Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘tumor’

New Ecosystem of Cancer Research: Cross Institutional Team Science

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is ArticleID-32.png

WordCloud Image Produced by Adam Tubman

SOURCE: Time Magazine, April 1, 2013: How to Cure Cancer by Bill Saporito

Key argument: Now the Cure for Cancer is possible thanks to the following innovations in the Division of Labor of the research process among institution.

1.  New Cancer Dream Teams deliver better results faster, better understand the metabolic changes of pancreatic cells.

Team Leader: Dan Von Hoff – A five phase parallel process of the Cancer Research endeavor: One tumor researched by FIVE Labs in parallel

  • Penn surgeon, Jeffrey Drebin removes tissue from a cancerous pancreas. Tissue is carried to Hospital Lab where it is prepared for analysis and frozen for preservation.
  • a piece will go to Princeton for metabolomic profiling, amino acids, sugar glutamine and up to 300 metabolites.
  • a piece will go to John Hopkins for DNA analysis by sequence analysis
  • a piece will go to Translational Genomics for chromosome analysis
  • a piece will go to Salk Institute for a look at the stellate (star shape. tissue repair function, also plays a role in cancer) cells – gene expression analysis Lab

Joint Lab work: Superior to any research ever known.

2. Drug agents in development for therapy targeting the genetic mutations

  • reactivate the body’s immune system
  • cut off a tumor’s blood or energy supply
  • restart apoptosis

3. New Biomarkers

  • Allows to identify, target and track cancer cells – PI3K mutation One pathway – three women’s Cancers: Ovarian, endometrial, Breast CA.
  • Dream Team led by

– Dr. Gordon Mills of MD Anderson, PI3K pathway investigator

Teams Science include:

– Women’s cancer specialist from MGH

– Dana Farber (Harvard)

– Vanderbilt University

– Columbia University

– BIDMC

– Memorial Sloan Kettering

Dream Teams results are better than Big Pharma: 95% failure rate for new oncology drugs 50% of Phase III trials – don’t cut it to FDA approval.

Dream Teams will launch Trial as soon as geneticists and biochemists match mutation to drug compound.

Big Targets: Pancreas, Breast Cancer, Lung Cancer

Example: Human trial at FIVE institutions (28-person team) with TWO unapproved drugs from TWO companies with one year of discovery

PARP inhibitor from AstraZeneca was combined with PI3K inhibitor from Novartis to combat BRCA1 gene mutation that develops ovarian cancer and triple negative Breast Cancer. Two unapproved drugs are combined. Result was without precedent.

4. Design and built of a smart chip device to trap circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in a blood sample – early identification of metastasis

5. Better chances of Five-year Survival Rates

  • 1975-1977 – 49%
  • 1978-1989 – 56%
  • 2002 – 2008 – 68%

6. More Americans who have a History of Cancer are alive today than in the past

[including Cancer-free and in-treatment]

  • 2004 – 10.8 millions
  • 2008 – 12 millions
  • 2012 – 13.7 millions

7. There are 94 millions ex-smokers in the US – elevated risk for lung Cancer. 175,00 new lung cancers diagnosed every year. MD Anderson is developing a simple blood test for protein marker that could detect lung cancer earlier than it is found, test to be used in combination with diagnostic imaging and risk models

8. Probability of developing some type of Cancer over one’s lifetime:

  • Men – 1 in 2
  • Women – 1 in 3

9. Funding of Dream Team Science by Stand Up to Cancer ( SU2C) Hollywood investment in Cancer Research

10. Cancer Statistics in the US

  • 2013: 580,350 will die of Cancer, NCI figures and 1.7 millions will be diagnosed, numbers will grow as population ages (1.4 millions in 2006)
  • 2013L Leading Types of Cancer: Prostate, Breast, Lung &Bronchus (~250,000 each type), colon (~100,000)
  • Cost of Cancer in 2008: Medical – $77.4 Billion, lost productivity – $124 Billion

11. Research at John Hopkins is focused on studying the the enzymatic on/off switches of gene expression including mutated genes that produce cancer cells.

12. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center – extensive research on Epigenetics, New epigenetic drugs can shrink tumors. Complete remission is experienced by patients treated with drugs that nudges T Cells.

Cancer is a complexed disease.

Read Full Post »

Reporter: Ritu Saxena, Ph.D.

On December 4, 2012, molecular diagnostic firm Invivoscribe Technologies launched a personalized medicine company. Genection is offering both routine and esoteric genetic tests, exome and whole-genome sequencing, cancer somatic mutation testing, and pharmacogenomics.

Image

Because the Genection model is not payor-driven, it said, it can provide doctors access to genetic tests that are currently unavailable, overlooked, or inaccessible through their patients’ health plans and healthcare institutions.

The privately held company added that it has agreements in place with several CLIA- and CAP-certified laboratories, including ARUP Laboratories, Foundation Medicine, Cypher Genomics, Invivoscribe’s wholly owned subsidiary the Laboratory for Personalized Molecular Medicine and LPMM’s laboratory in Martinsried, Germany. It also has relationships with Illumina and Ambry Genetics and agreements with “a consortium” of genetic counselors.

“In order to make personalized molecular medicine a clinical reality, new platforms need to be developed for the delivery of healthcare. Genection’s mission seeks to accelerate this adoption process,” Genection Chief Medical Officer Bradley Patay said in a statement. “The combination of CLIA-validated genetic testing, whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing, and broad targeted assays, along with critical bioinformatics, analytic tools, and interpretative guidelines will contribute to timely definitive diagnoses for patients with rare, unexplained diseases or complex diseases; in essence, this integration will speed delivery of genomic test results and improve patient care.”

The company profile states that because the cost of genomic sequencing has declined steeply, utilizing deep sequencing of tumors, doctors can now offer targeted treatments to the specific type of cancer for each patient. This personalized approach may offer better treatment options that are tailored for each individual versus conventional approaches.  For example, The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network found a potential therapeutic target in most squamous cell lung cancers. Genetic testing would also be able to provide insight on drug’s effectiveness and help a physician tailor the dosage and/or select another drug if it’s determined that you have a genetic variant that could affect the drug’s efficacy.

Source:

http://www.genomeweb.com//node/1159221?hq_e=el&hq_m=1425051&hq_l=3&hq_v=e618131fd2

Invivoscribe Technologies: http://www.invivoscribe.com/

Genection: http://www.genection.com/

Read Full Post »

Reporter: Ritu Saxena, Ph.D.

With the number of cancer cases plummeting every year, there is a dire need for finding a cure to wipe the disease out. A number of therapeutic drugs are currently in use, however, due to heterogeneity of the disease targeted therapy is required. An important criteria that needs to be addressed in this context is the –‘tumor response’ and how it could be predicted, thereby improving the selection of patients for cancer treatment. The issue of tumor response has been addressed in a recent editorial titled “Tumor response criteria: are they appropriate?” published recently in Future Oncology.

The article talks about how the early tumor treatment response methods came into practice and how we need to redefine and reassess the tumor response.

Defining ‘tumor response’ has always been a challenge

WHO defines a response to anticancer therapy as 50% or more reduction in the tumor size measured in two perpendicular diameters. It is based on the results of experiments performed by Moertel and Hanley in 1976 and later published by Miller et al in 1981. Twenty years later, in the year 2000, the US National Cancer Institute, with the European Association for Research and Treatment of Cancer, proposed ‘new response criteria’ for solid tumors; a replacement of 2D measurement with measurement of one dimen­sion was made. Tumor response was defined as a decrease in the largest tumor diameter by 30%, which would translate into a 50% decrease for a spherical lesion. However, response criteria have not been updated after that and there a structured standardization of treatment response is still required especially when several studies have revealed that the response of tumors to a therapy via imaging results from conventional approaches such as endoscopy, CT scan, is not reliable. The reason is that evaluating the size of tumor is just one part of the story and to get the complete picture inves­tigating and evaluating the tissue is essential to differentiate between treatment-related scar, fibrosis or micro­scopic residual tumor.

