Enrico Ricevuto

A Six-Gene Signature Predicting Breast Cancer Lung Metastasis

The lungs are a frequent target of metastatic breast cancer cells, but the underlying molecular mechanisms are unclear. All existing data were obtained either using statistical association between gene expression measurements found in primary tumors and clinical outcome, or using experimentally derived signatures from mouse tumor models. Here, we describe a distinct approach that consists of using tissue surgically resected from lung metastatic lesions and comparing their gene expression profiles with those from nonpulmonary sites, all coming from breast cancer patients. We show that the gene expression profiles of organ-specific metastatic lesions can be used to predict lung metastasis in breast cancer. We identified a set of 21 lung metastasis-associated genes. Using a cohort of 72 lymph node-negative breast cancer patients, we developed a 6-gene prognostic classifier that discriminated breast primary cancers with a significantly higher risk of lung metastasis. We then validated the predictive ability of the 6-gene signature in 3 independent cohorts of breast cancers consisting of a total of 721 patients. Finally, we show that the signature improves risk stratification independently of known standard clinical variables and a previously established lung metastasis signature based on an experimental breast cancer metastasis model.

Penetrances of breast and ovarian cancer in a large series of families tested for BRCA1/2 mutations.

Accurate estimates of breast and ovarian cancer penetrance in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers are crucial in genetic counseling. Estimation is difficult because of the low frequency of mutated alleles and the often-uncertain mechanisms of family ascertainment. We estimated the penetrances of breast and ovarian cancers in carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations by maximizing the retrospective likelihood of the genetic model, given the observed test results, in 568 Italian families screened for germline mutations. The software BRCAPRO was used as a probability calculation tool in a Markov Chain Monte Carlo approach. Breast cancer penetrances were 27% (95% CI 20–34%) at age 50 years and 39% (27–52%) at age 70 in BRCA1 carriers, and 26% (0.18–0.34%) at age 50 and 44% (29–58%) at age 70 in BRCA2 carriers, and ovarian cancer penetrances were 14% (7–22%) at age 50 and 43% (21–66%) at age 70 in BRCA1 carriers and 3% (0–7%) at age 50 and 15% (4–26%) at age 70 in BRCA2 carriers. The new model gave a better fit than the current default in BRCAPRO, the likelihood being 70 log units greater; in addition, the observed numbers of mutations in families stratified by gene and by cancer profile were not significantly different from those expected. Our new penetrance functions are appropriate for predicting breast cancer risk, and for determining the probability of carrying BRCA1/2 mutations, in people who are presently referred to genetic counseling in Italy. Our approach could lead to country-customized versions of the BRCAPRO software by providing appropriate population-specific estimates.

Evaluation of widely used models for predicting BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations

Deleterious mutations of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are a major risk factor for the development of breast and ovarian cancers.1–4 Mutation tests for these two genes commonly are now offered in specialised clinics.5,6 As a result, a large number of women with personal or family histories of breast or ovarian cancer seek genetic counselling. Accurate evaluation of the probability that a woman carries a germline pathogenic mutation at BRCA1 or BRCA2 therefore is essential to help counsellors and those being counselled to decide whether testing is appropriate. In this context, the questions of practical interest are: Given the pedigree, what is the chance of a mutation being present? and What is the chance of the DNA laboratory finding a mutation? After testing became available, several models were developed to assess the pre-test probability of identifying carriers of mutations. Broadly speaking, two different approaches have been used to develop predictive models: the “empirical approach” and the “Mendelian approach”.7 In empirical models, families are stratified according to variables that describe their family history; regression or other approaches are used to predict the results of Mendelian testing. In some cases, this approach simply consists of observing the proportion of mutations found in different strata. Mendelian models, in contrast, address the probability that a proband is a mutation carrier on the basis of explicit assumptions about the genetic parameters (allele frequencies and cancer penetrances in carriers and non-carriers) and the Mendelian rules of gene transmission. A consequence of the two different strategies is that the Mendelian models evaluate the probability that a proband is a gene carrier, whereas the empirical models evaluate the probability of identifying a mutation. The main purpose of this study was to compare the performances of published models in predicting mutation test results in …

Azacitidine improves antitumor effects of docetaxel and cisplatin in aggressive prostate cancer models

