Analysis of endometrial carcinoma TCGA reveals differences in DNA methylation in tumors from Black and White women.

OBJECTIVE: Racial disparities exist in cancer patients both in incidence and death rates. In endometrial cancer, Black patients are reported to have higher incidence of aggressive endometrial cancer subtypes and higher death rates than White women. To date, diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers associated with race-specific methylation driven genes have yet to be identified. The objective of this study was to explore DNA methylation patterns in endometrial tumor samples from White and Black women. METHODS: Differentially methylated CpGs (DMCs) and differentially methylated regions (DMRs) were identified in White tumor samples compared to Black tumor samples using Endometrial Carcinoma (EC) methylation and clinical data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Survival analysis was performed using survival R package and results were visualized using Kaplan-Meier plots. To access the correlation between changes in methylation and gene expression, we downloaded raw RNA-sequencing by Expectation-Maximization (RSEM) counts data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) using TCGABiolinks package (v2.18.0). RESULTS: Our analysis revealed 704 differentially methylated CpGs in tumors from Black and White women. These differentially methylated genes showed strong negative correlation with gene expression and statistically significant enrichment in regulatory regions such as DNase I hypersensitivity sites (DHSs) and transcription factor binding sites (TFBSs). Increased variability in methylation occurred in genes such as the insulin signaling pathway in Black tumor samples. CONCLUSION: By using two independent statistical method based on means (DMR, DMCs) and variances (DVCs) on the endometrial carcinoma TCGA data, we showed that endometrial tumors from Black women are hypomethylated and more hypervariable than tumors from White women. In-depth investigation of these methylation driven markers can aid in successful management of endometrial cancer disparities and improved overall survival in Black and White populations.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors as Switch or Continuation Maintenance Therapy in Solid Tumors: Rationale and Current State.

First-line chemotherapy for many solid tumors is limited by toxicity. There is a growing interest in maintenance therapy as a strategy for prolonging the benefits of first-line therapy while minimizing toxicity. Maintenance therapy can comprise either continuation of an agent given as part of the first-line regimen (continuation maintenance) or treatment with a new agent (switch maintenance). Maintenance therapy is already established in several solid tumors, including lung, breast, gastric, colorectal, and ovarian cancer. Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment has been shown to prolong duration of response and overall survival, but efficacy is generally restricted to a limited proportion of patients with selected tumors. Thus, efforts are ongoing to determine whether the clinical benefits of immune checkpoint inhibitors can be extended using novel treatment schedules and settings, including maintenance therapy. Early- and late-phase clinical trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors as switch and continuation maintenance in different tumors, and a range of phase III trials are ongoing. Interpretation of results requires consideration of trial designs, eligibility criteria, and primary endpoints, in addition to biomarker exploration, and assessment of quality of life and cost effectiveness. Findings from ongoing trials will help further define the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors as maintenance therapy across a spectrum of solid tumors.

First-line treatment in the management of advanced renal cell carcinoma: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess effectiveness of first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Database searches were conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting results for eligible treatments. A fixed-effect Bayesian NMA was conducted to assess the relative effectiveness of treatments, with progression-free survival (PFS) reported as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs). RESULTS: Eleven unique RCTs were suitable for inclusion in the NMA. In the base case, in terms of PFS, sunitinib was superior compared with bevacizumab + IFN-α (HR = 0.79, 95% CrI: 0.64 - 0.96), everolimus (HR = 0.70, 95% CrI: 0.56 - 0.87), sorafenib (HR = 0.56, 95% CrI: 0.40 - 0.77) and temsirolimus + bevacizumab (HR = 0.74, 95% CrI: 0.56 - 0.96). Although, the point values for the mean and median HRs were < 1.0, there was no significant difference in PFS between sunitinib and axitinib, pazopanib or tivozanib. Although sensitivity analyses impacted the results of the NMA, no treatment was significantly more efficacious than sunitinib. CONCLUSION: Results from this analysis suggest that there is no treatment superior to the current benchmark treatment, sunitinib, in the management of advanced RCC in the first-line setting.

Second-line treatments for the management of advanced renal cell carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: A systematic review/meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effectiveness and safety of second-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which includes the vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor axitinib. METHODS: Database searches were conducted to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Indirect comparisons using a fixed-effect Bayesian model were used to assess the relative effectiveness of treatments and reported as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). RESULTS: Although 24 RCTs met eligibility criteria, only three studies were included in the fixed-effect Bayesian meta-analysis, due to differences in patient inclusion criteria/reported outcomes in the wider dataset. Robust meta-analysis was restricted to the subgroup pretreated with cytokines. In terms of progression-free survival (PFS), axitinib was superior compared with placebo (HR = 0.25, 95% CrI: 0.17 - 0.38), sorafenib (HR = 0.46, 95% CrI: 0.32 - 0.68) and pazopanib (HR = 0.47, 95% CrI: 0.26 - 0.85). An analysis including all patients, regardless of previous first-line treatment, reported similar results. There was no significant difference in PFS between sorafenib and pazopanib. CONCLUSION: Results from the present study suggest that axitinib will be an important treatment option to extend PFS in the management of advanced RCC in the second-line setting. Ongoing research will define the optimal treatment algorithm leading to a patient-focused treatment strategy.