In clinical practice, treatment response is determined on the basis of well-established parameters obtained from diagnostic imaging, both cross-sectional and functional. In general, the response is classified as:

  • Complete remission: If a tumor disappears after a particular therapy,
  • Partial remission: there is residual tumor after therapy.

For a doctor examining the morphology of the tumor, complete remission might seem like good news, however, mission might not be complete yet! For example, in some cases, with regard to prognosis, patients with 0% residual tumor (complete tumor response) had the same prognosis com­pared with those patients with 1–10% residual tumor (subtotal response).

Another example is that in patients demonstrating complete remission of tumor response as observed with clinical, sonographic, functional (PET) and histopathological analysis experience recur­rence within the first 2 years of resection.

Adding complexity to the situation is the fact that the appropriate, clinically relevant timing of assess­ment of tumor response to treatment remains undefined. An example mentioned in the editorial is – for gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies, the assessment timing varies considerably from 3 to 6 weeks after initia­tion of neoadjuvant external beam radiation. Further, time could vary depending upon the type of radiation administered, i.e., if it is external beam, accelerated hyperfractionation, or brachytherapy.

Abovementioned examples remind us of the intricacy and enigma of tumor biol­ogy and subsequent tumor response.

Conclusion

Owing to the extraordinary het­erogeneity of cancers between patients, and pri­mary and metastatic tumors in the same patients, it is important to consider several factors while determining the response of tumors to different therapie in clinical trials. Authors exclaim, “We must change the tools we use to assess tumor response. The new modality should be based on individualized histopathology as well as tumor molecular, genetic and functional characteristics, and individual patients’ charac­teristics.”

Future perspective

Editorial points out that the oncologists, radiotherapists, and immunologists all might have a different opinion and observation as far as tumor response is considered. For example, surgical oncologists might determine a treatment to be effective if the local tumor control is much better after multimodal treatment, and that patients post-therapeutically also reveal an increase of the rate of microscopic and macroscopic R0-resection. Immunologists, on the other hand, might just declare a response if immune-competent cells have been decreased and, possibly, without clinical signs of decrease of tumor size.

What might be the answer to the complexity to reading tumor response is stated in the editorial – “an interdisciplinary initiative with all key stake­holders and disciplines represented is imperative to make predictive and prognostic individualized tumor response assessment a modern-day reality. The integrated multidisciplinary panel of international experts need to define how to leverage existing data, tissue and testing platforms in order to predict individual patient treatment response and prog­nosis.”

Sources:

Editorial : Björn LDM Brücher et al Tumor response criteria: are they appropriate? Future Oncology August 2012, Vol. 8, No. 8, 903-906.

Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 1981, 47(1),207–214.

Related articles to this subject on this Open Access Online Scientific Journal:

See comment written for :

Knowing the tumor’s size and location, could we target treatment to THE ROI by applying

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/10/16/knowing-the-tumors-size-and-location-could-we-target-treatment-to-the-roi-by-applying-imaging-guided-intervention/imaging-guided intervention?

Personalized Medicine: Cancer Cell Biology and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS)

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/12/01/personalized-medicine-cancer-cell-biology-and-minimally-invasive-surgery-mis/

Read Full Post »

Personalized Pancreatic Cancer Treatment Option

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Clovis on Track to Unveil Data on New Personalized Pancreatic Cancer Treatment Option by Year End

October 10, 2012
 

Drug developer Clovis Oncology is planning to report data from a clinical trial later this year that may yield a new treatment option for pancreatic cancer patients who are poor responders to gemcitabine.

Clovis is conducting a study, called LEAP, of 360 chemotherapy-naïve metastatic pancreatic cancer patients who are randomized to receive the current standard of care gemcitabine, or the investigational CO-101, a gemcitabine-lipid conjugate. The study investigators are hypothesizing that unlike gemcitabine, CO-101 won’t depend on the expression levels of the protein cellular transporter hENT1 to enter and destroy tumor cells.

Gemcitabine, currently the first-line standard chemotherapy treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients, requires a transport mechanism to help it enter tumor cells. Previously published data suggest that patients with high hENT1 expression respond well to gemcitabine, while those with low expression — about two-thirds of pancreatic cancer patients — respond poorly to the chemotherapeutic.

