Citations

Abstract The view of eosinophils (Eos) as solely effector cells involved in host parasite defense and in the pathophysiology of allergic diseases has been challenged in recent years. In fact, there is a growing realization that these cells interact with other components of innate and adaptive immunity. For example, mouse Eos were recently demonstrated to promote plasma cell retention in the bone marrow. However, it remains unknown whether Eos influence the biology of normal B lymphocytes. In this study, we specifically assessed the effect of Eos on B cell survival, proliferation, and Ig secretion. Our data first revealed that the genetic deletion of Eos from NJ1638 IL-5 transgenic hypereosinophilic mice (previously shown to display profound B cell expansion) resulted in the near abolishment of the B cell lymphocytosis. In vitro studies using human tissues demonstrated Eos’ proximity to B cell follicles and their ability to promote B cell survival, proliferation, and Ig secretion via a contact-independent mechanism. Additionally, this ability of Eos to enhance B cell responsiveness was observed in both T-independent and T-dependent B cell activation and appears to be independent of the activation state of Eos. Finally, a retrospective clinical study of hypereosinophilic patients revealed a direct correlation between peripheral blood eosinophil levels and B cell numbers. Taken together, our study identifies a novel role for Eos in the regulation of humoral immunity via their impact on B cell homeostasis and proliferation upon activation.

BACKGROUNDSince 2002, priority Model for End‐stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception status has been given to patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who meet the Milan criteria. Since then, the number of liver transplantations performed in patients with HCC has increased, but to the authors' knowledge, few studies to date have examined the effect of MELD exception recommendations on therapy use and survival rates in a nationwide sample. The current study examines therapy use and long‐term survival rates among patients with HCC tumors meeting the Milan criteria in the post‐MELD exception era.METHODSThe current study is a retrospective cohort study of 2179 patients with localized HCC meeting the Milan criteria who were registered between 2004 and 2007 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.RESULTSA total of 43% of patients did not receive any specific therapy. Overall, the 5‐year relative survival rate for patients receiving only supportive care was dismal at 24% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 21%‐27%), whereas that for patients undergoing liver transplantation was 77% (95% CI, 71%‐82%). Long‐term survival was found to be dependent on age, race/ethnicity, and type of therapy received. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and type of therapy received demonstrated that, compared with white patients, black patients had significantly poorer survival outcomes (hazards ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03‐1.47 [P = .02]), whereas Asian/Pacific Islander patients had significantly better survival rates when compared with white patients (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57‐0.77 [P < .001]).CONCLUSIONSDespite having localized disease that met transplantation criteria, nearly 50% of the large nationwide cohort of patients with HCC in the current study received only supportive care and had dismal 5‐year relative survival rates, especially among black patients. Cancer 2014;120:1725–1732. © 2014 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUNDAngiogenesis contributes to the progression of urothelial carcinoma (UC). In the current study, the authors investigated the role of maintenance sunitinib in patients with advanced UC.METHODSPatients with locally recurrent/metastatic UC and adequate organ function who achieved stable disease or a partial or complete response after 4 to 6 chemotherapy cycles were randomized to sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg/day (28 days on and 14 days off) or placebo. The primary endpoint was the 6‐month progression rate. Secondary endpoints were safety, survival, change in serum vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)/soluble VEGF receptor‐2 (sVEGFR2), and the activity of sunitinib in patients who developed disease progression while receiving placebo. A total of 38 eligible patients per treatment arm were required to select better therapy with 90% probability (α = .05).RESULTSA total of 54 eligible patients were randomized to either the sunitinib arm (26 patients) or the placebo arm (28 patients). The median number of cycles received was 2 cycles per treatment arm. The most common grade 3 to 4 adverse events (graded according to version 3.0 of the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) among patients receiving sunitinib were thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, mucositis, fatigue, and hypertension. There were no grade 3 or 4 adverse events noted among > 5% of patients receiving placebo. The 6‐month progression rate was 72% versus 64%. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 2.9 months (range, 0.5 months‐32.5 months) versus 2.7 months (range, 0.8 months −65 months) for the sunitinib versus placebo arms, respectively. Patients receiving placebo were found to have no changes in their serum VEGF/sVEGFR2 levels over time. Patients treated with sunitinib had no significant change in their VEGF level, but the sVEGFR2 level significantly decreased after cycles 1 and 2 (P < .0001) and at the time of disease progression (P = .0002). A baseline VEGF level that was at or greater than the median was found to be correlated with a longer PFS. Sixteen patients who were receiving placebo received sunitinib at the time of disease progression, with the best responses being 1 partial response (6.3%), 6 cases of stable disease (37.5%), and 5 cases of progressive disease (31.3%); 4 patients were not evaluable for response. The median PFS was 3.7 months (range, 0.1 months‐22 months).CONCLUSIONSThe current multicenter study was limited by premature closure and a small sample size. Maintenance sunitinib did not appear to improve the 6‐month progression rate. Open‐label sunitinib was found to have only modest activity. The sVEGFR2 level decreased among patients receiving sunitinib. Cancer 2014;120:692–701. © 2013 American Cancer Society.

Purpose The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing recent clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. Methods The Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) Guideline on Follow-up Care, Surveillance Protocol, and Secondary Prevention Measures for Survivors of Colorectal Cancer was reviewed by ASCO for methodologic rigor and considered for endorsement. Results The ASCO Panel concurred with the CCO recommendations and recommended endorsement, with the addition of several qualifying statements. Conclusion Surveillance should be guided by presumed risk of recurrence and functional status of the patient (important within the first 2 to 4 years). Medical history, physical examination, and carcinoembryonic antigen testing should be performed every 3 to 6 months for 5 years. Patients at higher risk of recurrence should be considered for testing in the more frequent end of the range. A computed tomography scan (abdominal and chest) is recommended annually for 3 years, in most cases. Positron emission tomography scans should not be used for surveillance outside of a clinical trial. A surveillance colonoscopy should be performed 1 year after the initial surgery and then every 5 years, dictated by the findings of the previous one. If a colonoscopy was not preformed before diagnosis, it should be done after completion of adjuvant therapy (before 1 year). Secondary prevention (maintaining a healthy body weight and active lifestyle) is recommended. If a patient is not a candidate for surgery or systemic therapy because of severe comorbid conditions, surveillance tests should not be performed. A treatment plan from the specialist should have clear directions on appropriate follow-up by a nonspecialist.

Abstract BACKGROUND Accurate evaluation of unclassified sequence variants in cancer predisposition genes is essential for clinical management and depends on a multifactorial analysis of clinical, genetic, pathologic, and bioinformatic variables and assays of transcript length and abundance. The integrity of assay data in turn relies on appropriate assay design, interpretation, and reporting. METHODS We conducted a multicenter investigation to compare mRNA splicing assay protocols used by members of the ENIGMA (Evidence-Based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles) consortium. We compared similarities and differences in results derived from analysis of a panel of breast cancer 1, early onset (BRCA1) and breast cancer 2, early onset (BRCA2) gene variants known to alter splicing (BRCA1: c.135-1G&gt;T, c.591C&gt;T, c.594-2A&gt;C, c.671-2A&gt;G, and c.5467+5G&gt;C and BRCA2: c.426-12_8delGTTTT, c.7988A&gt;T, c.8632+1G&gt;A, and c.9501+3A&gt;T). Differences in protocols were then assessed to determine which elements were critical in reliable assay design. RESULTS PCR primer design strategies, PCR conditions, and product detection methods, combined with a prior knowledge of expected alternative transcripts, were the key factors for accurate splicing assay results. For example, because of the position of primers and PCR extension times, several isoforms associated with BRCA1, c.594-2A&gt;C and c.671-2A&gt;G, were not detected by many sites. Variation was most evident for the detection of low-abundance transcripts (e.g., BRCA2 c.8632+1G&gt;A Δ19,20 and BRCA1 c.135-1G&gt;T Δ5q and Δ3). Detection of low-abundance transcripts was sometimes addressed by using more analytically sensitive detection methods (e.g., BRCA2 c.426-12_8delGTTTT ins18bp). CONCLUSIONS We provide recommendations for best practice and raise key issues to consider when designing mRNA assays for evaluation of unclassified sequence variants.