Summary Background Despite its common use in cancer treatment, radiotherapy has not yet entered the era of precision medicine, and there have been no approaches to adjust dose based on biological ...differences between or within tumours. We aimed to assess whether a patient-specific molecular signature of radiation sensitivity could be used to identify the optimum radiotherapy dose. Methods We used the gene-expression-based radiation-sensitivity index and the linear quadratic model to derive the genomic-adjusted radiation dose (GARD). A high GARD value predicts for high therapeutic effect for radiotherapy; which we postulate would relate to clinical outcome. Using data from the prospective, observational Total Cancer Care (TCC) protocol, we calculated GARD for primary tumours from 20 disease sites treated using standard radiotherapy doses for each disease type. We also used multivariable Cox modelling to assess whether GARD was independently associated with clinical outcome in five clinical cohorts: Erasmus Breast Cancer Cohort (n=263); Karolinska Breast Cancer Cohort (n=77); Moffitt Lung Cancer Cohort (n=60); Moffitt Pancreas Cancer Cohort (n=40); and The Cancer Genome Atlas Glioblastoma Patient Cohort (n=98). Findings We calculated GARD for 8271 tissue samples from the TCC cohort. There was a wide range of GARD values (range 1·66–172·4) across the TCC cohort despite assignment of uniform radiotherapy doses within disease types. Median GARD values were lowest for gliomas and sarcomas and highest for cervical cancer and oropharyngeal head and neck cancer. There was a wide range of GARD values within tumour type groups. GARD independently predicted clinical outcome in breast cancer, lung cancer, glioblastoma, and pancreatic cancer. In the Erasmus Breast Cancer Cohort, 5-year distant-metastasis-free survival was longer in patients with high GARD values than in those with low GARD values (hazard ratio 2·11, 95% 1·13–3·94, p=0·018). Interpretation A GARD-based clinical model could allow the individualisation of radiotherapy dose to tumour radiosensitivity and could provide a framework to design genomically-guided clinical trials in radiation oncology. Funding None.
Summary Background Oral human papillomavirus (HPV) infection causes a subset of oropharyngeal cancers. These cancers disproportionately affect men, are increasing in incidence, and have no proven ...prevention methods. We aimed to establish the natural history of oral HPV infection in men. Methods To estimate incidence and clearance of HPV infections, men residing in Brazil, Mexico, and the USA who were HIV negative and reported no history of anogenital cancer were recruited into the HPV Infection in Men (HIM) cohort study. A subset of the cohort who provided two or more oral rinse-and-gargle samples with valid HPV results and who completed a minimum of 2 weeks of follow-up were included in this analysis. Oral rinse-and-gargle samples and questionnaire data were obtained every 6 months for up to 4 years. Samples were analysed for the presence of oncogenic and non-oncogenic HPV infections by the linear array method. Findings 1626 men aged 18–73 years and with a median follow-up of 12·7 months (IQR 12·1–14·7) were included in the analysis. During the first 12 months of follow-up, 4·4% (95% CI 3·5–5·6; n=115 incident infections) of men acquired an incident oral HPV infection, 1·7% (1·2–2·5; n=53 incident infections) an oral oncogenic HPV infection, and 0·6% (0·3–1·1; n=18 incident infections) an oral HPV 16 infection. Acquisition of oral oncogenic HPV was significantly associated with smoking and not being married or cohabiting, but was similar across countries, age groups, and reported sexual behaviours. Median duration of infection was 6·9 months (95 % CI 6·2–9·3; n=45 cleared infections) for any HPV, 6·3 months (6·0–9·9; n=18 cleared infections) for oncogenic HPV, and 7·3 months (6·0–not estimable; n=5 cleared infections) for HPV 16. Eight of the 18 incident oral HPV 16 infections persisted for two or more study visits. Interpretation Newly acquired oral oncogenic HPV infections in healthy men were rare and most were cleared within 1 year. Additional studies into the natural history of HPV are needed to inform development of infection-related prevention efforts. Funding US National Cancer Institute, Merck Sharp & Dohme.
