Eitan Amir

Prognostic role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Inflammation may play an important role in cancer progression, and a high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been reported to be a poor prognostic indicator in several malignancies. Here we quantify the prognostic impact of this biomarker and assess its consistency in solid tumors. METHODS A systematic review of electronic databases was conducted to identify publications exploring the association of blood NLR and clinical outcome in solid tumors. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcome, and cancer-specific survival (CSS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were secondary outcomes. Data from studies reporting a hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) or a P value were pooled in a meta-analysis. Pooled hazard ratios were computed and weighted using generic inverse-variance and random-effect modeling. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS One hundred studies comprising 40559 patients were included in the analysis, 57 of them published in 2012 or later. Median cutoff for NLR was 4. Overall, NLR greater than the cutoff was associated with a hazard ratio for OS of 1.81 (95% CI = 1.67 to 1.97; P < .001), an effect observed in all disease subgroups, sites, and stages. Hazard ratios for NLR greater than the cutoff for CSS, PFS, and DFS were 1.61, 1.63, and 2.27, respectively (all P < .001). CONCLUSIONS A high NLR is associated with an adverse OS in many solid tumors. The NLR is a readily available and inexpensive biomarker, and its addition to established prognostic scores for clinical decision making warrants further investigation.

Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries

The burden of cancer is growing, and the disease is becoming a major economic expenditure for all developed countries. In 2008, the worldwide cost of cancer due to premature death and disability (not including direct medical costs) was estimated to be US

Toxicity of Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

895 billion. This is not simply due to an increase in absolute numbers, but also the rate of increase of expenditure on cancer. What are the drivers and solutions to the so-called cancer-cost curve in developed countries? How are we going to afford to deliver high quality and equitable care? Here, expert opinion from health-care professionals, policy makers, and cancer survivors has been gathered to address the barriers and solutions to delivering affordable cancer care. Although many of the drivers and themes are specific to a particular field-eg, the huge development costs for cancer medicines-there is strong concordance running through each contribution. Several drivers of cost, such as over-use, rapid expansion, and shortening life cycles of cancer technologies (such as medicines and imaging modalities), and the lack of suitable clinical research and integrated health economic studies, have converged with more defensive medical practice, a less informed regulatory system, a lack of evidence-based sociopolitical debate, and a declining degree of fairness for all patients with cancer. Urgent solutions range from re-engineering of the macroeconomic basis of cancer costs (eg, value-based approaches to bend the cost curve and allow cost-saving technologies), greater education of policy makers, and an informed and transparent regulatory system. A radical shift in cancer policy is also required. Political toleration of unfairness in access to affordable cancer treatment is unacceptable. The cancer profession and industry should take responsibility and not accept a substandard evidence base and an ethos of very small benefit at whatever cost; rather, we need delivery of fair prices and real value from new technologies.

Assessing Women at High Risk of Breast Cancer: A Review of Risk Assessment Models

BACKGROUND Aromatase inhibitors are associated with consistent improvements in disease-free survival but not in overall survival. We conducted a literature-based meta-analysis of randomized trials to examine whether the relative toxicity of aromatase inhibitors compared with tamoxifen may explain this finding. METHODS We conducted a systematic review to identify randomized controlled trials that compared aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen as primary adjuvant endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and databases of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. Odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), absolute risks, and the number needed to harm associated with one adverse event were computed for prespecified serious adverse events including cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, bone fractures, thromboembolic events, endometrial carcinoma and other second cancers not including new breast cancer. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS Seven trials enrolling 30,023 patients met the inclusion criteria. Longer duration of aromatase inhibitor use was associated with increased odds of developing cardiovascular disease (OR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.43, P < .001; number needed to harm = 132) and bone fractures (OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.61, P < .001; number needed to harm = 46), but a decreased odds of venous thrombosis (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.46 to 0.64, P < .001; number needed to harm = 79) and endometrial carcinoma (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.53, P < .001; number needed to harm = 258). Five years of aromatase inhibitors was associated with a non-statistically significant increased odds of death without recurrence compared with 5 years of tamoxifen alone or tamoxifen for 2-3 years followed by an aromatase inhibitor for 2-3 years (OR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.26, P = .09). CONCLUSIONS The cumulative toxicity of aromatase inhibitors when used as up-front treatment may explain the lack of overall survival benefit despite improvements in disease-free survival. Switching from tamoxifen to aromatase inhibitors reduces this toxicity and is likely the best balance between efficacy and toxicity.

