Bekaii-Saab, Tanios S

Genotype, particularly Ras status, greatly affects prognosis and treatment of liver metastasis in colon cancer patients. This pilot aimed to apply word frequency analysis and a naive Bayes classifier on radiology reports to extract distinguishing imaging descriptors of wild-type colon cancer patients and those with v-Ki-ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) mutations. In this institutional-review-board-approved study, we compiled a SNaPshot mutation analysis dataset from 457 colon adenocarcinoma patients. From this cohort of patients, we analyzed radiology reports of 299 patients (> 32,000 reports) who either were wild-type (147 patients) or had a KRAS (152 patients) mutation. Our algorithm determined word frequency within the wild-type and mutant radiology reports and used a naive Bayes classifier to determine the probability of a given word belonging to either group. The classifier determined that words with a greater than 50% chance of being in the KRAS mutation group and which had the highest absolute probability difference compared to the wild-type group included: “several”, “innumerable”, “confluent”, and “numerous” (p < 0.01). In contrast, words with a greater than 50% chance of being in the wild type group and with the highest absolute probability difference included: “few”, “discrete”, and “[no] recurrent” (p = 0.03). Words used in radiology reports, which have direct implications on disease course, tumor burden, and therapy, appear with differing frequency in patients with KRAS mutations versus wild-type colon adenocarcinoma. Moreover, likely characteristic imaging traits of mutant tumors make probabilistic word analysis useful in identifying unique characteristics and disease course, with applications ranging from radiology and pathology reports to clinical notes.

BACKGROUNDThere are limited therapeutic options for treatment‐refractory pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), with a paucity of data to support the best option after progression on gemcitabine‐based regimens. The authors performed a meta‐analysis to determine the effectiveness of adding oxaliplatin (OX) or various irinotecan formulations to a fluoropyrimidine (FP) after first‐line treatment progression in patients with PDAC.METHODSDifferent databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane, were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing FP monotherapy versus FP combination therapy that included either oxaliplatin (FPOX) or various irinotecan formulations (FPIRI) in patients with PDAC who progressed after first‐line treatment. Secondary analyses were planned to assess the effectiveness of FPOX and FPIRI compared with FP. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS).RESULTSFive studies with 895 patients were identified. Patients randomized to receive FPIRI/FPOX had a significantly improved PFS and a trend toward improved OS compared with those who received FP monotherapy. When comparing FPIRI with FP, there was an improvement in both PFS (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.47‐0.87; P = .005) and OS (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.55‐0.89; P = .004) in patients who received the combination. Conversely, FPOX produced only a modest improvement in PFS with no improvement in OS.CONCLUSIONSCombination chemotherapy with OX or various IRI formulations appears to improve PFS compared with single‐agent FP. FPIRI, but not FPOX, appears to confer an OS advantage. The combination of FP with irinotecan formulations appears to be the appropriate next line of treatment upon progression after gemcitabine‐based chemotherapy regimens. Cancer 2017;123:4680‐4686. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Abstract Objective Appendiceal mucinous neoplasms (AMNs) are a rare and heterogeneous disease for which clinical management is challenging. We aim to review the literature regarding modalities of treatment to guide the management of AMNs. Methods and Review Criteria We conducted a PubMed search in February 2016 for English-language publications, using the terms “appendiceal,” “appendix,” “carcinoma,” “cancer,” “mucinous,” “treatment,” “genes,” “target,” “genomic,” and terms listed in the articles' subheadings. Published reports and abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings were also searched. Results In this review, we summarize current data and controversies in AMN classification, clinical presentation, molecular alterations, treatment outcomes with regard to cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), and the role of systemic chemotherapy. Conclusion Appendiceal mucinous neoplasms are a heterogeneous group of tumors with a rising incidence. Treatment is based on stage and histology. Low-grade tumors are treated surgically with resection of the primary site in early stage disease, or peritoneal debulking and HIPEC in patients with advanced stage disease. Treatment of high-grade tumors requires further prospective trials, and options include debulking surgery and HIPEC with or without preoperative chemotherapy. Trials evaluating novel therapies based on the molecular profiling of AMN tumors are needed to evaluate therapeutic options in patients who are not surgical candidates.

