Mixed gangliocytoma-pituitary adenoma in MEN1 syndrome: A case report and literature review.

Pituitary adenoma is one of the three most common neoplasms described in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1), and patients with pituitary adenoma occupies 30-50% of those with MEN1-related tumor. Mixed gangliocytoma-pituitary adenoma (MGPA) is a rare clinical entity in which gangliomatous cells are intermixed with adenomatous cells. This tumor has been estimated to account for 0.52-1.26% of all pituitary tumors. We report a rare case of MGPA in a patient with MEN1. A retrospective chart review was conducted on a patient with MEN1 diagnosed with MGPA in 2019 at a single tertiary academic medical center. A review of the literature was performed on MGPA and pituitary adenoma in MEN1. MGPA is rare, with only 174 cases previously reported in the literature and only three prior case reported in a patient with MEN1. There are multiple hypotheses regarding their pathogenesis, and it is unclear whether the MEN1 gene (menin) plays a role in the pathogenesis of MGPA. This tumor in MEN1 is a rare clinical entity of unknown etiology. Further studies are required with difficulty due to its low incidence.

Dual antivascular function of human fibulin-3 variant, a potential new drug discovery strategy for glioblastoma.

The ECM protein EFEMP1 (fibulin-3) is associated with all types of solid tumor through its cell context-dependent dual function. A variant of fibulin-3 was engineered by truncation and mutation to alleviate its oncogenic function, specifically the proinvasive role in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) cells at stem-like state. ZR30 is an in vitro synthesized 39-kDa protein of human fibulin-3 variant. It has a therapeutic effect in intracranial xenograft models of human GBM, through suppression of epidermal growth factor receptor/AKT and NOTCH1/AKT signaling in GBM cells and extracellular MMP2 activation. Glioblastoma multiforme is highly vascular, with leaky blood vessels formed by tumor cells expressing endothelial cell markers, including CD31. Here we studied GBM intracranial xenografts, 2 weeks after intratumoral injection of ZR30 or PBS, by CD31 immunohistochemistry. We found a 70% reduction of blood vessel density in ZR30-treated xenografts compared with that of PBS-treated ones. Matrigel plug assays showed the effect of ZR30 on suppressing angiogenesis. We further studied the effect of ZR30 on genes involved in endothelial transdifferentiation (ETD), in 7 primary cultures derived from 3 GBMs under different culture conditions. Two GBM cultures formed mesh structures with upregulation of ETD genes shortly after culture in Matrigel Matrix, and ZR30 suppressed both. ZR30 also downregulated ETD genes in two GBM cultures with high expression of these genes. In conclusion, multifaceted tumor suppression effects of human fibulin-3 variant include both suppression of angiogenesis and vasculogenic mimicry in GBM.

Response assessment criteria for brain metastases: proposal from the RANO group.

CNS metastases are the most common cause of malignant brain tumours in adults. Historically, patients with brain metastases have been excluded from most clinical trials, but their inclusion is now becoming more common. The medical literature is difficult to interpret because of substantial variation in the response and progression criteria used across clinical trials. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Brain Metastases (RANO-BM) working group is an international, multidisciplinary effort to develop standard response and progression criteria for use in clinical trials of treatment for brain metastases. Previous efforts have focused on aspects of trial design, such as patient population, variations in existing response and progression criteria, and challenges when incorporating neurological, neuro-cognitive, and quality-of-life endpoints into trials of patients with brain metastases. Here, we present our recommendations for standard response and progression criteria for the assessment of brain metastases in clinical trials. The proposed criteria will hopefully facilitate the development of novel approaches to this difficult problem by providing more uniformity in the assessment of CNS metastases across trials.

Challenges relating to solid tumour brain metastases in clinical trials, part 2: neurocognitive, neurological, and quality-of-life outcomes. A report from the RANO group.

Neurocognitive function, neurological symptoms, functional independence, and health-related quality of life are major concerns for patients with brain metastases. The inclusion of these endpoints in trials of brain metastases and the methods by which these measures are assessed vary substantially. If functional independence or health-related quality of life are planned as key study outcomes, then the reliability and validity of these endpoints can be crucial because methodological issues might affect the interpretation and acceptance of findings. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) working group is an independent, international, and collaborative effort to improve the design of clinical trials in patients with brain tumours. In this report, the second in a two-part series, we review clinical trials of brain metastases in relation to measures of clinical benefit and provide a framework for the design and conduct of future trials.

