Epithelial ovarian cancer.

Epithelial ovarian cancer generally presents at an advanced stage and is the most common cause of gynaecological cancer death. Treatment requires expert multidisciplinary care. Population-based screening has been ineffective, but new approaches for early diagnosis and prevention that leverage molecular genomics are in development. Initial therapy includes surgery and adjuvant therapy. Epithelial ovarian cancer is composed of distinct histological subtypes with unique genomic characteristics, which are improving the precision and effectiveness of therapy, allowing discovery of predictors of response such as mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, and homologous recombination deficiency for DNA damage response pathway inhibitors or resistance (cyclin E1). Rapidly evolving techniques to measure genomic changes in tumour and blood allow for assessment of sensitivity and emergence of resistance to therapy, and might be accurate indicators of residual disease. Recurrence is usually incurable, and patient symptom control and quality of life are key considerations at this stage. Treatments for recurrence have to be designed from a patient's perspective and incorporate meaningful measures of benefit. Urgent progress is needed to develop evidence and consensus-based treatment guidelines for each subgroup, and requires close international cooperation in conducting clinical trials through academic research groups such as the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup.

The BRCA1-Δ11q Alternative Splice Isoform Bypasses Germline Mutations and Promotes Therapeutic Resistance to PARP Inhibition and Cisplatin.

Breast and ovarian cancer patients harboring BRCA1/2 germline mutations have clinically benefitted from therapy with PARP inhibitor (PARPi) or platinum compounds, but acquired resistance limits clinical impact. In this study, we investigated the impact of mutations on BRCA1 isoform expression and therapeutic response. Cancer cell lines and tumors harboring mutations in exon 11 of BRCA1 express a BRCA1-Δ11q splice variant lacking the majority of exon 11. The introduction of frameshift mutations to exon 11 resulted in nonsense-mediated mRNA decay of full-length, but not the BRCA1-Δ11q isoform. CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing as well as overexpression experiments revealed that the BRCA1-Δ11q protein was capable of promoting partial PARPi and cisplatin resistance relative to full-length BRCA1, both in vitro and in vivo Furthermore, spliceosome inhibitors reduced BRCA1-Δ11q levels and sensitized cells carrying exon 11 mutations to PARPi treatment. Taken together, our results provided evidence that cancer cells employ a strategy to remove deleterious germline BRCA1 mutations through alternative mRNA splicing, giving rise to isoforms that retain residual activity and contribute to therapeutic resistance. Cancer Res; 76(9); 2778-90. ©2016 AACR.

Integrated collaborative care for major depression comorbid with a poor prognosis cancer (SMaRT Oncology-3): a multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The management of depression in patients with poor prognosis cancers, such as lung cancer, creates specific challenges. We aimed to assess the efficacy of an integrated treatment programme for major depression in patients with lung cancer compared with usual care. METHODS: Symptom Management Research Trials (SMaRT) Oncology-3 is a parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. We enrolled patients with lung cancer and major depression from three cancer centres and their associated clinics in Scotland, UK. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the depression care for people with lung cancer treatment programme or usual care by a database software algorithm that used stratification (by trial centre) and minimisation (by age, sex, and cancer type) with allocation concealment. Depression care for people with lung cancer is a manualised, multicomponent collaborative care treatment that is systematically delivered by a team of cancer nurses and psychiatrists in collaboration with primary care physicians. Usual care is provided by primary care physicians. The primary outcome was depression severity (on the Symptom Checklist Depression Scale [SCL-20], range 0-4) averaged over the patient's time in the trial (up to a maximum of 32 weeks). Trial statisticians and data collection staff were masked to treatment allocation, but patients and clinicians could not be masked to the allocations. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN75905964. FINDINGS: 142 participants were recruited between Jan 5, 2009, and Sept 9, 2011; 68 were randomly allocated to depression care for people with lung cancer and 74 to usual care. 43 (30%) of 142 patients had died by 32 weeks, all of which were cancer-related deaths. No intervention-related serious adverse events occurred. 131 (92%) of 142 patients provided outcome data (59 in the depression care for people with lung cancer group and 72 in the usual care group) and were included in the intention-to-treat primary analysis. Average depression severity was significantly lower in patients allocated to depression care for people with lung cancer (mean score on the SCL-20 1·24 [SD 0·64]) than in those allocated to usual care (mean score 1·61 [SD 0·58]); difference -0·38 (95% CI -0·58 to -0·18); standardised mean difference -0·62 (95% CI -0·94 to -0·29). Self-rated depression improvement, anxiety, quality of life, role functioning, perceived quality of care, and proportion of patients achieving a 12-week treatment response were also significantly better in the depression care for people with lung cancer group than in the usual care group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that major depression can be treated effectively in patients with a poor prognosis cancer; integrated depression care for people with lung cancer was substantially more efficacious than was usual care. Larger trials are now needed to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this care programme in this patient population, and further adaptation of the treatment will be necessary to address the unmet needs of patients with major depression and even shorter life expectancy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government.

Integrated collaborative care for comorbid major depression in patients with cancer (SMaRT Oncology-2): a multicentre randomised controlled effectiveness trial.

BACKGROUND: Medical conditions are often complicated by major depression, with consequent additional impairment of quality of life. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of an integrated treatment programme for major depression in patients with cancer (depression care for people with cancer) with usual care. METHODS: SMaRT Oncology-2 is a parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled effectiveness trial. We enrolled outpatients with major depression from three cancer centres and their associated clinics in Scotland, UK. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the depression care for people with cancer intervention or usual care, with stratification (by trial centre) and minimisation (by age, primary cancer, and sex) with allocation concealment. Depression care for people with cancer is a manualised, multicomponent collaborative care treatment that is delivered systematically by a team of cancer nurses and psychiatrists in collaboration with primary care physicians. Usual care is provided by primary care physicians. Outcome data were collected up until 48 weeks. The primary outcome was treatment response (≥50% reduction in Symptom Checklist Depression Scale [SCL-20] score, range 0-4) at 24 weeks. Trial statisticians and data collection staff were masked to treatment allocation, but participants could not be masked to the allocations. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN40568538. FINDINGS: 500 participants were enrolled between May 12, 2008, and May 13, 2011; 253 were randomly allocated to depression care for people with cancer and 247 to usual care. 143 (62%) of 231 participants in the depression care for people with cancer group and 40 (17%) of 231 in the usual care group responded to treatment: absolute difference 45% (95% CI 37-53), adjusted odds ratio 8·5 (95% CI 5·5-13·4), p<0·0001. Compared with patients in the usual care group, participants allocated to the depression care for people with cancer programme also had less depression, anxiety, pain, and fatigue; and better functioning, health, quality of life, and perceived quality of depression care at all timepoints (all p<0·05). During the study, 34 cancer-related deaths occurred (19 in the depression care for people with cancer group, 15 in the usual care group), one patient in the depression care for people with cancer group was admitted to a psychiatric ward, and one patient in this group attempted suicide. None of these events were judged to be related to the trial treatments or procedures. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that depression care for people with cancer is an effective treatment for major depression in patients with cancer. It offers a model for the treatment of depression comorbid with other medical conditions. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government.