LEAP researchers have prospectively collected biopsy samples and have enrolled both high- and low-hENT1 expressers. Study investigators will be blind to the hENT1 expression status of patients until the end of the trial. Clovis is working with Roche subsidiary Ventana Medical Systems to simultaneously develop and validate a companion diagnostic that can gauge low and high hENT1 expression. The primary outcome that study investigators are measuring in LEAP is overall survival in the hENT1-low population.

“The question really is whether the lipid, which facilitates entry into the cell through passive diffusion, is going to be able to deliver gemcitabine as efficiently as when a nucleoside transporter is present,” Clovis CEO Patrick Mahaffy told PGx Reporter. “The answer is we don’t know, but we’ll find out in the study.”

The study may reveal that since CO-101 doesn’t depend on hENT1 to enter tumor cells, all metastatic pancreatic cancer patients, regardless of low or high expression of this protein, derive a level of benefit from the new treatment. Still, Clovis is using a companion test to stratify patients after factoring in reimbursement and cost-effectiveness considerations, which currently are perhaps the biggest barriers to the adoption of personalized treatments.

“Nothing we know suggests that we would be better than gemcitabine … in the hENT1 high population. Given the evolving reimbursement environment and the fact that gemcitabine is generic and is priced as such, pending a successful outcome we anticipate that [CO-101] would be used primarily, if not solely, in the hENT1 low population where we anticipate poor outcomes for gemcitabine,” Mahaffy said. “We anticipate that gemcitabine would continue to be the favored product on price alone even if we were to show equivalence to CO-101 in the hENT1 high population.”

Clovis Oncology will commercialize CO-101 globally. The company is currently setting up commercialization infrastructure in the US for the drug, anticipating a launch as early as next year. Clovis won’t necessarily co-promote CO-101 and the companion test with Ventana. The test developer will be in charge of commercializing the test, and Clovis will market the drug with its sales representatives, who will also be educating oncologists about the need for a companion test.

Ventana will submit its premarket approval application for the hENT1 expression test at the same time that Clovis submits its new drug application for CO-101. The test will be marketed as not just a companion diagnostic to assess whether pancreatic cancer patients have low levels of hENT1 and would therefore respond to CO-101, but Ventana will also be able to market the diagnostic as a tool to determine which high-hENT1 expressing patients should be given gemcitabine.

“The [LEAP] trial will clinically validate the diagnostic both for determining response to both gemcitabine and CO-101,” Mahaffy said.

There are around 120,000 cases of pancreatic cancer each year in the US, EU, and Japan, and around 24 percent of patients survive for one year. Around 80 percent of pancreatic cancer patients receive gemcitabine as monotherapy or in combination with other cytotoxic agents. Based on the low incidence of metastatic pancreatic cancer, Clovis has garnered Orphan Drug status for CO-101 from US and European regulatory authorities.

Although a number of retrospective trials have demonstrated that hENT1 expression levels impact outcomes in pancreatic cancer patients in the metastatic and adjuvant setting, LEAP will be the first prospective validation of this observation. “That’s why this trial is so important to the pancreatic cancer community,” Mahaffy said. “Because not only are we going to learn about CO-101, but we’re going to learn prospectively about the role hENT1 plays in determining the outcome for patients’ treatment with gemcitabine alone.”

Testing for hENT1 expression status is not widely conducted by doctors in the care of pancreatic patients. “In fact, it’s not even widely known in the broader community setting,” noted Mahaffy, adding that academic oncologists are increasingly aware of the association between hENT1 expression and gemcitabine efficacy. After LEAP concludes and if the trial is successful, Clovis plans to initiate discussions with treatment guideline-setting bodies.

In addition to looking at CO-101 as a first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer treatment in hENT1-low patients, Clovis is also studying the drug-conjugate as a second-line treatment in metastatic pancreatic cancer (Phase II), as well as in non-small cell lung cancer (Phase I).