Challenges relating to solid tumour brain metastases in clinical trials, part 1: patient population, response, and progression. A report from the RANO group.

Therapeutic outcomes for patients with brain metastases need to improve. A critical review of trials specifically addressing brain metastases shows key issues that could prevent acceptance of results by regulatory agencies, including enrolment of heterogeneous groups of patients and varying definitions of clinical endpoints. Considerations specific to disease, modality, and treatment are not consistently addressed. Additionally, the schedule of CNS imaging and consequences of detection of new or progressive brain metastases in trials mainly exploring the extra-CNS activity of systemic drugs are highly variable. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) working group is an independent, international, collaborative effort to improve the design of trials in patients with brain tumours. In this two-part series, we review the state of clinical trials of brain metastases and suggest a consensus recommendation for the development of criteria for future clinical trials.

Telehealth in Neurosurgery: 2021 Council of State Neurosurgical Societies National Survey Results.

OBJECTIVE: Telehealth was rapidly adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic. A survey was distributed to neurosurgeons in the United States (U.S.) to understand its use within neurosurgery, what barriers exist, unique issues related to neurosurgery, and opportunities for improvement. METHODS: A survey was distributed via email and used the SurveyMonkey platform. The survey was sent to 3828 practicing neurosurgeons within the U.S., 404 responses were collected between October 30, 2021 and December 4, 2021. RESULTS: During the pandemic, telehealth was used multiple times per week by 60.65% and used daily by an additional 12.78% of respondents. A supermajority (89.84%) of respondents felt that evaluating patients across state lines with telemedicine is beneficial. Most respondents (95.81%) believed that telehealth improves patient access to care. The major criticism of telehealth was the inability to perform a neurological exam. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth has been widely implemented within the field of neurosurgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and has increased access to care. It has allowed patients to be evaluated remotely, including across state lines. While certain aspects of the neurological exam are suited for video evaluation, sensation and reflexes cannot be adequately assessed. Neurosurgeons believe that telehealth adds value to their ability to deliver care.

EFEMP1 suppresses malignant glioma growth and exerts its action within the tumor extracellular compartment.

PURPOSE: There are conflicting reports regarding the function of EFEMP1 in different cancer types. In this study, we sought to evaluate the role of EFEMP1 in malignant glioma biology. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Real-time qRT-PCR was used to quantify EFEMP1 expression in 95 glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). Human high-grade glioma cell lines and primary cultures were engineered to express ectopic EFEMP1, a small hairpin RNA of EFEMP1, or treated with exogenous recombinant EFEMP1 protein. Following treatment, growth was assayed both in vitro and in vivo (subcutaneous (s.c.) and intracranial (i.c.) xenograft model systems). RESULTS: Cox regression revealed that EFEMP1 is a favorable prognostic marker for patients with GBM. Over-expression of EFEMP1 eliminated tumor development and suppressed angiogenesis, cell proliferation, and VEGFA expression, while the converse was true with knock-down of endogenous EFEMP1 expression. The EFEMP1 suppression of tumor onset time was nearly restored by ectopic VEGFA expression; however, overall tumor growth rate remained suppressed. This suggested that inhibition of angiogenesis was only partly responsible for EFEMP1's impact on glioma development. In glioma cells that were treated by exogenous EFEMP1 protein or over-expressed endogenous EFEMP1, the EGFR level was reduced and AKT signaling activity attenuated. Mixing of EFEMP1 protein with cells prior to s.c. and i.c. implantations or injection of the protein around the established s.c. xenografts, both significantly suppressed tumorigenicity. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our data reveals that EEFEMP1 suppresses glioma growth in vivo, both by modulating the tumor extracellular microenvironment and by altering critical intracellular oncogenic signaling pathways.

Primary leptomeningeal plasmablastic lymphoma.

