George, Thomas J.

497 Background: As activating RAS mutations have been shown to predict lack of benefit from anti-EGFR therapies in advanced CRC, NCCN guidelines recommend testing for KRAS exon 2 and non-exon 2 mutations; however, these alterations are thought to explain only a subset of de novo resistance to targeted therapy. In a large set of CRC assayed with comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in the course of clinical care, we assessed the frequency of less common KRAS short insertions that may predict failure of anti-EGFR therapy. Methods: 4,422 CRC cases were assayed with CGP performed on hybridization-captured, adaptor ligation based libraries to a mean coverage depth of > 650X for at least 236 cancer-related genes plus 47 introns from 19 genes frequently rearranged in cancer. All classes of genomic alterations (GA) were identified, including base pair substitutions, insertions/deletions, copy number alterations, and rearrangements. Pertinent available prior molecular testing results and clinical history was reviewed for selected cases. Results: Out of 4,422 CRC cases analyzed, KRAS short variants were identified in 50.9% of cases. A majority of cases contained a KRAS alteration at either codon G12 (35.5%) or G13 (9.1%), while alterations at codons Q61 or A146 were identified in 2.2% and 3.1% of cases, respectively. KRAS insertions were identified in 8 ( < 0.5%) cases. All KRAS insertions identified fell within codons 9-13, and 6/8 cases harbored V9_G10 insertions. Out of 6 patients with prior KRAS testing results available, 5 (83%) were negative by previous testing. Conclusions: CGP identifies KRAS insertions within or adjacent to hotspot regions in CRC cases which have previously tested negative for KRAS mutations. Given the importance of KRAS alterations in predicting lack of response to anti-EGFR therapies in CRC, accurate detection of these alterations in the course of clinical care is essential for effective treatment. CGP offers the possibility of identifying KRAS insertions that may impact efficacy of anti-EGFR targeted therapy and should be considered when previous focused testing for KRAS mutations is negative.

Abstract Introduction. A KRAS mutation represented the first genomic biomarker to predict lack of benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody therapy in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Expanded RAS testing has further refined the treatment approach, but understanding of genomic alterations underlying primary and acquired resistance is limited and further study is needed. Materials and Methods. We prospectively analyzed 4,422 clinical samples from patients with advanced CRC, using hybrid-capture based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) at the request of the individual treating physicians. Comparison with prior molecular testing results, when available, was performed to assess concordance. Results. We identified a RAS/RAF pathway mutation or amplification in 62% of cases, including samples harboring KRAS mutations outside of the codon 12/13 hotspot region in 6.4% of cases. Among cases with KRAS non-codon 12/13 alterations for which prior test results were available, 79 of 90 (88%) were not identified by focused testing. Of 1,644 RAS/RAF wild-type cases analyzed by CGP, 31% harbored a genomic alteration (GA) associated with resistance to anti-EGFR therapy in advanced CRC including mutations in PIK3CA, PTEN, EGFR, and ERBB2. We also identified other targetable GA, including novel kinase fusions, receptor tyrosine kinase amplification, activating point mutations, as well as microsatellite instability. Conclusion. Extended genomic profiling reliably detects alterations associated with lack of benefit to anti-EGFR therapy in advanced CRC, while simultaneously identifying alterations potentially important in guiding treatment. The use of CGP during the course of clinical care allows for the refined selection of appropriate targeted therapies and clinical trials, increasing the chance of clinical benefit and avoiding therapeutic futility.