Personalized NSCLC Drug

In addition to CO-101, Clovis has a number of investigational agents in its pipeline that it is developing in molecularly defined patient subsets. For example, CO-1686 is a selective covalent inhibitor of EGFR mutations that the firm is exploring in patients with NSCLC. Currently Clovis is conducting a dose-finding Phase I/II trial involving CO-1686 in NSCLC patients with T790M mutations. Patients with these “gatekeeper” mutations become resistant to treatment to widely prescribed EGFR-inhibiting NSCLC drugs, Roche/Genentech’s Tarceva and AstraZeneca’s Iressa.

CO-1686 “is a very potent inhibitor of T790M … [mutations in] which occur in 50 percent of lung cancer patients, after treatment with Tarceva,” Mahaffy said. After the dose-finding portion of the Phase I/II trial, Clovis plans to initiate an expansion cohort looking at T790M mutation-positive patients who are resistant to Tarceva. “If we see the kind of results we hope to in that expansion cohort, we would initiate a registration study beginning in 2014 in Tarceva-failed patients with T790M mutations,” he said.

While CO-1686 is an inhibitor of T790M mutations and other activating mutations of EGFR, the drug doesn’t inhibit wild-type EGFR like Tarceva and Iressa do, which can make NSCLC patients prone to serious side effects. “What is interesting about [CO-1686] is it is a very potent inhibitor of activating mutations of EGFR, the same targets that Tarceva or Iressa address, but unlike those drugs, [CO-1686] does not inhibit wild-type EGFR,” Mahaffy said. With CO-1686, “we should see very limited rash and diarrhea side effects associated with Tarceva and Iressa.”

First, Clovis will study CO-1686 as a second-line treatment in NSCLC patients with T790M mutations. Eventually, Clovis plans to study the drug head-to-head against Tarceva in the first-line setting. “Given the activity of our drug in animal models so far, we think we may have the ability to demonstrate superiority in terms of efficacy and from the side effects of Tarceva,” Mahaffy said. “We would hope to demonstrate in addition to a cleaner safety profile, a longer duration of benefit, because we would prevent that primary resistance mechanism in T790M from emerging.”

Roche Molecular Systems has partnered with Clovis to develop a companion diagnostic for CO-1686.

Meanwhile, last year, the European Commission approved the use of Roche/Genentech’s Tarceva as a first-line treatment for NSCLC in patients with EGFR mutations (PGx Reporter 9/7/2012). Last month, UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence issued a draft guidance recommending that the country’s National Health Service pay for Tarceva as an option for this patient population. The company is in discussions with the US Food and Drug Administration about launching Tarceva in this population (PGx Reporter 06/08/2011).

Additionally, Boehringer Ingelheim is developing afatinib, a drug intended for advanced NSCLC patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumors (PGx Reporter 6/6/2012). Boehringer is working with Qiagen to advance a companion test for its drug.

An NGS-Based Companion Dx?

Another drug in Clovis’ pipeline is an inhibitor of PARP 1 and PARP 2, called rucaparib, which the company licensed from Pfizer. Rucaparib is currently undergoing Phase I/II trials in breast and ovarian cancer. The company is investigating the efficacy and safety of the drug in patients who lack the ability to repair damaged DNA that cancer cells need to thrive.

Mahaffy highlighted that Clovis is currently continuing a dose-finding Phase I study initiated by Pfizer combining rucaparib with carboplatin, and is conducting a Phase I trial investigating the drug as a monotherapy. This latter study will include an extension cohort of ovarian cancer patients with germline BRCA mutations.

Clovis is among a handful of drug developers, including Abbott and AstraZeneca, that are advancing PARP inhibitors with a personalized medicine strategy, betting that patients with BRCA 1/2 mutations will respond better to this class of drugs than those without these mutations. Previous studies have demonstrated that the PARP 1 enzyme and the BRCA gene work in concert to repair DNA damage, enabling survival of cancer tumors. Patients with BRCA mutations can’t repair DNA damage in this way, so then PARP inhibitors can be more effective in stopping cancer growth.