Abstract Background Biliary tract malignancies, in particular cholangiocarcinomas (CCA), are rare tumors that carry a poor prognosis. BRCA2 mutation carriers have an increased risk of developing CCA with a reported relative risk of ∼5 according to the Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. In addition to this risk, there are potential therapeutic implications in those harboring somatic and/or germline (GL) BRCA mutations. Therefore, it is important to define the clinical characteristics of GL/somatic BRCA1/2 variants in CCA patients. Materials and Methods We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis of CCA patients diagnosed between January 2000 and December 2013 with GL or somatic variants in BRCA1/2 genes detected by GL mutations testing and/or by tumor next generation sequencing. Cases were identified from clinical databases at participating institutions. Data including demographics, clinical history, surgical procedures, and systemic chemotherapy or radiation were extracted from patients' records. Results Overall, 18 cases were identified: 5 carriers of GL BRCA1/2 mutations (4 BRCA2; 1 BRCA1) and 13 harboring somatic variations (7 BRCA1; 6 BRCA2). Mean age at diagnosis was 60, SD ± 10 years (range 36–75 years), with male and female prevalence rates of 61.2% and 38.8%, respectively. Stage at diagnosis was I (n = 4), II (n = 3), III (n = 3), and IV (n = 8). Six patients had extrahepatic CCA and the rest intrahepatic CCA. Thirteen patients received platinum-based therapy and four were treated with poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors, of whom one experienced sustained disease response with a progression-free survival of 42.6 months. Median overall survival from diagnosis for patients with stage I/II in this study was 40.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.73–108.15) and with stages III/IV was 25 months (95% CI, 15.23–40.57). Conclusion BRCA-associated CCA is uncommon. This multicenter retrospective study provides a thorough clinical analysis of a BRCA-associated CCA cohort, which can serve as a benchmark for future development and design of expanded analyses and clinical trials.

Oncolytic virotherapy represents a novel therapeutic strategy in the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies. Oncolytic viruses, including genetically engineered and naturally occurring viruses, can selectively replicate in and induce tumor cell apoptosis without harming normal tissues, thus offering a promising tool in the armamentarium for cancer therapy. While this approach has garnered much interest over the past several decades, there has not been significant headway across various tumor types. The recent approval of talimogene laherparepvec, a second-generation oncolytic herpes simplex virus type-1, for the treatment of metastatic melanoma, confirms the therapeutic potential of oncolytic viral therapy. Herein, we will highlight and review the role of oncolytic viral therapy in gastrointestinal malignancies while discussing its limitations and potential alternative mechanisms to improve its treatment efficacy.

Abstract Lipocalin-2 (LCN2) promotes malignant development in many cancer types. LCN2 is upregulated in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and in obese individuals, but whether it contributes to PDAC development is unclear. In this study, we investigated the effects of Lcn2 depletion on diet-induced obesity, inflammation, and PDAC development. Mice with acinar cell–specific expression of KrasG12D were crossed with Lcn2-depleted animals and fed isocaloric diets with varying amounts of fat content. Pancreas were collected and analyzed for inflammation, pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN), and PDAC. We also used a syngeneic orthotopic PDAC mouse model to study tumor growth in the presence or absence of Lcn2 expression. In addition, to understand the mechanistic role of how LCN2 could be mediating PDAC, we studied LCN2 and its specific receptor solute carrier family 22 member 17 (SLC22A17) in human pancreatic cancer stellate cells (PSC), key mediators of the PDAC stroma. Depletion of Lcn2 diminished extracellular matrix deposition, immune cell infiltration, PanIN formation, and tumor growth. Notably, it also increased survival in both obesity-driven and syngeneic orthotopic PDAC mouse models. LCN2 modulated the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines in PSC of the PDAC tumor microenvironment, whereas downregulation of LCN2-specific receptor SLC22A17 blocked these effects. Our results reveal how LCN2 acts in the tumor microenvironment links obesity, inflammation, and PDAC development. Cancer Res; 77(10); 2647–60. ©2017 AACR

Purpose: The Conquer Cancer Foundation (CCF), the philanthropic arm of ASCO, is responsible for funding innovative clinical research. CCF wants to broaden its donor base instead of relying predominantly on health-care companies. Our Leadership Development Program (LDP) group was tasked with identifying potential donor sources and making recommendations to increase funding. Materials and Methods: We selected three sources to research: the general public, crowdsourcing/social media, and ASCO members. We subsequently focused our efforts on ASCO members, of whom only 2% to 3% are donors to CCF and < 8% are repeat donors. To analyze this low rate, we sent out two separate surveys to various groups of members within ASCO. Results: We identified lack of knowledge as a major deterrent to giving; surprisingly, even those who hold ASCO leadership positions or participated in committees lacked knowledge about CCF funding. Also, the misconception that ASCO is rich and does not need philanthropic support deterred giving; however, respondents would donate if given the right message that stresses the need of continued member-led donations. Conclusion: ASCO members, including those in leadership positions, need to be engaged more aggressively to support CCF. Increased education and updating the CCF message is likely to provide the greatest impact on higher member donation, repeated donations, and facilitate CCF’s goal of diversifying its donor base away from healthcare companies. Furthermore, we recommend using technology, such as mobile applications, and providing incentives and visibility to major donors.

Current treatment regimens for gastric cancer are not adequate. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) may be a key driving factor for growth and metastasis of this tumor type. In contrast to the conventional clonal evolution hypothesis, CSCs can initiate tumor formation, self‐renew, and differentiate into tumor‐propagating cells. Because gastric cancer can originate from CSCs, it is necessary to review current targets of signaling pathways for CSCs in gastric cancer that are being studied in clinical trials. These pathways are known to regulate the self‐renewal and differentiation process in gastric CSCs. A better understanding of the clinical results of trials that target gastric CSCs will lead to better outcomes for patients with gastric cancer. Cancer 2017;123:1303–1312. © 2017 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society . This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.