SMARCA4 mutations in KRAS-mutant lung adenocarcinoma: a multi-cohort analysis.

KRAS is a key oncogenic driver in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD). Chromatin-remodeling gene SMARCA4 is comutated with KRAS in LUAD; however, the impact of SMARCA4 mutations on clinical outcome has not been adequately established. This study sought to shed light on the clinical significance of SMARCA4 mutations in LUAD. The association of SMARCA4 mutations with survival outcomes was interrogated in four independent cohorts totaling 564 patients: KRAS-mutant patients with LUAD who received nonimmunotherapy treatment from (a) The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and (b) the MSK-IMPACT Clinical Sequencing (MSK-CT) cohorts; and KRAS-mutant patients with LUAD who received immune checkpoint inhibitor-based immunotherapy treatment from (c) the MSK-IMPACT (MSK-IO) and (d) the Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center (WFBCCC) immunotherapy cohorts. Of the patients receiving nonimmunotherapy treatment, in the TCGA cohort (n = 155), KRAS-mutant patients harboring SMARCA4 mutations (KS) showed poorer clinical outcome [P = 6e-04 for disease-free survival (DFS) and 0.031 for overall survival (OS), respectively], compared to KRAS-TP53 comutant (KP) and KRAS-only mutant (K) patients; in the MSK-CT cohort (n = 314), KS patients also exhibited shorter OS than KP (P = 0.03) or K (P = 0.022) patients. Of patients receiving immunotherapy, KS patients consistently exhibited the shortest progression-free survival (PFS; P = 0.0091) in the MSK-IO (n = 77), and the shortest PFS (P = 0.0026) and OS (P = 0.0014) in the WFBCCC (n = 18) cohorts, respectively. Therefore, mutations of SMARCA4 represent a genetic factor leading to adverse clinical outcome in lung adenocarcinoma treated by either nonimmunotherapy or immunotherapy.

Quality and Value of Subspecialty Reinterpretation of Thoracic CT Scans of Patients Referred to a Tertiary Cancer Center.

INTRODUCTION: Patients referred to tertiary cancer centers often present with imaging studies performed and interpreted at other health care institutions. Although reinterpretation of imaging performed at another health care institution can reduce repeat imaging, unnecessary radiation dose, and cost, the benefit is uncertain. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality of initial imaging studies of patients seeking a second opinion at a tertiary cancer center, to compare the accuracy of initial interpretations to reinterpretations performed by subspecialty trained radiologists at a tertiary oncologic center, and to determine the potential impact on patient management. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved retrospective, single-institution database review was performed in 120 new patients presenting to the thoracic surgery clinics at our institution from 2010 through 2013, with initial chest CTs performed at another institution. Two thoracic radiologists blinded to the interpretation independently assessed the quality and performed a reinterpretation of 52 CTs. Fisher's exact tests were used to compare the frequency with which clinically important staging parameters appeared in the reinterpretations and initial reports. Discrepancies between the reinterpretations and initial interpretations were adjudicated independently by two thoracic radiologists at different tertiary cancer institutions to determine which interpretations were more accurate. The impact of discrepancies on clinical management was evaluated based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. RESULTS: Of the 52 CTs, 32 (62%) were of inadequate image quality for staging. In 17 of 52 (33%), discrepancies were identified between reinterpretations and initial interpretations. For discrepancies, the reinterpretation was judged to be more accurate for staging than the initial interpretation. In nine of these patients, staging parameters were omitted in the initial interpretations that precluded adequate staging. In the remaining eight patients, six were upstaged, one was downstaged, and one was unchanged by the reinterpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging studies from outside institutions are of variable image quality and often not adequate for appropriate staging of thoracic malignancies. Reinterpretation can decrease repeat imaging and associated technical costs. Additionally, the accuracy of staging is improved by reinterpretation of CTs by subspecialty trained radiologists and can significantly impact clinical management.

Amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields for the treatment of cancer: discovery of tumor-specific frequencies and assessment of a novel therapeutic approach.

PURPOSE: Because in vitro studies suggest that low levels of electromagnetic fields may modify cancer cell growth, we hypothesized that systemic delivery of a combination of tumor-specific frequencies may have a therapeutic effect. We undertook this study to identify tumor-specific frequencies and test the feasibility of administering such frequencies to patients with advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined patients with various types of cancer using a noninvasive biofeedback method to identify tumor-specific frequencies. We offered compassionate treatment to some patients with advanced cancer and limited therapeutic options. RESULTS: We examined a total of 163 patients with a diagnosis of cancer and identified a total of 1524 frequencies ranging from 0.1 Hz to 114 kHz. Most frequencies (57-92%) were specific for a single tumor type. Compassionate treatment with tumor-specific frequencies was offered to 28 patients. Three patients experienced grade 1 fatigue during or immediately after treatment. There were no NCI grade 2, 3 or 4 toxicities. Thirteen patients were evaluable for response. One patient with hormone-refractory breast cancer metastatic to the adrenal gland and bones had a complete response lasting 11 months. One patient with hormone-refractory breast cancer metastatic to liver and bones had a partial response lasting 13.5 months. Four patients had stable disease lasting for +34.1 months (thyroid cancer metastatic to lung), 5.1 months (non-small cell lung cancer), 4.1 months (pancreatic cancer metastatic to liver) and 4.0 months (leiomyosarcoma metastatic to liver). CONCLUSION: Cancer-related frequencies appear to be tumor-specific and treatment with tumor-specific frequencies is feasible, well tolerated and may have biological efficacy in patients with advanced cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00805337.