Abbott and AstraZeneca are using a companion test developed by Myriad Genetics to study their PARP inhibitors in BRCA-mutated patients with these diseases. Myriad markets BRACAnalysis, a test that gauges germline BRCA mutations associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. However, gene alternations other than germline BRCA 1/2 mutations are linked to faulty DNA repair and PARP inhibitor response. For example, Clovis estimates that around 15 percent of women with ovarian cancer harbor germline BRCA 1/2 mutations, but another 8 percent of patients have somatic mutations in BRCA. Meanwhile, germline BRCA 1/2 mutations comprise only 5 percent of breast cancers.

When Pfizer was developing rucaparib, it was working with MDxHealth to explore methylation-specific markers associated with DNA damage repair and response to PARP inhibiters (PGx Reporter 2/2/2011). According to MDxHealth both methylation and mutation testing can characterize BRCA gene activity. The company previously estimated that BRCA methylation appears in about 40 percent to 50 percent of triple-negative breast cancer patients, and in about 10 percent to 30 percent in sporadic breast cancers.

Clovis has an open contract with MDxHealth looking at methylation profiles in breast and ovarian cancer, and will continue to explore this approach, specifically for methylated BRCA in triple-negative breast cancer. Additionally, Clovis is “considering the opportunity to look at both germline and somatic mutations of BRCA, based on a tissue-based assay,” Mahaffy said.

Beyond this, in August, Clovis and Foundation Medicine announced they are working together to investigate other genetic defects related to DNA repair deficiency.

“We went with Foundation Medicine … because it will allow us to reach a broader population,” Mahaffy said. For example, in ovarian cancer, Foundation Medicine’s next-generation sequencing platform could identify other mechanisms of DNA repair deficiencies that could potentially increase the intent-to-treat population for rucaparib from 15 percent of ovarian cancer patients with germline BRCA mutations to as much as 50 percent of the population that has somatic mutations in 28 additional genes that have been described as conferring “BRCA-ness” or as having a BRCA-like effect on DNA repair.

Clovis plans to develop a companion test for rucaparib on Foundation Medicine’s Foundation One targeted NGS platform. However, one challenge for Clovis is that the FDA hasn’t yet elucidated how it plans to regulate NGS-based tests. “Clearly, there is a seismic shift underway, and we may be one of the first to have plans to go forward on a premarket approval path with next-gen sequencing,” Mahaffy said. “But clearly the FDA and everyone else knows this tidal wave is coming.”

Clovis hopes to initiate a registration trial in the second half of next year looking at rucaparib as a maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer patients sensitive to platinum-based chemotherapy who have alterations in BRCA and deficiencies in other DNA repair genes. Foundation Medicine and Clovis have separately initiated discussions with the FDA about getting taking NGS-based tests through regulatory approval, Mahaffy said.

      Turna Ray is the editor of GenomeWeb’s Pharmacogenomics Reporter. She covers pharmacogenomics, personalized medicine, and companion diagnostics. E-mail her here or follow her GenomeWeb Twitter account at @PGxReporter.

Read Full Post »

Head and Neck Cancer Studies Suggest Alternative Markers More Prognostically Useful than HPV DNA Testing

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

September 18, 2012
 

NEW YORK (GenomeWeb News) – The presence or absence of human papillomavirus DNA on its own in an individual’s head or neck cancer does not provide enough information to help predict a patient’s survival, according to a pair of new papers in the journal Cancer Research.

Two research teams — headed by investigators at Brown University and Heidelberg University, respectively — looked at the reliability of using PCR-based HPV testing to determine which head and neck squamous cell carcinomas were HPV-related and, thus, more apt to respond to treatment.

Previous studies have shown that individuals with HPV-associated head and neck cancers tend to have more favorable outcomes than individuals whose head and neck cancers that are not related to HPV infection.

“Everybody who has studied it has shown that people with virally associated disease do better,” Brown University pathology researcher Karl Kelsey, a senior author on one of the new studies, explained in a statement.

“There are now clinical trials underway to determine if they should be treated differently,” he added. “The problem is that you need to appropriately diagnose virally related disease, and our data suggests that people need to take a close look at that.”