Prospective Study Evaluating the Impact of Tissue Confirmation of Metastatic Disease in Patients With Breast Cancer

Women who are at high risk of breast cancer can be offered more intensive surveillance or prophylactic measures, such as surgery or chemoprevention. Central to decisions regarding the level of prevention is accurate and individualized risk assessment. This review aims to distill the diverse literature and provide practicing clinicians with an overview of the available risk assessment methods. Risk assessments fall into two groups: the risk of carrying a mutation in a high-risk gene such as BRCA1 or BRCA2 and the risk of developing breast cancer with or without such a mutation. Knowledge of breast cancer risks, taken together with the risks and benefits of the intervention, is needed to choose an appropriate disease management strategy. A number of models have been developed for assessing these risks, but independent validation of such models has produced variable results. Some models are able to predict both mutation carriage risks and breast cancer risk; however, to date, all are limited by only moderate discriminatory accuracy. Further improvements in the knowledge of how to best integrate both new risk factors and newly discovered genetic variants into these models will allow clinicians to more accurately determine which women are most likely to develop breast cancer. These steady and incremental improvements in models will need to undergo revalidation.

Adjuvant Therapy in the Treatment of Biliary Tract Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE Decisions about treatment for women with metastatic breast cancer are usually based on the estrogen (ER), progesterone (PgR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status of the primary tumor. Retrospective data suggest that discordance between primary and metastatic lesions leads to detrimental outcome. This prospective study investigated receptor status of primary tumors and metastases in the same patient and assessed the impact of discordance on patient management and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS Biopsies of suspected metastases were analyzed for ER, PgR, and HER2. Primary tumors and metastases were analyzed using similar methodology. The treating oncologist indicated a treatment plan before and after biopsy to determine whether the result influenced management. Patients were followed up for progression or death. RESULTS Of 121 women undergoing biopsy, 80% could be analyzed for receptor status. Discordance in ER, PgR, and HER2 between the primary and the metastasis was 16%, 40%, and 10%, respectively. Biopsy led to a reported change of management in 14% of women (95% CI, 8.4% to 21.5%). Fine-needle aspiration and biopsy of bone led to reduced ability to analyze receptors. After a median follow-up of 12 months, there were no trends for an association between receptor discordance and either time to treatment failure or overall survival. CONCLUSION Biopsy of metastases is technically feasible. Clinicians alter immediate management in one of seven patients on the basis of results of the biopsy, and discordance is not then associated with detrimental effects on outcome. Tissue confirmation should be considered in women with breast cancer and suspected metastatic recurrence.

Prognostic Role of Platelet to Lymphocyte Ratio in Solid Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE The benefit of adjuvant therapy (AT) for biliary tract cancer (BTC) is unclear, with conflicting results from nonrandomized studies. We report a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the impact of AT on survival. METHODS Studies published between 1960 and November 2010, which evaluated adjuvant chemotherapy (CT), radiotherapy (RT), or both (CRT) compared with curative-intent surgery alone for resected BTC were included. Only tumors of the gallbladder and bile ducts were assessed. Published data were extracted and computed into odds ratios (ORs) for death at 5 years. Subgroup analyses of benefit based on lymph node (LN) or resection margin positivity (R1) were prespecified. Data were weighted by generic inverse variance and pooled using random-effect modeling. RESULTS Twenty studies involving 6,712 patients were analyzed. There was a nonsignificant improvement in overall survival with any AT compared with surgery alone (pooled OR, 0.74; P = .06). There was no difference between gallbladder and bile duct tumors (P = .68). The association was significant when the two registry analyses were excluded. Those receiving CT or CRT derived statistically greater benefit than RT alone (OR, 0.39, 0.61, and 0.98, respectively; P = .02). The greatest benefit for AT was in those with LN-positive disease (OR, 0.49; P = .004) and R1 disease (OR, 0.36; P = .002). CONCLUSION This analysis supports AT for BTC. Prospective randomized trials are needed to provide better rationale for this commonly used strategy. On the basis of our data, such trials could involve two active comparators rather than a no-treatment arm among patients with LN-positive or R1 disease.

Tissue confirmation of disease recurrence in breast cancer patients: pooled analysis of multi-centre, multi-disciplinary prospective studies.