Summary Background Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) cause genital warts and cancers in men. The natural history of HPV infection in men is largely unknown, and that information is needed to inform ...prevention strategies. The goal in this study was to estimate incidence and clearance of type-specific genital HPV infection in men, and to assess the associated factors. Methods Men (aged 18–70 years), residing in Brazil, Mexico, and the USA, who were HIV negative and reported no history of cancer were recruited from the general population, universities, and organised health-care systems. They were assessed every 6 months for a median follow-up of 27·5 months (18·0–31·2). Specimens from the coronal sulcus, glans penis, shaft, and scrotum were obtained for the assessment of the status of HPV genotypes. Findings In 1159 men, the incidence of a new genital HPV infection was 38·4 per 1000 person months (95% CI 34·3–43·0). Oncogenic HPV infection was significantly associated with having a high number of lifetime female sexual partners (hazard ratio 2·40, 1·38–4·18, for at least 50 partners vs not more than one partner), and number of male anal-sexual partners (2·57, 1·46–4·49, for at least three male partners vs no recent partners). Median duration of HPV infection was 7·52 months (6·80–8·61) for any HPV and 12·19 months (7·16–18·17) for HPV 16. Clearance of oncogenic HPV infection decreased in men with a high number of lifetime female partners (0·49, 0·31–0·76, for at least 50 female partners vs not more than one partner), and in men in Brazil (0·71, 0·56–0·91) and Mexico (0·73, 0·57–0·94) compared with the USA. Clearance of oncogenic HPV was more rapid with increasing age (1·02, 1·01–1·03). Interpretation The data from this study are useful for the development of realistic cost-effectiveness models for male HPV vaccination internationally. Funding National Cancer Institute.
Sorafenib was FDA approved in 2005 for treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) based on the results of the pivotal phase 3 clinical trial, TARGET (Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global ...Evaluation Trial). Since that time, numerous clinical studies have been undertaken that substantially broaden our knowledge of the use of sorafenib for this indication.
We systematically reviewed PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and www.clinicaltrials.gov for prospective clinical studies using single agent sorafenib in RCC and published since 2005. Primary endpoints of interest were progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews #CRD42014010765.
We identified 30 studies in which 2182 patients were treated with sorafenib, including 1575 patients who participated in randomized controlled phase 3 trials. In these trials, sorafenib was administered as first-, second- or third-line treatment. Heterogeneity among trial designs and reporting of data precluded statistical comparisons among trials or with TARGET. The PFS appeared shorter in second- vs. first-line treatment, consistent with the more advanced tumor status in the second-line setting. In some trials, incidences of grade 3/4 hypertension or hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) were more than double that seen in TARGET (4% and 6%, respectively). These variances may be attributable to increased recognition of HFSR, or potentially differences in dose adjustments, that could be consequences of increased familiarity with sorafenib usage. Several small studies enrolled exclusively Asian patients. These studies reported notably longer PFS than was observed in TARGET. However, no obvious corresponding differences in disease control rate and overall survival were seen.
Collectively, more recent experiences using sorafenib in RCC are consistent with results reported for TARGET with no marked changes of response endpoints or new safety signals observed.
Abstract Background Staging for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET) considers tumor size and lymph node (LN) status; however, correlation with survival remains unclear. Methods A ...single-institution database of patients with resected PNET was analyzed. Results Of the 150 patients, incidentally discovered PNET was the most common presentation (42%). One hundred thirteen patients (75%) had LN data, 32 (28%) with positive LN (LN+). Procedure and tumor size did not predict LN+. Perineural invasion ( P = .016) and lymphovascular ( P < .001) invasion, however, were more common in LN+. Multivariate analysis showed poor/moderate differentiation predicted LN+. Median follow-up was 52 months and median overall survival was 225 months. Fifty-two patients (35%) developed recurrence and median disease-free survival (DFS) was 74 months. Only poor/moderate differentiation affected DFS. Conclusions PNET has an unclear prognosis based on variables factored into stage. In this study, tumor size did not predict LN+; furthermore, LN+ did not impact overall survival or DFS. Tumor differentiation appears to be more important in determining prognosis.
Previously, we developed a radiosensitivity molecular signature radiosensitivity index (RSI) that was clinically validated in 3 independent datasets (rectal, esophageal, and head and neck) in 118 ...patients. Here, we test RSI in radiotherapy (RT)-treated breast cancer patients.