For their part, Kelsey and his co-authors from the US and Germany assessed the utility of testing for the presence of HPV by various means in individuals with head and neck cancer. This included PCR-based tests for HPV DNA in the tumor itself, tests aimed at detecting infection-associated antibodies in an individual’s blood, and tests for elevated levels of an HPV-related tumor suppressor protein.

For 488 individuals with HNSCC, researchers did blood-based testing for antibodies targeting HPV16 in general, as well as testing for antibodies that target the viral proteins E6 and E7.

For a subset of patients, the team assessed the tumors themselves for the presence of HPV DNA and/or for elevated levels of the host tumor suppressor protein p16.

Based on patterns in the samples, the group determined that the presence of viral E6 and E7 proteins in the blood was linked to increased survival for individuals with an oropharyngeal form of HNSCC, which affects part of the throat known as the oropharynx.

A positive test for HPV DNA alone was not significantly linked to head and neck cancer outcomes. On the other hand, when found in combination with E6 and E7 expression, a positive HPV16 test did coincide with improved oropharyngeal cancer outcomes.

Likewise, elevated levels of p16 in a tumor were not especially informative on their own, though they did correspond to better oropharyngeal cancer survival when found together with positive blood tests for E6 and E7.

Based on these findings, Kelsey and his team concluded that “[a] stronger association of HPV presence with prognosis (assessed by all-cause survival) is observed when ‘HPV-associated’ HNSCC is defined using tumor status (HPV DNA or P16) and HPV E6/E7 serology in combination rather [than] using tumor HPV status alone.”

In a second study, meanwhile, a German group that focused on the oropharyngeal form of the disease found its own evidence arguing against the use of HPV DNA as a solo marker for HPV-associated head and neck cancer.

For that analysis, researchers assessed 199 fresh-frozen oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma samples, testing the tumors for HPV DNA and p16. They also considered the viral load in the tumors and looked for gene expression profiles resembling those described in cervical carcinoma — another cancer associated with HPV infection.

Again, the presence of HPV DNA appeared to be a poor indicator of HPV-associated cancers or predictor of cancer outcomes. Whereas nearly half of the tumors tested positive for HPV16 DNA, just 16 percent and 20 percent had high viral loads and cervical cancer-like expression profiles, respectively.

The researchers found that a subset of HPV DNA-positive tumors with high viral load or HPV-associated expression patterns belonged to individuals with better outcomes. In particular, they found that cervical cancer-like expression profiles in oropharyngeal tumors coincided with the most favorable outcomes, while high viral load in the tumors came a close second.

“We showed that high viral load and a cancer-specific pattern of viral gene expression are most suited to identify patients with HPV-driven tumors among patients with oropharyngeal cancer,” Dana Holzinger, that study’s corresponding author, said in a statement.

“Once standardized assays for these markers, applicable in routine clinical laboratories, are established, they will allow precise identification of patients with oropharyngeal cancer with or without HPV-driven cancers and, thus, will influence prognosis and potentially treatment decisions,” added Holzinger, who is affiliated with the German Cancer Research Center and Heidelberg University.

In a commentary article online today in Cancer Research, Eduardo Méndez, a head and neck surgery specialist with the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centerdiscussed the significance of the two studies and their potential impact on oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma prognoses and treatment.

But he also cautioned that more research is needed to understand whether the patterns described in the new studies hold in other populations and to tease apart the prognostic importance of HPV infection in relation to additional prognostic markers.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Author and Reporter: Ritu Saxena, Ph.D.

On June 4, 2012, I authored a post on HBV and HCV-associated Liver Cancer: Important Insights from the Genome http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/06/04/hbv-and-hcv-associated-liver-cancer-important-insights-from-the-genome/ reporting about the major role of chromatin remodeling complexes and involvement of both interferon and oxidative stress pathways in hepatocellular malignant proliferation and transformation based on the genes showing recurrent mutations in the observed genes.

In this post, I have discussed the latest research on cyclin B1 and Sec62 expression in PBMCs of HCC patients and how their elevated expression correlates to significantly to negative prognostic value in terms of recurrence-free survival.