Background: Inflammation influences cancer development and progression. An elevated platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), a marker of inflammation, has been linked to poor prognosis in several malignancies. Here, we quantify the prognostic impact of this biomarker. Methods: A systematic review of databases was conducted to identify publications exploring the association of blood PLR and overall survival (OS) in solid tumors. Data were pooled in a meta-analysis. Pooled HRs for OS by disease group and by PLR cutoff groups were computed and weighted using generic inverse-variance and random-effect modeling. Results: Twenty studies comprising 12,754 patients were assessed. Cutoffs for PLR defining risk groups ranged from 150 to 300 and were dichotomous (12 studies; group 1) or split into three groups (<150/150–300/>300, 8 studies; group 2). Higher PLR was associated with significantly worse OS in group 1 [HR = 1.87; 95% confidence interval (CI, 1.49–2.34); P < 0.001] and with a nonsignificant association in group 2 (HR per higher category = 1.21; 95%CI, 0.97–1.50; P = 0.10). The size of effect of PLR on OS was greater for metastatic disease (HR[group 1] = 2.0; 95% CI, 1.6–2.7; HR[group 2] = 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1–2.4) than for early-stage disease (HR[group 1] = 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0–2.2; HR[group 2] = 1.0; 95% CI, 0.8–1.3). A significant association was observed for colorectal, hepatocellular, gastroesophageal, ovarian, and pancreatic carcinoma in group 1 and for colorectal cancers in group 2. Conclusion: A high PLR is associated with worse OS in various solid tumors. Further research of its regulation and relevance in daily practice is warranted. Impact: PLR is a readily available and inexpensive biomarker with independent prognostic value in solid tumors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(7); 1204–12. ©2014 AACR.

PDK1-Dependent Metabolic Reprogramming Dictates Metastatic Potential in Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND Treatment decisions in recurrent breast cancer are usually based on the estrogen (ER), progesterone (PgR) and HER2 receptor status of the primary tumour. Retrospective studies suggest that discordance between receptor expression of primary and recurrent breast cancer exists. METHODS A pooled analysis of individual patient data from two large prospective studies comprising biopsy of recurrent lesions obtained from consenting patients was undertaken. Tissue was analyzed for ER, PgR by immunohistochemistry and HER2 by FISH. Receptor status of recurrent disease was compared with that of the primary tumour. Recruiting clinicians assessed whether or not receptor discordance affected subsequent systemic treatment. RESULTS Two hundred and eighty-nine patients underwent biopsy. Recurrent biopsy specimens were obtained from locoregional recurrence in 48.1% and from distant metastases in 51.9%. Distant sites included skin/soft tissue (25.0%), bone/bone marrow (19.2%) and liver (15.8%). Benign disease or second primary cancer was observed in 7.6% of biopsies. Discordance in ER, PgR or HER2 between confirmed primary and recurrent breast cancer was 12.6%, 31.2% and 5.5%, respectively (all p<0.001). Biopsy results altered management in 14.2% of patients undergoing biopsy (95% confidence intervals 10.4-18.8%, p≤0.0001). The duration between primary and recurrent disease, the site of recurrence and the receptor profile of the primary tumour did not affect discordance rates. CONCLUSIONS There is substantial discordance in receptor status between primary and recurrent breast cancer. The number needed to biopsy in order to alter treatment was 7.1. Patients with recurrent breast cancer should have tissue confirmation of receptor status of recurrent disease.

Biosimilars of Biological Drug Therapies Regulatory, Clinical and Commercial Considerations

Metabolic reprogramming is a hallmark of cellular transformation, yet little is known about metabolic changes that accompany tumor metastasis. Here we show that primary breast cancer cells display extensive metabolic heterogeneity and engage distinct metabolic programs depending on their site of metastasis. Liver-metastatic breast cancer cells exhibit a unique metabolic program compared to bone- or lung-metastatic cells, characterized by increased conversion of glucose-derived pyruvate into lactate and a concomitant reduction in mitochondrial metabolism. Liver-metastatic cells displayed increased HIF-1α activity and expression of the HIF-1α target Pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase-1 (PDK1). Silencing HIF-1α reversed the glycolytic phenotype of liver-metastatic cells, while PDK1 was specifically required for metabolic adaptation to nutrient limitation and hypoxia. Finally, we demonstrate that PDK1 is required for efficient liver metastasis, and its expression is elevated in liver metastases from breast cancer patients. Our data implicate PDK1 as a key regulator of metabolism and metastatic potential in breast cancer.