RSI was tested in 2 previously published breast cancer datasets. Patients were treated at the Karolinska University Hospital (n = 159) and Erasmus Medical Center (n = 344). RSI was applied as previously described.
We tested RSI in RT-treated patients (Karolinska). Patients predicted to be radiosensitive (RS) had an improved 5-year relapse-free survival when compared with radioresistant (RR) patients (95% vs. 75%, P = 0.0212), but there was no difference between RS/RR patients treated without RT (71% vs. 77%, P = 0.6744), consistent with RSI being RT-specific (interaction term RSI × RT, P = 0.05). Similarly, in the Erasmus dataset, RT-treated RS patients had an improved 5-year distant metastasis-free survival over RR patients (77% vs. 64%, P = 0.0409), but no difference was observed in patients treated without RT (RS vs. RR, 80% vs. 81%, P = 0.9425). Multivariable analysis showed RSI is the strongest variable in RT-treated patients (Karolinska, HR = 5.53, P = 0.0987, Erasmus, HR = 1.64, P = 0.0758) and in backward selection (removal α of 0.10), RSI was the only variable remaining in the final model. Finally, RSI is an independent predictor of outcome in RT-treated ER(+) patients (Erasmus, multivariable analysis, HR = 2.64, P = 0.0085).
RSI is validated in 2 independent breast cancer datasets totaling 503 patients. Including prior data, RSI is validated in 5 independent cohorts (621 patients) and represents, to our knowledge, the most extensively validated molecular signature in radiation oncology.
Recently, we developed radiosensitivity (RSI), a clinically validated molecular signature that estimates tumor radiosensitivity. In the present study, we tested whether integrating RSI with the ...molecular subtype refines the classification of local recurrence (LR) risk in breast cancer.
RSI and molecular subtype were evaluated in 343 patients treated with breast-conserving therapy that included whole-breast radiation therapy with or without a tumor bed boost (dose range 45-72 Gy). The follow-up period for patients without recurrence was 10 years. The clinical endpoint was LR-free survival.
Although RSI did not uniformly predict for LR across the entire cohort, combining RSI and the molecular subtype identified a subpopulation with an increased risk of LR: triple negative (TN) and radioresistant (reference TN-radioresistant, hazard ratio HR 0.37, 95% confidence interval CI 0.15-0.92, P=.02). TN patients who were RSI-sensitive/intermediate had LR rates similar to those of luminal (LUM) patients (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.47-1.57, P=.63). On multivariate analysis, combined RSI and molecular subtype (P=.004) and age (P=.001) were the most significant predictors of LR. In contrast, integrating RSI into the LUM subtype did not identify additional risk groups. We hypothesized that radiation dose escalation was affecting radioresistance in the LUM subtype and serving as a confounder. An increased radiation dose decreased LR only in the luminal-resistant (LUM-R) subset (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05-0.98, P=.03). On multivariate analysis, the radiation dose was an independent variable only in the LUMA/B-RR subset (HR 0.025, 95% CI 0.001-0.946, P=.046), along with age (P=.008), T stage (P=.004), and chemotherapy (P=.008).
The combined molecular subtype-RSI identified a novel molecular subpopulation (TN and radioresistant) with an increased risk of LR after breast-conserving therapy. We propose that the combination of RSI and molecular subtype could be useful in guiding radiation therapy-based decisions in breast cancer.
We previously developed a multigene expression model of tumor radiation sensitivity index (RSI) with clinical validation in multiple independent cohorts (breast, rectal, esophageal, and head and neck ...patients). The purpose of this study was to assess differences between RSI scores in primary colon cancer and metastases.
Patients were identified from our institutional review board-approved prospective observational protocol. A total of 704 metastatic and 1362 primary lesions were obtained from a de-identified metadata pool. RSI was calculated using the previously published rank-based algorithm. An independent cohort of 29 lung or liver colon metastases treated with 60 Gy in 5 fractions stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) was used for validation.
