treatments, especially immunotherapy, have shown promising results in the neoadjuvant setting. In addition, the gene expression profile of bladder tumors can be used to classify them into different subtypes, which correlate with specific clinical-pathological characteristics and with treatment response or resistance. Therefore, the main objective for the near future is to introduce these translational breakthroughs into routine clinical practice in order to personalize treatment for each patient.
Despite a multimodal radical treatment, mortality of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) remains high. Host-related factors, such as systemic inflammatory response and its interplay with the ...immune system, remain underexplored. We hypothesized that the prognostic impact of this response could vary between patients undergoing primary debulking surgery (PDS) and those undergoing interval debulking surgery (IDS). Therefore, we evaluated the outcomes of two surgical groups of newly diagnosed AEOC patients according to the neutrophil, monocyte and platelet to lymphocyte ratios (NLR, MLR, PLR), taking median ratio values as cutoffs. In the PDS group (
= 61), low NLR and PLR subgroups showed significantly better overall survival (not reached (NR) vs. 72.7 months, 95% confidence interval CI: 40.9-95.2,
= 0.019; and NR vs. 56.1 months, 95% CI: 40.9-95.2,
= 0.004, respectively) than those with high values. Similar results were observed in progression free survival. NLR and PLR-high values resulted in negative prognostic factors, adjusting for residual disease,
status and stage (HR 2.48, 95% CI: 1.03-5.99,
= 0.043, and HR 2.91, 95% CI: 1.11-7.64,
= 0.03, respectively). In the IDS group (
= 85), ratios were not significant prognostic factors. We conclude that NLR and PLR may have prognostic value in the PDS setting, but none in IDS, suggesting that time of surgery can modulate the prognostic impact of baseline complete blood count (CBC).
To date, studies have not provided definitive answers regarding whether previous immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment alters outcomes for cancer patients with COVID-19.
The OnCovid registry ...(NCT04393974) was searched from February 27, 2020, to January 31, 2022, for patients who received systemic anti-cancer therapy in the 4 weeks before laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. Propensity-score matching using country, vaccination status, primary tumor type, sex, age, comorbidity burden, tumor stage, and remission status investigated differences in predefined clinical outcomes comparing those who had or had not received ICIs.
Of 3523 patients screened, 137 ICI-only and 1378 non-ICI met inclusion criteria. Before matching, ICI patients were older, male, enrolled at centers in Italy, and had histories of smoking, thoracic cancers, advanced cancer stages, and active malignancies (P ≤0.02). After matching, there were 120 ICI and 322 non-ICI patients. ICI patients had no differences (odds ratio: 95% CI) in presenting COVID-19 symptoms (0.69: 0.37-1.28), receipt of COVID-specific therapy (0.88: 0.54-1.41), 14-day (0.95: 0.56-1.61), or 28-day (0.79: 0.48-1.29) mortalities. However, ICI patients required less COVID-19-related hospitalization (0.37: 0.21-0.67) and oxygen therapy (0.51: 0.31-0.83) and developed fewer complications (0.57: 0.36-0.92).
In this propensity-score matched analysis, previous ICI therapy did not worsen and potentially improved COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer.
Background: Despite impressive progression-free survival (PFS) results from PARP inhibitors (PARPi) in ovarian cancer, concerns about their effect on post-progression treatment outcomes have recently ...arisen, particularly when administered in the relapsed setting. Overlapping mechanisms of resistance between PARPi and platinum have been described, and optimal therapies upon progression to PARPi are unknown. We communicate real-world data (RWD) on outcomes of subsequent chemotherapy upon progression to PARPi used as maintenance in ovarian cancer relapses, particularly focusing on platinum rechallenge, according to BRCA status. Methods: Data from high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer patients who received subsequent chemotherapy after progression to maintenance PARPi in the relapsed setting, in 16 Catalan hospitals between August 2016 and April 2021, and who were followed-up until July 2021, were included. Endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), and PFS and overall survival (OS) measured from the subsequent chemotherapy starting date. Results: 111 patients were included 46 (41.4%) presented pathological BRCA1/2 mutations, 8 (7.5%) in other homologous recombination-related genes. Sixty-four patients (57.7%) had received two prior chemotherapy lines, including the one immediately prior to PARPi. PARPi were niraparib (n = 60, 54.1%), olaparib (n = 49, 44.1%), and rucaparib (n = 2, 1.8%). A total of 81 patients remained platinum-sensitive (PS population) after progression to PARPi (when progression-free interval PFI was >6 months after the last cycle of prior platinum) median PFI 12.0 months (interquartile range, IQR, 8.8−17.1). Of those, 74 were treated with subsequent platinum regimens, with the following results: ORR of 41.9%, median PFS (mPFS) of 6.6 months (95% CI 6−9.2), and median OS (mOS) of 20.6 months (95% CI 13.6−28.9). Analysis of these 74 patients according to BRCA status showed that PFIs for BRCA mutant and non BRCA-mutant patients were 13.6 IQR11.2−22.2 and 10.3 IQR 7.4−14.9 months, respectively (p = 0.010); ORR were 40.0% versus 43.6%, respectively; Rates of progression (as best response) to subsequent platinum were 45.7% versus 17.9%, respectively (p = 0.004); mPFS and mOS were 3.5 (95% CI 2.5−8.6) versus 7.5 months (95% CI 6.5−10.1, p = 0.03), and 16.4 (95% CI 9.3−27.5) versus 24.2 months (95% CI 17.2−NR, p = 0.036), respectively. Conclusion: This is the largest series of real-world data on ovarian cancer patients retreated with platinum in the post-PARPi scenario, separately analyzing BRCA mutant and non-mutant patients, to our knowledge. In our platinum-sensitive population, rechallenge with platinum after progression upon PARPi in the 3rd or later lines for ovarian cancer relapses shows relevant ORR and similar PFS outcomes to historical series of the prePARPi era. However, BRCA mutant patients presented significantly higher rates of progression under subsequent platinum and worse survival outcomes associated with subsequent platinum than non-BRCA-mutant patients.
The omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of SARS-CoV-2 is highly transmissible and escapes vaccine-induced immunity. We aimed to describe outcomes due to COVID-19 during the omicron outbreak compared with the ...prevaccination period and alpha (B.1.1.7) and delta (B.1.617.2) waves in patients with cancer in Europe.
In this retrospective analysis of the multicentre OnCovid Registry study, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, who had a history of solid or haematological malignancy that was either active or in remission. Patient were recruited from 37 oncology centres from UK, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, and Germany. Participants were followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death or loss to follow-up, while being treated as per standard of care. For this analysis, we excluded data from centres that did not actively enter new data after March 1, 2021 (in France, Germany, and Belgium). We compared measures of COVID-19 morbidity, which were complications from COVID-19, hospitalisation due to COVID-19, and requirement of supplemental oxygen and COVID-19-specific therapies, and COVID-19 mortality across three time periods designated as the prevaccination (Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020), alpha-delta (Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021), and omicron (Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022) phases. We assessed all-cause case-fatality rates at 14 days and 28 days after diagnosis of COVID-19 overall and in unvaccinated and fully vaccinated patients and in those who received a booster dose, after adjusting for country of origin, sex, age, comorbidities, tumour type, stage, and status, and receipt of systemic anti-cancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974, and is ongoing.
As of Feb 4, 2022 (database lock), the registry included 3820 patients who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 between Feb 27, 2020, and Jan 31, 2022. 3473 patients were eligible for inclusion (1640 47·4% were women and 1822 52·6% were men, with a median age of 68 years IQR 57–77). 2033 (58·5%) of 3473 were diagnosed during the prevaccination phase, 1075 (31·0%) during the alpha-delta phase, and 365 (10·5%) during the omicron phase. Among patients diagnosed during the omicron phase, 113 (33·3%) of 339 were fully vaccinated and 165 (48·7%) were boosted, whereas among those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase, 152 (16·6%) of 915 were fully vaccinated and 21 (2·3%) were boosted. Compared with patients diagnosed during the prevaccination period, those who were diagnosed during the omicron phase had lower case-fatality rates at 14 days (adjusted odds ratio OR 0·32 95% CI 0·19–0·61) and 28 days (0·34 0·16–0·79), complications due to COVID-19 (0·26 0·17–0·46), and hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (0·17 0·09–0·32), and had less requirements for COVID-19-specific therapy (0·22 0·15–0·34) and oxygen therapy (0·24 0·14–0·43) than did those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase. Unvaccinated patients diagnosed during the omicron phase had similar crude case-fatality rates at 14 days (ten 25% of 40 patients vs 114 17% of 656) and at 28 days (11 27% of 40 vs 184 28% of 656) and similar rates of hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (18 43% of 42 vs 266 41% of 652) and complications from COVID-19 (13 31% of 42 vs 237 36% of 659) as those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase.
Despite time-dependent improvements in outcomes reported in the omicron phase compared with the earlier phases of the pandemic, patients with cancer remain highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 if they are not vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Our findings support universal vaccination of patients with cancer as a protective measure against morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.
National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust.
Although SARS-CoV-2 vaccines immunogenicity in patients with cancer has been investigated, whether they can significantly improve the severity of COVID-19 in this specific population is undefined.
...Capitalizing on OnCovid (NCT04393974) registry data we reported COVID-19 mortality and proxies of COVID-19 morbidity, including post-COVID-19 outcomes, according to the vaccination status of the included patients.