Purpose To assist in determining barriers to an oncology career incorporating cancer prevention, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Cancer Prevention Workforce Pipeline Work Group sponsored surveys of training program directors and oncology fellows. Methods Separate surveys with parallel questions were administered to training program directors at their fall 2013 retreat and to oncology fellows as part of their February 2014 in-training examination survey. Forty-seven (67%) of 70 training directors and 1,306 (80%) of 1,634 oncology fellows taking the in-training examination survey answered questions. Results Training directors estimated that ≤ 10% of fellows starting an academic career or entering private practice would have a career focus in cancer prevention. Only 15% of fellows indicated they would likely be interested in cancer prevention as a career focus, although only 12% thought prevention was unimportant relative to treatment. Top fellow-listed barriers to an academic career were difficulty in obtaining funding and lower compensation. Additional barriers to an academic career with a prevention focus included unclear career model, lack of clinical mentors, lack of clinical training opportunities, and concerns about reimbursement. Conclusion Reluctance to incorporate cancer prevention into an oncology career seems to stem from lack of mentors and exposure during training, unclear career path, and uncertainty regarding reimbursement. Suggested approaches to begin to remedy this problem include: 1) more ASCO-led and other prevention educational resources for fellows, training directors, and practicing oncologists; 2) an increase in funded training and clinical research opportunities, including reintroduction of the R25T award; 3) an increase in the prevention content of accrediting examinations for clinical oncologists; and 4) interaction with policymakers to broaden the scope and depth of reimbursement for prevention counseling and intervention services.

Abstract Despite much effort, pancreatic cancer survival rates are still dismally low. Novel therapeutics may hold the key to improving survival. YM155 is a small molecule inhibitor that has shown antitumor activity in a number of cancers by reducing the expression of survivin. The aim of our study is to understand the mechanisms by which YM155 functions in pancreatic cancer cells. We established the antitumor effect of YM155 with in vitro studies in cultured cells, and in vivo studies using a mouse xenograft model. Our data demonstrated that YM155 reduced the expression of survivin; however, downregulation of survivin itself is insufficient to induce apoptosis in pancreatic cancer cells. We showed for the first time that treatment with YM155 increased death receptor 5 (DR5) expression in pancreatic cancer cells. We found that YM155 induced apoptosis by broad-spectrum inhibition of IAP family member proteins (e.g., CIAP1/2 and FLIP) and induced proapoptotic Bak protein upregulation and activation; the antitumor effect of YM155 treatment with either the DR5 agonist lexatumumab or gemcitabine on pancreatic cancer cells was synergistic. Our data also revealed that YM155 inhibits tumor growth in vivo, without apparent toxicity to the noncancerous human pancreatic ductal epithelial cell line. Together, these findings suggest that YM155 could be a novel therapeutic agent for pancreatic cancer. Mol Cancer Ther; 14(1); 80–89. ©2014 AACR.

Abstract Migration of eosinophils through the basement membrane barrier is an important step for their infiltration into tissues. To investigate the mechanism of transmigration, we used a chamber fitted with a Matrigel membrane as a model of the basement membrane. In this model, eosinophils treated with cytokines or chemotactic factors alone did not transmigrate from the upper to the lower chamber. However, platelet-activating factor (PAF) strongly induced transmigration of eosinophils stimulated by interleukin (IL)-5, indicating that both a cytokine and a chemotactic factor are required for eosinophil migration through Matrigel. Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and IL-3 also stimulated eosinophil transmigration in the presence of PAF. Of seven eosinophil chemotactic factors tested, leukotriene B4, C5a, RANTES, macrophage inflammatory protein-1α, and IL-8 did not induce significant eosinophil transmigration. Only PAF and eotaxin induced transmigration of eosinophils through Matrigel in the presence of IL-5; PAF was more potent than eotaxin at the optimal concentration. In contrast, PAF, eotaxin, and RANTES all potently induced migration of eosinophils through bare membrane in the absence of IL-5. Finally, eosinophil migration through Matrigel was markedly reduced by a combination of anti-CD18 and anti-CD29 monoclonal antibodies, suggesting that it is mediated by β1- and β2-integrin adhesion molecules. Our findings demonstrate that eosinophil transmigration through a basement membrane model requires both a specific chemoattractant, such as PAF, and an eosinophil-activating cytokine, such as IL-5. This synergistic effect is likely important in the tissue accumulation of activated eosinophils in allergic and other eosinophil-associated diseases.