One of the major obstacles in the treatment of hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) is the development of chemoresistant tumors. The aim of this study is to evaluate the role of azacitidine as chemosensitizing agent in association with docetaxel (DTX) and cisplatin using two models of aggressive prostate cancer, the 22rv1, and PC3 cell lines. Azacitidine shows antiproliferative effects associated with increased proportion of cells in G0/G1 and evident apoptosis in 22rv1 cells and increased proportion of cells in G2/M phase with the absence of acute cell killing in PC3 cells. In vivo, azacitidine (0.8 mg/kg i.p.) reduced tumor proliferation and induced apoptosis in both xenografts upmodulating the expression of p16INKA, Bax, Bak, p21/WAF1, and p27/KIP1, and inhibiting the activation of Akt activity and the expression of cyclin D1, Bcl-2, and Bcl-XL. In vitro treatments with azacitidine lead to upregulation of cleaved caspase 3 and PARP. BCl2 antagonists, such as HA-14-1, enhanced the effects of azacitidine in these two prostate cancer models. In addition, azacitidine showed synergistic effects with both DTX and cisplatin. In vivo this agent caused tumor growth delay without complete regression in xenograft systems. Azacitidine sensitized PC3 and 22rv1 xenografts to DTX and cisplatin treatments. These combinations were also tolerable in mice and superior to either agent alone. As DTX is the standard first-line chemotherapy for HRPC, the development of DTX-based combination therapies is of great interest in this disease stage. Our results provide a rationale for clinical trials on combination treatments with azacitidine in patients with hormone-refractory and chemoresistant prostate tumors.

Prophylactic options in patients with 5-fluorouracil-associated cardiotoxicity

At present, the various mechanisms involved in 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-correlated cardiotoxicity remain to be elucidated and a universally accepted prophylaxis or treatment for this specific toxicity is not available. Although it may improve time to progression, survival and clinical benefit, a 5-FU-based regimen usually has to be discontinued if a patient experiences cardiotoxicity. Here, we describe our experience with three cases of 5-FU-associated cardiotoxicity. The angina-like pain that appeared approximately 95 h after beginning 5-FU therapy was apparently independent of the drugs administration modality. In the two patients receiving 5-FU 12-h flat continuous infusion from 22.00 to 10.00 h (5-FU 12-h c.i.) in combination with other drugs, the dose of 5-FU was reduced by 10–20% and patients received prophylactic transepidermal nitroglycerin. In the third patient, 5-FU administration modality was changed and prophylactic therapy was not given. By taking these precautions, the patients no longer complained of anginal pain and none of them discontinued chemotherapy.

The Supportive Care Task Force at the University of L’Aquila: 2-years experience

The Supportive Care Task Force (SCTF) was established within the Medical Oncology Department at the University of L’Aquila in May 2002. The missions of the SCTF were to allow systematic evaluation and treatment of symptoms, to warrant continuity of care in all phases of disease and to provide medical oncology residents with training in the treatment of symptoms. A medical oncologist, two senior residents in medical oncology and a registered nurse comprised the SCTF. A psychiatrist, two neurologists, a dietician, and two physiotherapists served as consultants or on a part-time basis. Four beds in two-bedded rooms inside the Medical Oncology Department were reserved to SCTF. A close integration with the physicians of the Medical Oncology Department was realised. The only criterion to admission was the presence of uncontrolled symptoms. Patients were evaluated and monitored with the visual analogue scale for pain and with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). The Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP Score) was employed to assess the prognosis. Non-clinical needs were evaluated with the Need Evaluation Questionnaire (NEQ). Protocols for the treatment of common symptoms were available in written form for consultation by physicians, residents and nurses. From 1 May 2002 to 31 May 2004, we observed 208 patients: 111 women and 97 men. The median age was 64.7 (range 28–90) years. Fifty-four patients (25.9%) were admitted more than once, for a total of 285 admissions. One hundred ninety-nine admissions (69.5%) were for supportive care while 86 admissions (30.5%) were for supportive care and active treatment. The most frequent symptoms were asthenia and anorexia. We registered excellent results regarding the treatment of pain, nausea and dyspnea while psychological symptoms, anorexia and asthenia proved more difficult to treat.Two hundred twenty patients were discharged: 142 (49.8%) home; 76 (26.7%) to the Home Care Service and two (0.7%) to others units of the hospital. Sixty-five (22.8%) died in our unit.

Poker association of weekly alternating 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, bevacizumab and oxaliplatin (FIr-B/FOx) in first line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a phase II study