2090 eligible patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between 02/2020 and 11/2021 were included, of whom 1930 (92.3%) unvaccinated, 91 (4.4%) fully vaccinated and 69 (3.3%) partially vaccinated. With the exception of a higher prevalence of patients from the UK (p = 0.0003) and receiving systemic anticancer therapy at COVID-19 diagnosis (p = 0.0082) among fully vaccinated patients, no demographics/oncological features were associated with vaccination status. The 14-days case fatality rate (CFR) (5.5% vs 20.7%, p = 0.0004) and the 28-days CFR (13.2% vs 27.4%, p = 0.0028) demonstrated a significant improvement for fully vaccinated patients in comparison with unvaccinated patients. The receipt of prior full vaccination was also associated with reduced symptomatic COVID-19 (79.1% vs 88.5%, p = 0.0070), need of COVID-19 oriented therapy (34.9% vs 63.2%, p < 0.0001), complications from COVID-19 (28.6% vs 39.4%, p = 0.0379), hospitalizations due to COVID-19 (42.2% vs 52.5%, p = 0.0007) and oxygen therapy requirement (35.7% vs 52%, p = 0.0036). Following Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting (IPTW) procedure no statistically significant difference according to the vaccination status was confirmed; however, all COVID-19 related outcomes were concordantly in favour of full vaccination. Among the 1228 (58.8%) patients who underwent a formal reassessment at participating centres after COVID-19 resolution, fully vaccinated patients experienced less sequelae than unvaccinated patients (6.7% vs 17.2%, p = 0.0320).
This analysis provides initial evidence in support of the beneficial effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines against morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 in patients with cancer.
•Immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with cancer has been investigated.•There is a need for evidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines’ efficacy from large populations.•In this analysis, vaccinated patients experienced improved COVID-19 outcomes.•SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are effective in reducing severe COVID-19 in patients with cancer.
COVID-19 sequelae can affect about 15% of patients with cancer who survive the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection and can substantially impair their survival and continuity of oncological care. We ...aimed to investigate whether previous immunisation affects long-term sequelae in the context of evolving variants of concern of SARS-CoV-2.
OnCovid is an active registry that includes patients aged 18 years or older from 37 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and a history of solid or haematological malignancy, either active or in remission, followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death. We evaluated the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae in patients who survived COVID-19 and underwent a formal clinical reassessment, categorising infection according to the date of diagnosis as the omicron (B.1.1.529) phase from Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022; the alpha (B.1.1.7)–delta (B.1.617.2) phase from Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021; and the pre-vaccination phase from Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020. The prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae was compared according to SARS-CoV-2 immunisation status and in relation to post-COVID-19 survival and resumption of systemic anticancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974.
At the follow-up update on June 20, 2022, 1909 eligible patients, evaluated after a median of 39 days (IQR 24–68) from COVID-19 diagnosis, were included (964 50·7% of 1902 patients with sex data were female and 938 49·3% were male). Overall, 317 (16·6%; 95% CI 14·8–18·5) of 1909 patients had at least one sequela from COVID-19 at the first oncological reassessment. The prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae was highest in the pre-vaccination phase (191 19·1%; 95% CI 16·4–22·0 of 1000 patients). The prevalence was similar in the alpha–delta phase (110 16·8%; 13·8–20·3 of 653 patients, p=0·24), but significantly lower in the omicron phase (16 6·2%; 3·5–10·2 of 256 patients, p<0·0001). In the alpha–delta phase, 84 (18·3%; 95% CI 14·6–22·7) of 458 unvaccinated patients and three (9·4%; 1·9–27·3) of 32 unvaccinated patients in the omicron phase had sequelae. Patients who received a booster and those who received two vaccine doses had a significantly lower prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae than unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (ten 7·4%; 95% CI 3·5–13·5 of 136 boosted patients, 18 9·8%; 5·8–15·5 of 183 patients who had two vaccine doses vs 277 18·5%; 16·5–20·9 of 1489 unvaccinated patients, p=0·0001), respiratory sequelae (six 4·4%; 1·6–9·6, 11 6·0%; 3·0–10·7 vs 148 9·9%; 8·4–11·6, p=0·030), and prolonged fatigue (three 2·2%; 0·1–6·4, ten 5·4%; 2·6–10·0 vs 115 7·7%; 6·3–9·3, p=0·037).
Unvaccinated patients with cancer remain highly vulnerable to COVID-19 sequelae irrespective of viral strain. This study confirms the role of previous SARS-CoV-2 immunisation as an effective measure to protect patients from COVID-19 sequelae, disruption of therapy, and ensuing mortality.
UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust.
PDF
