BRAF mutation testing for patients diagnosed with stage III or stage IV melanoma: practical guidance for the Australian setting.

Targeted therapy (BRAF inhibitor plus MEK inhibitor) is now among the possible treatment options for patients with BRAF mutation-positive stage III or stage IV melanoma. This makes prompt BRAF mutation testing an important step in the management of patients diagnosed with stage III or IV melanoma; one that can help better ensure that the optimal choice of systemic treatment is initiated with minimal delay. This article offers guidance about when and how BRAF mutation testing should be conducted when patients are diagnosed with melanoma in Australia. Notably, it recommends that pathologists reflexively order BRAF mutation testing whenever a patient is found to have American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) stage III or IV melanoma (i.e., any metastatic spread beyond the primary tumour) and that patient's BRAF mutation status is hitherto unknown, even if BRAF mutation testing has not been specifically requested by the treating clinician (in Australia, Medicare-subsidised BRAFV600 mutation testing does not need to be requested by the treating clinician). When performed in centres with appropriate expertise and experience, immunohistochemistry (IHC) using the anti-BRAF V600E monoclonal antibody (VE1) can be a highly sensitive and specific means of detecting BRAFV600E mutations, and may be used as a rapid and relatively inexpensive initial screening test. However, VE1 immunostaining can be technically challenging and difficult to interpret, particularly in heavily pigmented tumours; melanomas with weak, moderate or focal BRAFV600E immunostaining should be regarded as equivocal. It must also be remembered that other activating BRAFV600 mutations (including BRAFV600K), which account for ∼10-20% of BRAFV600 mutations, are not detected with currently available IHC antibodies. For these reasons, if available and practicable, we recommend that DNA-based BRAF mutation testing always be performed, regardless of whether IHC-based testing is also conducted. Advice about tissue/specimen selection for BRAF mutation testing of patients diagnosed with stage III or IV melanoma is also offered in this article; and potential pitfalls when interpreting BRAF mutation tests are highlighted.

Guttiferone K suppresses cell motility and metastasis of hepatocellular carcinoma by restoring aberrantly reduced profilin 1.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an aggressive malignancy and the 5-year survival rate of advanced HCC is < 10%. Guttiferone K (GUTK) isolated from the Garcinia genus inhibited HCC cells migration and invasion in vitro and metastasis in vivo without apparent toxicity. Proteomic analysis revealed that actin-binding protein profilin 1 (PFN1) was markedly increased in the presence of GUTK. Over-expression of PFN1 mimicked the effect of GUTK on HCC cell motility and metastasis. The effect of GUTK on cell motility was diminished when PFN1 was over-expressed or silenced. Over-expression of PFN1 or incubation with GUTK decreased F-actin levels and the expression of proteins involved in actin nucleation, branching and polymerization. Moreover, a reduction of PFN1 protein levels was common in advanced human HCC and associated with poor survival rate. In conclusion, GUTK effectively suppresses the motility and metastasis of HCC cells mainly by restoration of aberrantly reduced PFN1 protein expression.

Low AZGP1 expression predicts for recurrence in margin-positive, localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Men with positive margins after radical prostatectomy (RP) for localized prostate cancer (PC) have a 40-50% biochemical relapse rate at 5 years. Adjuvant radiotherapy improves biochemical progression-free and overall survival in men with positive margins, but is associated with increased toxicity. There is an urgent need to identify new prognostic markers to define the group of patients who would benefit from multimodality therapy. METHODS: Nuclear ß-catenin, membranous secreted frizzled-related protein 4 (sFRP4), zinc-alpha 2-glycoprotein (AZGP1), and macrophage inhibitory cytokine-1 (MIC-1) have previously been identified as molecular markers of outcome in localized PC. From these published studies, we identified a subset of patients with positive margins. The aim of this study was to assess the association between these four molecular markers and outcome in men with margin-positive, localized PC. RESULTS: We identified 186 men with positive margins from 330 men with localized PC; 53% had preoperative PSA >10 ng/ml, 72% extraprostatic extension (EPE), 24% seminal vesicles involvement (SVI), and 57% RP Gleason score ≥ 7. AZGP1 (P = 0.009), membranous sFRP4 (P = 0.03) and MIC-1 (P = 0.04) expression predicted for biochemical relapse on univariate analysis. Only absent/low AZGP1 expression (P = 0.01) was an independent predictor of recurrence in margin-positive, localized PC when modeled with preoperative PSA (P = 0.2), EPE (P = 0.2), SVI (P = 0.4), Gleason score ≥ 7 (P = 0.5) and adjuvant treatment (P = 0.4). Furthermore, there was an association between absent/low AZGP1 expression and clinical recurrence (P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: AZGP1 is a potential molecular marker for biochemical relapse in men with margin-positive, localized PC. Routine assessment of this biomarker may lead to better selection of patients who will benefit from post-RP radiotherapy.