BackgroundThis phase II study investigated efficacy and safety of weekly alternating Bevacizumab (BEV)/Irinotecan (CPT-11) or Oxaliplatin (OHP) associated to weekly 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) in first line treatment of metastatic colorectal carcinoma (MCRC).MethodsSimon two-step design: delta 20% (p0 50%, p1 70%), power 80%, α 5%, β 20%. Projected objective responses (ORR): I step, 8/15 patients (pts); II step 26/43 pts. Schedule: weekly 12 h-timed-flat-infusion/5-FU 900 mg/m2, days 1-2, 8-9, 15-16, 22-23; CPT-11 160 mg/m2 plus BEV 5 mg/kg, days 1,15; OHP at three dose-levels, 60-70-80 mg/m2, days 8, 22; every 4 weeks.ResultsFifty consecutive, unselected pts < 75 years were enrolled: median age 63; young-elderly (yE) 24 (48%); liver metastases (LM) 33 pts, 66% Achieved OHP recommended dose, 80 mg/m2. ORR 82% intent-to-treat and 84% as-treated analysis. Median progression-free survival 12 months. Equivalent efficacy was obtained in yE pts. Liver metastasectomies were performed in 26% of all pts and in 39% of pts with LM. After a median follow-up of 21 months, median overall survival was 28 months. Cumulative G3-4 toxicities per patient: diarrhea 28%, mucositis 6%, neutropenia 10%, hypertension 2%. They were equivalent in yE pts. Limiting toxicity syndromes (LTS), consisting of the dose-limiting toxicity, associated or not to G2 or limiting toxicities: 44% overall, 46% in yE. Multiple versus single site LTS, respectively: overall, 24% versus 20%; yE pts, 37.5% versus 8%.ConclusionPoker combination shows high activity and efficacy in first line treatment of MCRC. It increases liver metastasectomies rate and can be safely administered.Trial registrationOsservatorio Nazionale sulla Sperimentazione Clinica dei Medicinali (OsSC) Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) Numero EudraCT 2007-004946-34

Changes of Topoisomerase IIα Expression in Breast Tumors after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Predicts Relapse-Free Survival

Purpose: To assess the value of changes in the expression of topoisomerase IIα (TopoII) and the proto-oncogene erbB-2 (HER-2) as predictors of relapse-free survival in women with operable breast cancer treated with anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients and Methods: Seventy-seven patients with primary breast cancer who had undergone neoadjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy were included in the present study. TopoII and HER-2 were measured by immunohistochemistry in prechemotherapy and postchemotherapy (at the time of surgery) tumor specimens, and the value of their changes as predictors of relapse-free survival were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses. Results: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy resulted in a significant reduction in the percentage of cells expressing TopoII (P < 0.0001). No significant change was observed for HER-2. TopoII and HER-2 expression before chemotherapy predicted tumor response to treatment. Changes in TopoII expression after chemotherapy were strongly associated with a poor relapse-free survival (P < 0.0001) in a Cox multivariate analysis adjusted for other clinicopathologic prognostic factors. Conclusion: Changes in TopoII expression after anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an independent predictor of a poor relapse-free survival in patients with breast cancer. Tumor cells displaying an increased TopoII expression after treatment may be responsible for relapses, and may, therefore, define a group of patients with anthracycline-resistant breast cancer.

Differential effects of PXD101 (belinostat) on androgen-dependent and androgen-independent prostate cancer models

Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) are promising epigenetic cancer chemotherapeutics rapidly approaching clinical use. In this study, we tested using in vitro and in vivo models the differential biological effects of a novel HDAC inhibitor [belinostat (PXD101)], in a wide panel of androgen-sensitive and androgen-independent tumor cells. Belinostat significantly increased acetylation of histones H3 and H4. Belinostat potently inhibited the growth of prostate cancer cell lines (IC50 range from 0.5 to 2.5 µM) with cytotoxic activity preferentially against tumor cells. This agent induced G2/M arrest and increased significantly the percentage of apoptosis mainly in androgen-sensitive tumor cells confirming its growth-inhibitory effects. The cell death mechanisms were studied in three different prostate cancer cell lines with different androgen dependence and expression of androgen receptor; LAPC-4 and 22rv1 (androgen-dependent and expressing androgen receptor) and PC3 (androgen-independent not expressing androgen receptor). Belinostat induced the expression of p21 and p27, acetylation of p53 and G2/M arrest associated with Bcl2 and Bcl-Xl downmodulation and significant reduction of survivin, IAPs and Akt/pAkt and increased caspase-8 and -9 expression/activity. Belinostat effectiveness was dependent on the androgen receptor (AR), since the stable transfection of AR greatly increased the efficacy of this HDAC inhibitor. These observations were correlated using in vivo models. We demonstrated that belinostat preferentially resulted in antitumor effect in androgen-dependent tumor cells expressing AR. Our findings provide evidence that belinostat may be a promising anticancer drug for prostate cancer expressing AR, supporting its clinical role in prostate cancer.

Effects of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib in prostate cancer cells in vitro

Erlotinib is a small‐molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeted EGFR, known to be overexpressed in a variety of cancers, including prostate cancer. Clinical trials showed insignificant clinical benefit in patients with castration resistant prostate cancer both when EGFR inhibitors were administered as monotherapy or in association with antiandrogens or chemotherapeutics. Why, differently to other tumors, have EGFR inhibitors been so ineffective in human prostate cancer? This is the question that we have set in this report.