Lymphomas that develop in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infected patients are predominantly aggressive B-cells lymphomas. The most common HIV-associated lymphomas include Burkitt lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (that often involves the CNS), primary effusion lymphoma, and plasmablastic lymphoma (PBL). Of these, PBL is relatively uncommon and displays a distinct affinity for presentation in the oral cavity. In this manuscript we report a previously undescribed primary leptomeningeal form of PBL in a patient with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. A 40-year-old HIV positive man presented with acute onset confusion, emesis, and altered mental status. Lumbar puncture showed numerous nucleated cells with atypical plasmocyte predominance. CSF flowcytometry showed kappa restriction with CD8 and CD38 positivity and negative lymphocyte markers, while the MRI showed diffuse leptomeningeal enhancement. As the extensive systemic work-up failed to reveal any disease outside the brain, an en bloc diagnostic brain and meningeal biopsy was performed. The biopsy specimen showed sheets of plasmacytoid cells with one or more large nuclei, prominent nuclear chromatin, scattered mitoses, and abundant cytoplasm, highly suggestive of plasmablastic lymphoma. HIV-associated malignancies have protean and often confusing presentations, which pose diagnostic difficulties posed to the practicing neurological-surgeons. Even in cases where an infectious cause is suspected for the meningeal enhancement, neoplastic involvement should be considered, and cytology and flow-cytometry should be routinely ordered on the CSF samples.

Socioeconomic Implications of Professional Relationships within Modern Care Delivery Systems.

No physician can successfully deliver high-value patient care in the modern-day health care system in isolation. Delivery of effective patient care requires integrated and collaborative systems that depend on dynamic professional relationships among members of the health care team. An overview of the socioeconomic implications of professional relationships within modern care delivery systems and potential employment models is presented.

PAX6 suppression of glioma angiogenesis and the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor A.

We reported that PAX6 suppresses glioblastoma cell growth in vivo and anchorage-independent growth without significant alteration of cell proliferation in vitro, suggesting that PAX6 may alter the tumor microenvironment. Because we found that PAX6 downregulates expression of the gene encoding vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGFA) in glioma cells, we used a subcutaneous xenograft model to verify PAX6 suppression of VEGFA-induced angiogenesis based on CD31-immunostaining of endothelial cells. The results showed a significant reduction of VEGFA at the transcription level in PAX6-transfected cells in xenografts and PAX6 has a suppressive effect on the microvascular amplification typically seen in glioblastoma. We showed that PAX6 suppression of VEGFA expression requires its DNA binding-domain. The C-terminal truncation mutant of PAX6, however, did not show the dominant negative function in regulating VEGFA expression that it showed previously in regulating MMP2 expression. In the glioma cell line U251HF, we further determined that blocking the PI3K/Akt signaling pathway with either adenoviral-mediated PTEN expression or LY294002 enhanced PAX6-mediated suppression of VEGFA in an additive manner; thus, PAX6-mediated suppression of VEGFA is not via the canonical pathway through HIF1A. These two VEGFA-regulatory pathways can also be similarly modulated in another malignant glioma cell line, U87, but not in LN229 where the basal VEGFA level is low and PTEN is wild-type. PAX6 suppression of VEGFA appears to be blocked in LN229. In conclusion, our data showed that PAX6 can initiate in glioma cells a new signaling pathway independent of PI3K/Akt-HIF1A signaling to suppress VEGFA expression.

The role of stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

QUESTION: Should patients with newly-diagnosed metastatic brain tumors undergo stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) compared with other treatment modalities? Target population These recommendations apply to adults with newly diagnosed solid brain metastases amenable to SRS; lesions amenable to SRS are typically defined as measuring less than 3 cm in maximum diameter and producing minimal (less than 1 cm of midline shift) mass effect. Recommendations SRS plus WBRT vs. WBRT alone Level 1 Single-dose SRS along with WBRT leads to significantly longer patient survival compared with WBRT alone for patients with single metastatic brain tumors who have a KPS > or = 70.Level 1 Single-dose SRS along with WBRT is superior in terms of local tumor control and maintaining functional status when compared to WBRT alone for patients with 1-4 metastatic brain tumors who have a KPS > or =70.Level 2 Single-dose SRS along with WBRT may lead to significantly longer patient survival than WBRT alone for patients with 2-3 metastatic brain tumors.Level 3 There is class III evidence demonstrating that single-dose SRS along with WBRT is superior to WBRT alone for improving patient survival for patients with single or multiple brain metastases and a KPS<70 [corrected].Level 4 There is class III evidence demonstrating that single-dose SRS along with WBRT is superior to WBRT alone for improving patient survival for patients with single or multiple brain metastases and a KPS < 70. SRS plus WBRT vs. SRS alone Level 2 Single-dose SRS alone may provide an equivalent survival advantage for patients with brain metastases compared with WBRT + single-dose SRS. There is conflicting class I and II evidence regarding the risk of both local and distant recurrence when SRS is used in isolation, and class I evidence demonstrates a lower risk of distant recurrence with WBRT; thus, regular careful surveillance is warranted for patients treated with SRS alone in order to provide early identification of local and distant recurrences so that salvage therapy can be initiated at the soonest possible time. Surgical Resection plus WBRT vs. SRS +/- WBRT Level 2 Surgical resection plus WBRT, vs. SRS plus WBRT, both represent effective treatment strategies, resulting in relatively equal survival rates. SRS has not been assessed from an evidence-based standpoint for larger lesions (>3 cm) or for those causing significant mass effect (>1 cm midline shift). Level 3: Underpowered class I evidence along with the preponderance of conflicting class II evidence suggests that SRS alone may provide equivalent functional and survival outcomes compared with resection + WBRT for patients with single brain metastases, so long as ready detection of distant site failure and salvage SRS are possible. SRS alone vs. WBRT alone Level 3 While both single-dose SRS and WBRT are effective for treating patients with brain metastases, single-dose SRS alone appears to be superior to WBRT alone for patients with up to three metastatic brain tumors in terms of patient survival advantage.

The role of chemotherapy in the management of newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

TARGET POPULATION: This recommendation applies to adults with newly diagnosed brain metastases; however, the recommendation below does not apply to the exquisitely chemosensitive tumors, such as germinomas metastatic to the brain. RECOMMENDATION: Should patients with brain metastases receive chemotherapy in addition to whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT)? Level 1 Routine use of chemotherapy following WBRT for brain metastases has not been shown to increase survival and is not recommended. Four class I studies examined the role of carboplatin, chloroethylnitrosoureas, tegafur and temozolomide, and all resulted in no survival benefit. Two caveats are provided in order to allow the treating physician to individualize decision-making: First, the majority of the data are limited to non small cell lung (NSCLC) and breast cancer; therefore, in other tumor histologies, the possibility of clinical benefit cannot be absolutely ruled out. Second, the addition of chemotherapy to WBRT improved response rates in some, but not all trials; response rate was not the primary endpoint in most of these trials and end-point assessment was non-centralized, non-blinded, and post-hoc. Enrollment in chemotherapy-related clinical trials is encouraged.

The role of surgical resection in the management of newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

QUESTION: Should patients with newly-diagnosed metastatic brain tumors undergo open surgical resection versus whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) and/or other treatment modalities such as radiosurgery, and in what clinical settings? Target population These recommendations apply to adults with a newly diagnosed single brain metastasis amenable to surgical resection. Recommendations Surgical resection plus WBRT versus surgical resection alone Level 1 Surgical resection followed by WBRT represents a superior treatment modality, in terms of improving tumor control at the original site of the metastasis and in the brain overall, when compared to surgical resection alone. Surgical resection plus WBRT versus SRS +/- WBRT Level 2 Surgical resection plus WBRT, versus stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) plus WBRT, both represent effective treatment strategies, resulting in relatively equal survival rates. SRS has not been assessed from an evidence-based standpoint for larger lesions (>3 cm) or for those causing significant mass effect (>1 cm midline shift). Level 3 Underpowered class I evidence along with the preponderance of conflicting class II evidence suggests that SRS alone may provide equivalent functional and survival outcomes compared with resection + WBRT for patients with single brain metastases, so long as ready detection of distant site failure and salvage SRS are possible. Note The following question is fully addressed in the WBRT guideline paper within this series by Gaspar et al. Given that the recommendation resulting from the systematic review of the literature on this topic is also highly relevant to the discussion of the role of surgical resection in the management of brain metastases, this recommendation has been included below. Question Does surgical resection in addition to WBRT improve outcomes when compared with WBRT alone? Target population This recommendation applies to adults with a newly diagnosed single brain metastasis amenable to surgical resection; however, the recommendation does not apply to relatively radiosensitive tumors histologies (i.e., small cell lung cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, germ cell tumors and multiple myeloma). Recommendation Surgical resection plus WBRT versus WBRT alone Level 1 Class I evidence supports the use of surgical resection plus post-operative WBRT, as compared to WBRT alone, in patients with good performance status (functionally independent and spending less than 50% of time in bed) and limited extra-cranial disease. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for patients with poor performance scores, advanced systemic disease, or multiple brain metastases.

The role of whole brain radiation therapy in the management of newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

QUESTION: Should patients with newly-diagnosed metastatic brain tumors undergo open surgical resection versus whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) and/or other treatment modalities such as radiosurgery, and in what clinical settings? TARGET POPULATION: These recommendations apply to adults with a newly diagnosed single brain metastasis amenable to surgical resection. RECOMMENDATIONS: Surgical resection plus WBRT versus surgical resection alone Level 1 Surgical resection followed by WBRT represents a superior treatment modality, in terms of improving tumor control at the original site of the metastasis and in the brain overall, when compared to surgical resection alone. Surgical resection plus WBRT versus SRS + or - WBRT Level 2 Surgical resection plus WBRT, versus stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) plus WBRT, both represent effective treatment strategies, resulting in relatively equal survival rates. SRS has not been assessed from an evidence-based standpoint for larger lesions (>3 cm) or for those causing significant mass effect (>1 cm midline shift). Level 3 Underpowered class I evidence along with the preponderance of conflicting class II evidence suggests that SRS alone may provide equivalent functional and survival outcomes compared with resection + WBRT for patients with single brain metastases, so long as ready detection of distant site failure and salvage SRS are possible. Note The following question is fully addressed in the WBRT guideline paper within this series by Gaspar et al. Given that the recommendation resulting from the systematic review of the literature on this topic is also highly relevant to the discussion of the role of surgical resection in the management of brain metastases, this recommendation has been included below.

The role of steroids in the management of brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

QUESTION: Do steroids improve neurologic symptoms in patients with metastatic brain tumors compared to no treatment? If steroids are given, what dose should be used? Comparisons include: (1) steroid therapy versus none. (2) comparison of different doses of steroid therapy. TARGET POPULATION: These recommendations apply to adults diagnosed with brain metastases. RECOMMENDATIONS: Steroid therapy versus no steroid therapy Asymptomatic brain metastases patients without mass effect Insufficient evidence exists to make a treatment recommendation for this clinical scenario. Brain metastases patients with mild symptoms related to mass effect Level 3 Corticosteroids are recommended to provide temporary symptomatic relief of symptoms related to increased intracranial pressure and edema secondary to brain metastases. It is recommended for patients who are symptomatic from metastatic disease to the brain that a starting dose of 4-8 mg/day of dexamethasone be considered. Brain metastases patients with moderate to severe symptoms related to mass effect Level 3 Corticosteroids are recommended to provide temporary symptomatic relief of symptoms related to increased intracranial pressure and edema secondary to brain metastases. If patients exhibit severe symptoms consistent with increased intracranial pressure, it is recommended that higher doses such as 16 mg/day or more be considered. Choice of Steroid Level 3 If corticosteroids are given, dexamethasone is the best drug choice given the available evidence. Duration of Corticosteroid Administration Level 3 Corticosteroids, if given, should be tapered slowly over a 2 week time period, or longer in symptomatic patients, based upon an individualized treatment regimen and a full understanding of the long-term sequelae of corticosteroid therapy. Given the very limited number of studies (two) which met the eligibility criteria for the systematic review, these are the only recommendations that can be offered based on this methodology. Please see "Discussion" and "Summary" section for additional details.

The role of prophylactic anticonvulsants in the management of brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

QUESTION: Do prophylactic anticonvulsants decrease the risk of seizure in patients with metastatic brain tumors compared with no treatment? TARGET POPULATION: These recommendations apply to adults with solid brain metastases who have not experienced a seizure due to their metastatic brain disease. RECOMMENDATION: Level 3 For adults with brain metastases who have not experienced a seizure due to their metastatic brain disease, routine prophylactic use of anticonvulsants is not recommended. Only a single underpowered randomized controlled trial (RCT), which did not detect a difference in seizure occurrence, provides evidence for decision-making purposes.

The role of emerging and investigational therapies for metastatic brain tumors: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline of selected topics.

QUESTION: What evidence is available regarding the emerging and investigational therapies for the treatment of metastatic brain tumors? TARGET POPULATION: These recommendations apply to adults with brain metastases. RECOMMENDATIONS: New radiation sensitizers Level 2 A subgroup analysis of a large prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) suggested a prolongation of time to neurological progression with the early use of motexafin-gadolinium (MGd). Nonetheless this was not borne out in the overall study population and therefore an unequivocal recommendation to use the currently available radiation sensitizers, motexafin-gadolinium and efaproxiral (RSR 13) cannot be provided. Interstitial modalities There is no evidence to support the routine use of new or existing interstitial radiation, interstitial chemotherapy and or other interstitial modalities outside of approved clinical trials. New chemotherapeutic agents Level 2 Treatment of melanoma brain metastases with whole brain radiation therapy and temozolomide is reasonable based on one class II study. Level 3 Depending on individual circumstances there may be patients who benefit from the use of temozolomide or fotemustine in the therapy of their brain metastases. Molecular targeted agents Level 3 The use of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors may be of use in the management of brain metastases from non-small cell lung carcinoma.

The role of retreatment in the management of recurrent/progressive brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

QUESTION: What evidence is available regarding the use of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), surgical resection or chemotherapy for the treatment of recurrent/progressive brain metastases? TARGET POPULATION: This recommendation applies to adults with recurrent/progressive brain metastases who have previously been treated with WBRT, surgical resection and/or radiosurgery. Recurrent/progressive brain metastases are defined as metastases that recur/progress anywhere in the brain (original and/or non-original sites) after initial therapy. RECOMMENDATION: Level 3 Since there is insufficient evidence to make definitive treatment recommendations in patients with recurrent/progressive brain metastases, treatment should be individualized based on a patient's functional status, extent of disease, volume/number of metastases, recurrence or progression at original versus non-original site, previous treatment and type of primary cancer, and enrollment in clinical trials is encouraged. In this context, the following can be recommended depending on a patient's specific condition: no further treatment (supportive care), re-irradiation (either WBRT and/or SRS), surgical excision or, to a lesser extent, chemotherapy. Question If WBRT is used in the setting of recurrent/progressive brain metastases, what impact does tumor histopathology have on treatment outcomes? No studies were identified that met the eligibility criteria for this question.

Exploiting Cancer's Tactics to Make Cancer a Manageable Chronic Disease.

The history of modern oncology started around eighty years ago with the introduction of cytotoxic agents such as nitrogen mustard into the clinic, followed by multi-agent chemotherapy protocols. Early success in radiation therapy in Hodgkin lymphoma gave birth to the introduction of radiation therapy into different cancer treatment protocols. Along with better understanding of cancer biology, we developed drugs targeting cancer-related cellular and genetic aberrancies. Discovery of the crucial role of vasculature in maintenance, survival, and growth of a tumor opened the way to the development of anti-angiogenic agents. A better understanding of T-cell regulatory pathways advanced immunotherapy. Awareness of stem-like cancer cells and their role in cancer metastasis and local recurrence led to the development of drugs targeting them. At the same time, sequential and rapidly accelerating advances in imaging and surgical technology have markedly increased our ability to safely remove ≥90% of tumor cells. While we have advanced our ability to kill cells from multiple directions, we have still failed to stop most types of cancer from recurring. Here we analyze the tactics employed in cancer evolution; namely, chromosomal instability (CIN), intra-tumoral heterogeneity (ITH), and cancer-specific metabolism. These tactics govern the resistance to current cancer therapeutics. It is time to focus on maximally delaying the time to recurrence, with drugs that target these fundamental tactics of cancer evolution. Understanding the control of CIN and the optimal state of ITH as the most important tactics in cancer evolution could facilitate the development of improved cancer therapeutic strategies designed to transform cancer into a manageable chronic disease.