The most common sites of metastases included liver (n=374; 53%), lung (n=116; 17%), and lymph nodes (n=40; 6%). Sixty percent of metastatic tumors, compared with 54% of primaries, were in the RSI radiation-resistant peak, suggesting metastatic tumors may be slightly more radiation resistant than primaries (P=.01). In contrast, when we analyzed metastases based on anatomical site, we uncovered large differences in RSI. The median RSIs for metastases in descending order of radiation resistance were ovary (0.48), abdomen (0.47), liver (0.43), brain (0.42), lung (0.32), and lymph nodes (0.31) (P<.0001). These findings were confirmed when the analysis was restricted to lesions from the same patient (n=139). In our independent cohort of treated lung and liver metastases, lung metastases had an improved local control rate compared to that in patients with liver metastases (2-year local control rate of 100% vs 73.0%, respectively; P=.026).
Assessment of radiation sensitivity between primary and metastatic tissues of colon cancer histology revealed significant differences based on anatomical location of metastases. These initial results warrant validation in a larger clinical cohort.
Trim28 is a poorly understood transcriptional co-factor with pleiotropic biological activities. Although Trim28 mRNA is found in many studies to be up-regulated in both lung and breast cancer tissues ...relative to normal adjacent tissue, we found that within a panel of early-stage lung adenocarcinomas high levels of Trim28 protein correlate with better overall survival. This surprising observation suggests that Trim 28 may have anti-proliferative activity within tumors. To test this hypothesis, we used shRNAi to generate Trim28-knockdown breast and lung cancer cell lines and found that Trim28 depletion led to increased cell proliferation. Likewise, overexpression of Trim28 led to decreased cell proliferation. Confocal microscopy indicated co-localization of E2F3 and E2F4 with Trim28 within the cell nucleus, and co-immunoprecipitation assays demonstrated that Trim28 can bind both E2F3 and E2F4. Trim28 overexpression inhibited the transcriptional activity of E2F3 and E2F4, whereas Trim28 deficiency enhanced their activity. Co-immunoprecipitations further indicated that Trim28 bridges an interaction between E2Fs 3 and 4 and HDAC1. Promoter-reporter assays demonstrated that the ability of HDAC1 to repress E2F3 and E2F4-driven transcription is dependent on Trim28. Trim28 depletion increased E2F3 and E2F4 DNA binding activity, as measured by chromatin-immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assays while simultaneously reducing HDAC1 binding. Finally, ChIP-ReChIP experiments demonstrated that Trim/E2F complexes exist on several E2F-regulated promoters. Taken together, these results suggest that Trim28 has anti-proliferative activity in lung cancers via repression of members of the E2F family that are critical for cell proliferation.
Background: Trim28 appears up-regulated in many cancers.
Results: In early stage lung tumors high Trim28 correlates with increased overall survival and Trim28 reduces cell proliferation in model lung cancer cell lines through E2F interactions.
Conclusion: Trim28 may have a tumor suppressing role in the early stages of lung cancer.
Significance: These results suggest a complex role for Trim28 in lung cancer.
Background
The malignancy-risk gene signature is composed of numerous proliferative genes and has been applied to predict breast cancer risk. We hypothesized that the malignancy-risk gene signature ...has prognostic and predictive value for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.
Methods
The ability of the malignancy-risk gene signature to predict overall survival (OS) of early-stage NSCLC patients was tested using a large NSCLC microarray dataset from the Director's Challenge Consortium (n = 442) and two independent NSCLC microarray datasets (n = 117 and 133, for the GSE13213 and GSE14814 datasets, respectively). An overall malignancy-risk score was generated by principal component analysis to determine the prognostic and predictive value of the signature. An interaction model was used to investigate a statistically significant interaction between adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) and the gene signature. All statistical tests were two-sided.
Results
The malignancy-risk gene signature was statistically significantly associated with OS (P < .001) of NSCLC patients. Validation with the two independent datasets demonstrated that the malignancy-risk score had prognostic and predictive values: Of patients who did not receive ACT, those with a low malignancy-risk score had increased OS compared with a high malignancy-risk score (P = .007 and .01 for the GSE13212 and GSE14814 datasets, respectively), indicating a prognostic value; and in the GSE14814 dataset, patients receiving ACT survived longer in the high malignancy-risk score group (P = .03), and a statistically significant interaction between ACT and the signature was observed (P = .02).
Conclusions
The malignancy-risk gene signature was associated with OS and was a prognostic and predictive indicator. The malignancy-risk gene signature could be useful to improve prediction of OS and to identify those NSCLC patients who will benefit from ACT.
PDF
