WNT5A is a putative epi-driver of prostate cancer metastasis to the bone.

BACKGROUND: Current diagnostic tools are unable to distinguish low-grade indolent prostate cancer (PrCa) from that with a propensity to become metastatic and/or lethal. Recent evidence suggests that reprogramming of the transcriptome may drive the metastatic phenotype, and that this reprogramming is controlled, at least in part, by epigenetic changes to the DNA of cancer cells, including methylation. These changes, referred to as 'epigenetic drivers,' have previously been associated with cancer cell survival. METHODS: Here, using Illumina Methylation EPIC array data of paired primary PrCa and metastatic bone samples, we identified WNT5A as a putative epi-driver of PrCa metastasis to the bone, which was further validated in vitro. RESULTS: Significantly higher WNT5A methylation was observed in primary PrCa samples and 22Rv1 cells compared to metastatic bone samples and PC-3 cells. This higher methylation was associated with significantly lower WNT5A gene expression. CONCLUSION: Given the limited effective therapies available for metastatic cancer sufferers, particularly those whose disease has metastasised to the bone, WNT5A presents as a potential putative target for therapy.

Outcomes based on age in the phase III METEOR trial of cabozantinib versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib improved progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) compared with everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after prior antiangiogenic therapy in the phase III METEOR trial (NCT01865747). Limited data are available on the use of targeted therapies in older patients with advanced RCC. METHODS: Efficacy and safety in METEOR were retrospectively analysed for three age subgroups: <65 (n = 394), 65-74 (n = 201) and ≥75 years (n = 63). RESULTS: PFS, OS and ORR were improved with cabozantinib compared with everolimus in all age subgroups. The PFS hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-0.68), 0.53 (95% CI: 0.37-0.77) and 0.38 (95% CI: 0.18-0.79) for <65, 65-74 and ≥75 years, respectively, and the OS HRs were 0.72 (95% CI: 0.54-0.95), 0.66 (95% CI: 0.44-0.99) and 0.57 (95% CI: 0.28-1.14). The ORR for cabozantinib versus everolimus was 15% vs 5%, 21% vs 2% and 19% vs 0%, respectively. No significant differences were observed in PFS or OS with age as a categorical or continuous variable. Grade III/IV adverse events (AEs) were generally consistent across subgroups, although fatigue, hypertension and hyponatraemia occurred more frequently in older patients treated with cabozantinib. Dose reductions to manage AEs were more frequent in patients receiving cabozantinib than in those receiving everolimus. Dose reductions and treatment discontinuation due to AEs were more frequent in older patients in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Cabozantinib improved PFS, OS and ORR compared with everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced RCC, irrespective of age group, supporting use in all age categories. Proactive dose modification and supportive care may help to mitigate AEs in older patients while maintaining efficacy.

Cetuximab Alone or With Irinotecan for Resistant KRAS-, NRAS-, BRAF- and PIK3CA-wild-type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The AGITG Randomized Phase II ICECREAM Study.

BACKGROUND: The Irinotecan Cetuximab Evaluation and Cetuximab Response Evaluation (ICECREAM) study assessed the efficacy of cetuximab monotherapy compared with cetuximab combined with chemotherapy for quadruple wild-type (KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, or P13KCA exon 20) metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were enrolled in an open-label, multicenter, phase II trial and randomly assigned to cetuximab 400 mg/m2, then 250 mg/m2 cetuximab weekly, with or without irinotecan 180 mg/m2 every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival; secondary endpoints were response rate, overall survival, toxicity, and quality of life. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2016, 48 patients were recruited. Two were ineligible, and 2 were not evaluable for response. Characteristics were balanced, except gender (male, 62% vs. 72%) and primary sidedness (left, 95% vs. 68%). For cetuximab compared with cetuximab-irinotecan, progression-free survival was 14% versus 41% (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.78; P = .008); response rate was 10% (2 partial responses) versus 38% (1 complete, 8 partial); P = .04. Grade 3 to 4 toxicities were less with cetuximab monotherapy (23% vs. 50%); global and specific quality of life scores did not differ. CONCLUSION: In comparison with cetuximab alone, cetuximab plus irinotecan increases the response rate and delays progression in irinotecan-resistant RAS wild-type colorectal cancer. This echoes data from molecularly unselected patients.

Copper transporter 1 in human colorectal cancer cell lines: Effects of endogenous and modified expression on oxaliplatin cytotoxicity.

Oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is the mainstay for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Copper transporter proteins have been implicated in the transport of platinum-based anticancer drugs, but their expression in human colorectal cancer cell lines and roles in controlling their sensitivity to oxaliplatin are not well studied or understood. The endogenous and modified expression of copper uptake transporter 1 (hCTR1) was studied in a panel of human colorectal cancer cell lines (DLD-1, SW620, HCT-15 and COLO205) with ~20-fold variation in oxaliplatin sensitivity. hCTR1 protein was expressed more abundantly than ATP7A and ATP7B proteins, but with broadly similar levels and patterns of expression across four colorectal cancer cell lines. In a colorectal cancer cell-line background (DLD-1), stable transfection of the hCtr1 gene enhanced hCTR1 protein expression and increased the sensitivity of the cells to the cytotoxicity of copper and oxaliplatin. Treatment with copper chelators (ammonium tetrathiomolybdate, bathocuproinedisulfonic acid and D-penicillamine) increased expression of hCTR1 protein in DLD-1 and SW620 cells, and potentiated the cytotoxicity of oxaliplatin in DLD-1 but not SW620 cells. Treatment with copper chloride altered neither the expression of copper transporters nor cytotoxicity of oxaliplatin in colorectal cancer lines. In conclusion, human colorectal cancer cell lines consistently express hCTR1 protein despite their variable sensitivity to oxaliplatin. Genetic or pharmacological modification of hCTR1 protein expression may potentiate oxaliplatin sensitivity in some but not all colorectal cancer cell lines.

Response to Cetuximab With or Without Irinotecan in Patients With Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Harboring the KRAS G13D Mutation: Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group ICECREAM Study.

PURPOSE: RAS mutations predict lack of response to epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but preclinical studies and retrospective clinical data suggest that patients with tumors harboring the exon 2 KRAS G13D mutation may benefit from cetuximab. We aimed to assess cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in patients with molecularly selected (G13D mutation) chemotherapy-refractory mCRC in a randomized phase II trial of this rare molecular subtype. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with chemotherapy-refractory KRAS G13D mutation-positive mCRC who had progressed within 6 months of irinotecan therapy were randomly assigned to cetuximab 400 mg/m(2) loading dose and then 250 mg/m(2) once per week with or without irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) once every 2 weeks. The primary end point was 6-month progression-free survival; secondary end points were response rate, overall survival, quality of life, and toxicity. RESULTS: Fifty-one of 53 patients recruited over 2 years were eligible. The 6-month progression-free survival rate was 10% (95% CI, 2% to 26%) for cetuximab versus 23% (95% CI, 9% to 40%) for cetuximab plus irinotecan with a hazard ratio of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.32). Response and stable disease rates were 0% and 58% for monotherapy versus 9% and 70% for combination treatment, respectively. Overall survival and quality of life were similar; toxicities were higher with combination therapy. CONCLUSION: In patients with G13D-mutated chemotherapy-refractory mCRC, there was no statistically significant improvement in disease control at 6 months with either cetuximab monotherapy or cetuximab plus irinotecan. No responses were seen with single-agent cetuximab. The responses observed with the combination of cetuximab and irinotecan may reflect true drug synergy or persistent irinotecan sensitivity. The ICECREAM (Irinotecan Cetuximab Evaluation and Cetuximab Response Evaluation Among Patients with a G13D Mutation) study demonstrates the need to prospectively evaluate hypotheses that were previously supported by retrospective analyses and exemplifies the value of international collaboration in trials of rare molecular subtypes.

Phase III randomized, placebo-controlled study of cetuximab plus brivanib alaninate versus cetuximab plus placebo in patients with metastatic, chemotherapy-refractory, wild-type K-RAS colorectal carcinoma: the NCIC Clinical Trials Group and AGITG CO.20 Trial.

PURPOSE: The antiepidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody cetuximab has improved survival in patients with metastatic, chemotherapy-refractory, wild-type K-RAS colorectal cancer. The addition of brivanib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and fibroblast growth factor receptor, to cetuximab has shown encouraging early clinical activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with combination chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cetuximab 400 mg/m(2) intravenous loading dose followed by weekly maintenance of 250 mg/m(2) plus either brivanib 800 mg orally daily (arm A) or placebo (arm B). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 750 patients were randomly assigned (376 in arm A and 374 in arm B). Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 8.8 months in arm A and 8.1 months in arm B (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.03; P = .12). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.0 months in arm A and 3.4 months in arm B (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.84; P < .001). Partial responses observed (13.6% v 7.2%; P = .004) were higher in arm A. Incidence of any grade ≥ 3 adverse events was 78% in arm A and 53% in arm B. Fewer patients received ≥ 90% dose-intensity of both cetuximab (57% v 83%) and brivanib/placebo (48% v 87%) in arm A versus arm B, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite positive effects on PFS and objective response, cetuximab plus brivanib increased toxicity and did not significantly improve OS in patients with metastatic, chemotherapy-refractory, wild-type K-RAS colorectal cancer.

Hepatic encephalopathy associated with cancer or anticancer therapy.

Hepatic encephalopathy is an uncommon cause of neurologic deterioration associated with hyperammonemia, which results from hepatic dysfunction or altered ammonia metabolism. Often overlooked, hyperammonemia may occur via any of several pathophysiological processes, and in the setting of malignancy, it is a potentially reversible cause of confusion and coma. Hepatic dysfunction as a result of malignant infiltration, chemotherapeutic toxicities, targeted anticancer therapies, reactivation hepatitis, portosystemic shunting, and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is discussed, and an approach to etiological diagnosis and management is outlined.