Utility of PET, CT, and EUS to identify pathologic responders in esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the utility of positron emission tomography (PET), endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), and computed tomographic (CT) scans to predict pathologic response and survival following preoperative chemoradiation (CRT) in esophageal cancer. METHODS: One hundred three sequential patients with locoregionally advanced esophageal cancer, who were treated with CRT and esophageal resection between May 2001 and November 2003 at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, were retrospectively reviewed. PET, EUS, and CT were performed before (pre) or after (post) CRT and before surgical resection. PET standardized uptake value (SUV) was defined as maximal uptake in primary tumor. RESULTS: Most patients were male (91 [88%]) with adenocarcinoma (90 [87%]). Pretreatment clinical stages were: IIA (42 [41%]), IIB (5 [5%]), III (50 [49%]), and IVA (6 [6%]). At the time of surgery, 58 patients (56%) had a pathologic response to CRT (< or =10% viable cells). Post-CRT measurements that correlated with pathologic response were: CT esophageal wall thickness (13.3 vs 15.3 mm, p = 0.04), EUS mass size (0.7 vs 1.7 cm, p = 0.01) and PET SUV (3.1 vs 5.8, p = 0.01). Post-CRT PET SUV equal to or greater than 4 had the highest accuracy for pathologic response (76%). Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that a post-CRT PET SUV equal to or greater than 4 was an independent predictor of survival (HR, 3.5, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The FDG-PET SUV is the most accurate noninvasive test to predict long-term survival after preoperative CRT and before surgical resection. Post-CRT FDG-PET cannot, however, rule out residual microscopic disease so esophagectomy should remain a therapeutic option even if the post-CRT imaging modalities are normal.

The novel and effective nonplatinum, nontaxane combination of gemcitabine and vinorelbine in advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: potential for decreased toxicity and combination with biological therapy.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine and vinorelbine are two of the most active third-generation agents for the treatment of advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). The authors conducted a formal Phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy of this combination in both untreated and previously treated patients with Stage IIIB (with pleural effusion) or Stage IV NSCLC. METHODS: A total of 78 patients were treated on the current Phase II trial of front-line or second/third-line therapy with gemcitabine and vinorelbine in NSCLC. Eligible patients manifested either untreated disease (n = 42) or had received at least one but not more than two prior chemotherapy regimens (n = 36). The median age was 57.5 years (range, 33-79) with 57 men (73%) and 21 women (27%). The median performance status was one (range, one to two). The initial eight patients (four untreated and four previously treated) were treated at a previously established maximum tolerated dose of vinorelbine (30 mg/m(2)) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2)) on Days 1, 8, and 15, with significant myelosuppression seen in five out of eight patients requiring dose omission in the first cycle. The next 70 patients received a reduced dose of vinorelbine (25 mg/m(2)) followed by gemcitabine (900 mg/m(2)) on Days 1, 8, and 15. RESULTS: Seventy eight patients were treated. Fifteen (36%) of the 42 evaluable patients who received front-line therapy had objective responses and 14 (33%) had stable disease. In the patients with prior treatment, 6 (17%) of 36 patients had partial response and 18 patients (50%) had stable disease. Median survival time for the previously untreated patient group was 10.1 months, with a one year survival of 43% and a two year survival rate of 32%. For the previously treated patients, the median survival time was 8.5 months, with a one year survival rate of 30%. Toxic effects were notable for significant myelosuppression, with > or =Grade 3 granulocytopenia seen in 55% of the patients on the untreated arm and 67% of the patients on the previously treated arm. Additionally, 9.5% and 13.9% (untreated and previously treated), respectively, of these patients experienced Grades 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia at some point in their treatment. A full dose delivery analysis showed that this myelosuppression resulted in Course 1, Day 15 skipped doses (even at the reduced dose level) in 42% of previously untreated patients and 47% of pretreated patients. Other side effects seen at Grades 3 and 4 in previously untreated and treated patients included anemia (9.5% and 2.8%), asthenia (4.8% and 5.5%), infection (14.3% and 5.6%), pain (9.5% and 19.4%), and pulmonary complications (4.8% and 13.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Gemcitabine/vinorelbine is an active, well-tolerated combination in both front-line and second/third-line therapy for Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC. The response rate, median survival rate, and one year survival rate compare favorably with platinum-based regimens. The toxicity profile of the gemcitabine/vinorelbine combination was quite favorable, with minimal Grade 3 and 4 toxic effects aside from granulocytopenia, which resulted in numerous Day 15 skipped doses but no significant febrile neutropenia or infection. The combination of gemcitabine and vinorelbine could be a useful regimen in standard clinical practice and has the potential for efficient combination with biologic/targeted therapy. Multiple randomized trials of this combination versus platinum combinations are now ongoing [corrected].