Researchers at the Changhai and Gongli Hospital in Shanghai, Military Medical University, People’s Republic of China recently identified the candidate biomarkers for HBV-related HCC recurrence after surgery. The research was published in the June 2012 issue of Molecular Cancer journal. According to the group findings, Cyclin B1 and Sec62 may serve as effective biomarkers and potential therapeutic targets for HBV-related HCC recurrence after surgery.

Research article: Identification of cyclin B1 and Sec62 as biomarkers for recurrence in patients with HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma after surgical resection. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22682366

HCC background and Research Problem: Hepatocellular carcinoma is cancer of the liver. It is different from Metastaticc liver cancer, which starts in another organ (such as the breast or colon) and spreads to the liver. The most frequent factors causing HCC include chronic viral hepatitis (types B and C), alcohol intake and afla- toxin exposure.

In most cases, scarring of the liver referred to as cirrhosis is an important risk factor for HCC. Cirrhosis may be caused by:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001325/.

However, patients with hepatitis B or C are at risk for liver cancer, even if they have not developed cirrhosis.

According to the data from International Agency for Research on Cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, with over a half million deaths per annum. http://www-dep.iarc.fr/

In China, a very high infection rates with HBV have been reported. According to the recent statistics reported by Jemal et al in 2011, HCC cases occurring in China account for 55% of the total cases reported in the world. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Global%20Cancer%20Statistics%20Jemal

Surgical resection, although provides an opportunity for cure, however, frequent recurrence post surgery has posed a major challenge to longterm survival. Pertinent to their research, authors state “Frequent tumor recurrence after surgery is related to its poor prognosis. Although gene expression signatures have been associated with outcome, the molecular basis of HCC recurrence is not fully understood..”.

Research: To determine the molecular basis of HCC, authors used the Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) to predict the recurrence of HCC after surgery. Use of PBMCs was in contrast to previous studies that used just the liver tissues. PBMCs have the advantage of being easily obtained in the clinical setting. Thus, identification of biomarkers using PBMCs would be a great way to predict the recurrence of HCC post surgery.

A microarray-based gene expression profiling was performed to indentify candidate genes related to HCC recurrence. In all, mRNA derived from 6 HCC cases (3 cases with recurrence and 3 without recurrence) were subjected to genome-wide analysis. Some critical genes were indentified including cyclin B1 (CCNB1), SEC62 homolog (S. cerevisiae) (SEC62), and baculoviral IAP repeat-containing 3 (BIRC3), suggesting that they probably play important roles in the pathogenesis of HCC recurrence. To confirm the results of microarray analysis, the mRNA and protein expressions of these 3 genes were measured in 80 HCC samples from HCC cases and 30 samples from healthy cases. The authors found that the transcriptional and protein expressions of cyclin B1, Sec62, and Birc3 in the PBMCs were significantly higher in HCC samples than those in the non-recurrent and normal samples.

Furthermore, to determine the clinicopathologic significance of cyclin B1, Sec62, and Birc3 in HCC, immunohistochemical analysis from 35 recurrent tissues and 45 nonrecurrent revealed that the protein levels of cyclin B1, Sec62, and Birc3 were substantially higher in the recurrent tissues than those in the non-recurrent samples. Thus, the immunohistochemical results from tissues were consistent with the previous transcriptional and protein results in PBMCs.

Conclusion of study:  The authors discussed that “In recent years, studies on malignant tumors has primarily focused on cell proliferation, migration, and apoptosis. Cyclin B1, Sec62, and Birc3, chosen in this study according to our microarray analysis, likely play important roles in cell proliferation and migration. They can exert a tumor-promoting effect on HCC by regulating cell cycle and protein translocation.” As derived from the statistical methods employed in the research, elevated cyclin B1 and Sec62 expression in PBMCs had a significantly negative prognostic value in terms of recurrence-free survival, which hints the potential use of these molecular markers to predict the risk of tumor recurrence after surgery and to act as therapeutic targets to reduce tumor recurrence and improve clinical therapies.

Thus, these results revealed that cyclin B1 and Sec62 may be candidate biomarkers and potential therapeutic targets for HBV-related HCC recurrence after surgery.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts