A molecular switch from tumor suppressor to oncogene in ER+ve breast cancer: Role of androgen receptor, JAK-STAT, and lineage plasticity.

Cancers develop resistance to inhibitors of oncogenes mainly due to target-centric mechanisms such as mutations and splicing. While inhibitors or antagonists force targets to unnatural conformation contributing to protein instability and resistance, activating tumor suppressors may maintain the protein in an agonistic conformation to elicit sustainable growth inhibition. Due to the lack of tumor suppressor agonists, this hypothesis and the mechanisms underlying resistance are not understood. In estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer (BC), androgen receptor (AR) is a druggable tumor suppressor offering a promising avenue for this investigation. Spatial genomics suggests that the molecular portrait of AR-expressing BC cells in tumor microenvironment corresponds to better overall patient survival, clinically confirming AR's role as a tumor suppressor. Ligand activation of AR in ER-positive BC xenografts reprograms cistromes, inhibits oncogenic pathways, and promotes cellular elasticity toward a more differentiated state. Sustained AR activation results in cistrome rearrangement toward transcription factor PROP paired-like homeobox 1, transformation of AR into oncogene, and activation of the Janus kinase/signal transducer (JAK/STAT) pathway, all culminating in lineage plasticity to an aggressive resistant subtype. While the molecular profile of AR agonist-sensitive tumors corresponds to better patient survival, the profile represented in the resistant phenotype corresponds to shorter survival. Inhibition of activated oncogenes in resistant tumors reduces growth and resensitizes them to AR agonists. These findings indicate that persistent activation of a context-dependent tumor suppressor may lead to resistance through lineage plasticity-driven tumor metamorphosis. Our work provides a framework to explore the above phenomenon across multiple cancer types and underscores the importance of factoring sensitization of tumor suppressor targets while developing agonist-like drugs.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Melanoma: Cutaneous, Version 2.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Cutaneous Melanoma (termed Melanoma: Cutaneous) provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the update to neoadjuvant systemic therapy options and summarize the new clinical data evaluated by the NCCN panel for the recommended therapies in Version 2.2024 of the NCCN Guidelines for Cutaneous Melanoma.

International Center-Level Variation in Utilization of Completion Lymph Node Dissection and Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Sentinel Lymph Node-Positive Melanoma at Major Referral Centers.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine overall trends and center-level variation in utilization of completion lymph node dissection (CLND) and adjuvant systemic therapy for sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive melanoma. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Based on recent clinical trials, management options for SLN-positive melanoma now include effective adjuvant systemic therapy and nodal observation instead of CLND. It is unknown how these findings have shaped practice or how these contemporaneous developments have influenced their respective utilization. METHODS: We performed an international cohort study at 21 melanoma referral centers in Australia, Europe, and the United States that treated adults with SLN-positive melanoma and negative distant staging from July 2017 to June 2019. We used generalized linear and multinomial logistic regression models with random intercepts for each center to assess center-level variation in CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, adjusting for patient and disease-specific characteristics. RESULTS: Among 1109 patients, performance of CLND decreased from 28% to 8% and adjuvant systemic therapy use increased from 29 to 60%. For both CLND and adjuvant systemic treatment, the most influential factors were nodal tumor size, stage, and location of treating center. There was notable variation among treating centers in management of stage IIIA patients and use of CLND with adjuvant systemic therapy versus nodal observation alone for similar risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: There has been an overall decline in CLND and simultaneous adoption of adjuvant systemic therapy for patients with SLN-positive melanoma though wide variation in practice remains. Accounting for differences in patient mix, location of care contributed significantly to the observed variation.

Visceral angiosarcoma: A nationwide analysis of treatment factors and outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Visceral angiosarcoma is rare and aggressive, accounting for 2% of soft tissue sarcomas. Using a national data set, we examine determinants of outcomes for patients presenting with this rare disease. METHODS: The 2004-2015 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with visceral angiosarcoma. Trends in treatment and outcomes were examined. Factors affecting overall survival (OS) were assessed with log-rank and Cox regression. RESULTS: Eight hundred and ninety-three patients with visceral angiosarcoma were identified (median age 65 years, male [63%], Charlson comorbidity index <1 [86%]). Tumor size was <5 cm in 20.7%, and 34.2% were moderate/high grade. Median OS was 3.8 months (95% CI: 3.4-4.4). By multivariate analysis, increased tumor grade and size, and liver/biliary origin demonstrated worse OS while surgery, radiation, and systemic chemotherapy demonstrated improved OS (all p < 0.001). Survival was similar between patients achieving R0 resection and those with R1/2 resection receiving chemotherapy by Kaplan-Meier analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Visceral angiosarcomas are rare tumors with poor outcomes. Liver/biliary origin, higher tumor grade, and larger tumor size demonstrate worse outcomes. While R0 resection remains the mainstay of treatment, patients with R1/R2 resection have improved survival with addition of chemotherapy. Consideration should be made for multimodal therapy in these patients.

Active surveillance of patients who have sentinel node positive melanoma: An international, multi-institution evaluation of adoption and early outcomes after the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial II (MSLT-2).

BACKGROUND: For patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive cutaneous melanoma, the Second Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy trial demonstrated equivalent disease-specific survival (DSS) with active surveillance using nodal ultrasound versus completion lymph node dissection (CLND). Adoption and outcomes of active surveillance in clinical practice and in adjuvant therapy recipients are unknown. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort of SLN-positive adults treated at 21 institutions in Australia, Europe, and the United States from June 2017 to November 2019, the authors evaluated the impact of active surveillance and adjuvant therapy on all-site recurrence-free survival (RFS), isolated nodal RFS, distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and DSS using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Among 6347 SLN biopsies, 1154 (18%) were positive and had initial negative distant staging. In total, 965 patients (84%) received active surveillance, 189 (16%) underwent CLND. Four hundred thirty-nine patients received adjuvant therapy (surveillance, 38%; CLND, 39%), with the majority (83%) receiving anti-PD-1 immunotherapy. After a median follow-up of 11 months, 220 patients developed recurrent disease (surveillance, 19%; CLND, 22%), and 24 died of melanoma (surveillance, 2%; CLND, 4%). Sixty-eight patients had an isolated nodal recurrence (surveillance, 6%; CLND, 4%). In patients who received adjuvant treatment without undergoing prior CLND, all isolated nodal recurrences were resectable. On risk-adjusted multivariable analyses, CLND was associated with improved isolated nodal RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.88), but not all-site RFS (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.45-1.02). Adjuvant therapy improved all-site RFS (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.47-0.57). DSS and DMFS did not differ by nodal management or adjuvant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance has been adopted for most SLN-positive patients. At initial assessment, real-world outcomes align with randomized trial findings, including in adjuvant therapy recipients. LAY SUMMARY: For patients with melanoma of the skin and microscopic spread to lymph nodes, monitoring with ultrasound is an alternative to surgically removing the remaining lymph nodes. The authors studied adoption and real-world outcomes of ultrasound monitoring in over 1000 patients treated at 21 centers worldwide, finding that most patients now have ultrasounds instead of surgery. Although slightly more patients have cancer return in the lymph nodes with this strategy, typically, it can be removed with delayed surgery. Compared with up-front surgery, ultrasound monitoring results in the same overall risk of melanoma coming back at any location or of dying from melanoma.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Melanoma: Cutaneous, Version 2.2021.

Over the past few years, the NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma: Cutaneous have been expanded to include pathways for treatment of microscopic satellitosis (added in v2.2020), and the following Principles sections: Molecular Testing (added in v2.2019), Systemic Therapy Considerations (added in v2.2020), and Brain Metastases Management (added in v3.2020). The v1.2021 update included additional modifications of these sections and notable revisions to Principles of: Pathology, Surgical Margins for Wide Excision of Primary Melanoma, Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy, Completion/Therapeutic Lymph Node Dissection, and Radiation Therapy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the important changes to pathology and surgery recommendations, as well as additions to systemic therapy options for patients with advanced disease.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Uveal Melanoma, Version 1.2019.

The NCCN Guidelines for Uveal Melanoma include recommendations for staging, treatment, and follow-up of patients diagnosed with uveal melanoma of the choroid or ciliary body. In addition, because distinguishing between uveal melanoma and benign uveal nevi is in some cases difficult, these guidelines also contain recommendations for workup of patients with suspicious pigmented uveal lesions, to clarify the tests needed to distinguish between those who should have further workup and treatment for uveal melanoma versus those with uncertain diagnosis and low risk who should to be followed and later reevaluated. These NCCN Guidelines Insights describe recommendations for treatment of newly diagnosed nonmetastatic uveal melanoma in patients who have already undergone a complete workup.

Cutaneous Melanoma, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Cutaneous melanoma have been significantly revised over the past few years in response to emerging data on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies and BRAF-targeted therapy. This article summarizes the data and rationale supporting extensive changes to the recommendations for systemic therapy as adjuvant treatment of resected disease and as treatment of unresectable or distant metastatic disease.

Guidance of sentinel lymph node biopsy decisions in patients with T1-T2 melanoma using gene expression profiling.

AIM: Can gene expression profiling be used to identify patients with T1-T2 melanoma at low risk for sentinel lymph node (SLN) positivity? PATIENTS & METHODS: Bioinformatics modeling determined a population in which a 31-gene expression profile test predicted <5% SLN positivity. Multicenter, prospectively-tested (n = 1421) and retrospective (n = 690) cohorts were used for validation and outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: Patients 55-64 years and ≥65 years with a class 1A (low-risk) profile had SLN positivity rates of 4.9% and 1.6%. Class 2B (high-risk) patients had SLN positivity rates of 30.8% and 11.9%. Melanoma-specific survival was 99.3% for patients ≥55 years with class 1A, T1-T2 tumors and 55.0% for class 2B, SLN-positive, T1-T2 tumors. CONCLUSION: The 31-gene expression profile test identifies patients who could potentially avoid SLN biopsy.

Performance of a prognostic 31-gene expression profile in an independent cohort of 523 cutaneous melanoma patients.

BACKGROUND: The heterogeneous behavior of patients with melanoma makes prognostication challenging. To address this, a gene expression profile (GEP) test to predict metastatic risk was previously developed. This study evaluates the GEP's prognostic accuracy in an independent cohort of cutaneous melanoma patients. METHODS: This multi-center study analyzed primary melanoma tumors from 523 patients, using the GEP to classify patients as Class 1 (low risk) and Class 2 (high risk). Molecular classification was correlated to clinical outcome and assessed along with AJCC v7 staging criteria. Primary endpoints were recurrence-free (RFS) and distant metastasis-free (DMFS) survival. RESULTS: The 5-year RFS rates for Class 1 and Class 2 were 88% and 52%, respectively, and DMFS rates were 93% versus 60%, respectively (P < 0.001). The GEP was a significant predictor of RFS and DMFS in univariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.4 and 6.6, respectively, P < 0.001 for each), along with Breslow thickness, ulceration, mitotic rate, and sentinel lymph node (SLN) status (P < 0.001 for each). GEP, tumor thickness and SLN status were significant predictors of RFS and DMFS in a multivariate model that also included ulceration and mitotic rate (RFS HR = 2.1, 1.2, and 2.5, respectively, P < 0.001 for each; and DMFS HR = 2.7, 1.3 and 3.0, respectively, P < 0.01 for each). CONCLUSIONS: The GEP test is an objective predictor of metastatic risk and provides additional independent prognostic information to traditional staging to help estimate an individual's risk for recurrence. The assay identified 70% of stage I and II patients who ultimately developed distant metastasis. Its role in consideration of patients for adjuvant therapy should be examined prospectively.

Impact of body mass index on the short-term outcomes of resected gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

BACKGROUND: Potentially curative treatment for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) involves resection with selective utilization of tyrosine kinase inhibitors. A potential association between obesity and GIST has been postulated as GIST is among the most common incidental findings during gastric resection for bariatric procedures. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship and impact of obesity on the pathologic and short-term outcomes in patients with GIST. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with resected GIST. The impact of obesity, defined as body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2, on pathologic results and short-term outcomes was evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients underwent resection with a median follow-up of 26 mo (1-129 mo). Disease involved the stomach (74%), small intestine (18%), or colon/rectum (5%). Median tumor size was 6 cm, and 13 patients (21%) underwent multivisceral resection. Median BMI for the cohort was 27.2 kg/m2, and 24 patients (39%) were classified as obese based on BMI. Nonobese patients were noted to have larger primary tumors (median: 7 cm versus 5 cm, P = 0.02) and undergo multivisceral resection more frequently (32.4% versus 4.2%, P < 0.01). Short-term outcomes were similar between the groups, with a slight trend toward more postoperative complications among the obese patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, obese patients tended to have more favorable pathologic features. GISTs may represent another example of the "obesity paradox" in which obesity seemingly provides a protective effect. Larger studies are warranted to verify the impact of obesity on outcomes and to elucidate any underlying clinicopathologic/biologic factors.

Melanoma, Version 2.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Melanoma focuses on adjuvant therapy and treatment of in-transit disease, because substantial changes were made to the recommendations for the 2016 update. Depending on the stage of the disease, options for adjuvant therapy now include biochemotherapy and high-dose ipilimumab. Treatment options for in-transit disease now include intralesional injection with talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), a new immunotherapy. These additions prompted re-assessment of the data supporting older recommended treatment options for adjuvant therapy and in-transit disease, resulting in extensive revisions to the supporting discussion sections.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Melanoma, Version 3.2016.

The NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma have been significantly revised over the past few years in response to emerging data on a number of novel agents and treatment regimens. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the data and rationale supporting extensive changes to the recommendations for systemic therapy in patients with metastatic or unresectable melanoma.

Melanoma, version 4.2014.

The NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the management of patients with melanoma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight notable recent updates. Dabrafenib and trametinib, either as monotherapy (category 1) or combination therapy, have been added as systemic options for patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma harboring BRAF V600 mutations. Controversy continues regarding the value of adjuvant radiation for patients at high risk of nodal relapse. This is reflected in the category 2B designation to consider adjuvant radiation following lymphadenectomy for stage III melanoma with clinically positive nodes or recurrent disease.

Melanoma, version 2.2013: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines.

The NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma provide multidisciplinary recommendations on the clinical management of patients with melanoma. This NCCN Guidelines Insights report highlights notable recent updates. Foremost of these is the exciting addition of the novel agents ipilimumab and vemurafenib for treatment of advanced melanoma. The NCCN panel also included imatinib as a treatment for KIT-mutated tumors and pegylated interferon alfa-2b as an option for adjuvant therapy. Also important are revisions to the initial stratification of early-stage lesions based on the risk of sentinel lymph node metastases, and revised recommendations on the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy for low-risk groups. Finally, the NCCN panel reached clinical consensus on clarifying the role of imaging in the workup of patients with melanoma.

Early-stage breast cancer treatment disparities in the Midsouth: Has anything changed?

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine if racial disparities in treatment and survival persist among patients with breast cancer in the Midsouth. METHODS: Patients with early-stage breast cancer were identified in the tumor registry of a large healthcare system in the Midsouth. Regression analyses were performed to determine how race was associated with receipt of treatment and mortality. RESULTS: Among 4605 patients, 38.8% were Black. Black patients were less likely to undergo surgery (OR = 0.71; 95%CI 0.53-0.97) and receive hormone therapy (OR = 0.81; 95%CI 0.69-0.95) than White patients, but more likely to receive radiation (OR = 1.20; 95%CI 1.08-1.40) and chemotherapy (OR = 1.36; 95%CI 1.16-1.61). Among Black patients, the risk of mortality was lower among those who underwent partial (OR = 0.25; 95%CI 0.12-0.51) or total (OR = 0.35; 95%CI 0.16-0.76) mastectomy and among those who received hormone therapy (OR = 0.62; 95%CI 0.40-0.97). CONCLUSION: There remains room for improvement in providing treatments that optimize survival among this patient population.

Identification of a targetable JAK-STAT enriched androgen receptor and androgen receptor splice variant positive triple-negative breast cancer subtype.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype with no targeted therapeutics. The luminal androgen receptor (LAR) subtype constitutes 15% of TNBC and is enriched for androgen receptor (AR) and AR target genes. Here, we show that a cohort of TNBC not only expresses AR at a much higher rate (∼80%) but also expresses AR splice variants (AR-SVs) (∼20%), further subclassifying LAR-TNBC. Higher AR and AR-SV expression and corresponding aggressive phenotypes are observed predominantly in specimens obtained from African American women. LAR TNBC specimens are enriched for interferon, Janus kinase (JAK)-signal activator and transducer (STAT), and androgen signaling pathways, which are exclusive to AR-expressing epithelial cancer cells. AR- and AR-SV-expressing TNBC cell proliferation and xenograft and patient-tumor explant growth are inhibited by AR N-terminal domain-binding selective AR degrader or by a JAK inhibitor. Biochemical analysis suggests that STAT1 is an AR coactivator. Collectively, our work identifies pharmacologically targetable TNBC subtypes and identifies growth-promoting interaction between AR and JAK-STAT signaling.

Impact of adjuvant therapies following surgery for anal melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Anal melanoma is rare. Surgery is standard of care for non-metastatic disease. There are limited data supporting adjuvant therapy. We sought to examine the impact of adjuvant radiation, chemotherapy and immunotherapy on survival. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried. Factors associated with overall survival were examined by Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analyses. Patients were grouped by treatment regimen. RESULTS: 450 patients had complete treatment data: surgery alone (63.8%), surgery + radiation (14.9%), surgery + chemotherapy (7.6%), surgery + immunotherapy (9.6%) and non-surgical treatment (4.2%). Median survival was 27.2 months. Node-positive patients had worse survival than node-negative (22.4 vs. 36.8 months; p = 0.0002). Non-surgical treatment yielded worse survival than any surgery-inclusive regimen (10.4 vs. 27.8 months; p = 0.0002). No adjuvant modality conferred a survival advantage. By multivariate analysis, increasing age (HR/1 year = 1.02, p = 0.012) and node positivity (HR = 2.10, p = 0.0002) negatively impacted survival. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapy for non-metastatic anal melanoma does not appear to influence survival.

Expanded evidence that the 31-gene expression profile test provides clinical utility for melanoma management in a multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for cutaneous melanoma (CM) recommend physicians consider increased surveillance for patients who typically have lower melanoma survival rates (stages IIB-IV as determined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC), 8th edition). However, up to 15% of patients identified as having a low recurrence risk (stages I-IIA) experience disease recurrence, and some patients identified as having a high recurrence risk will not experience any recurrence. The 31-gene expression profile test (31-GEP) stratifies patient recurrence risk into low (Class 1) and high (Class 2) and has demonstrated risk-appropriate impact on disease management and clinical decisions. METHODS: Five-year plans for lab work, frequency of clinical visits, and imaging pre- and post-31-GEP test results were assessed for a cohort of 509 stage I-III patients following an interim subset analysis of 247 patients. RESULTS: After receiving 31-GEP results, 50.6% of patients had a change in management plans in at least one of the following categories-clinical visits, lab work, or surveillance imaging. The changes aligned with the risk predicted by the 31-GEP for 76.1% of patients with a Class 1 result and 78.7% of patients with a Class 2 result. A Class 1 31-GEP result was associated with changes toward low-intensity management recommendations, while a Class 2 result was associated with changes toward high-intensity management recommendations. CONCLUSION: The 31-GEP can stratify patient recurrence risk in patients with CM, and clinicians understand and apply the prognostic ability of the 31-GEP test to alter patient management in risk-appropriate directions.

When caught early, cancer of the skin can usually be removed, and patients have excellent chances of survival. However, some patients will have their cancer come back or spread to a new location in their body.The 31-gene expression profile (GEP) test measures the expression levels of 31 genes from an individual patient's tumor. A proprietary formula uses this information to identify the risk of recurrence or spread as low risk (Class 1) or high risk (Class 2). Cancers with low-risk 31-GEP scores have a lower chance of cancer recurrence or spread than patients with a high-risk score.In this study, we wanted to determine if doctors treated patients with low-risk scores differently from patients with high-risk scores. We found that doctors changed approximately half of patient treatment plans (doctor visits, lab work, or imaging to see if the cancer has come back) after learning the 31-GEP test results. Doctors usually planned less frequent follow-up visits for Class 1 results and more frequent follow up for Class 2 results.This study found doctors understand and make changes to their treatment plans based on the patient's 31-GEP test result.

Traveling for Pancreatic Cancer Care Is Worth the Trip.

BACKGROUND: Centralized care for patients with pancreatic cancer is associated with longer survival. We hypothesized that increased travel distance from home is associated with increased survival for pancreatic cancer patients. METHODS: The National Cancer Database user file for all pancreatic cancer patients was investigated from 2004 through 2015. Distance from the patients' zip code to the treating facility was determined. Survival was investigated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox hazard ratios (CoxHRs) were determined based on stage of disease, distance traveled for care, and clinical factors. RESULTS: 340 780 patients were identified. In the average age of 68 ± 12 years, 51% were male and 83% were Caucasian. For all stages of cancer, longer survival was associated with traveling farther (P < .001). The survival advantage was longer for Caucasians than African Americans (3.7 months vs. 2.6 months, P < .001) Travel was associated with a 13% decrease in risk of death (P < .001). Even controlling for the pathologic stage, traveling farther was associated with decreased risk of death (CoxHR = .91, P < .001). DISCUSSION: Traveling for care is associated with improved survival for pancreatic cancer patients. While a selection bias may exist, the fact that all stages of patients investigated benefited suggests that this is a real phenomenon.