François Duhoux

Phase I Study of 68Ga-HER2-Nanobody for PET/CT Assessment of HER2 Expression in Breast Carcinoma

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status is one of the major tumor characteristics in breast cancer to guide therapy. Anti-HER2 treatment has clear survival advantages in HER2-positive breast carcinoma patients. Heterogeneity in HER2 expression between primary tumor and metastasis has repeatedly been described, resulting in the need to reassess HER2 status during the disease course. To avoid repeated biopsy with potential bias due to tumor heterogeneity, Nanobodies directed against HER2 have been developed as probes for molecular imaging. Nanobodies, which are derived from unique heavy-chain-only antibodies, are the smallest antigen-binding antibody fragments and have ideal characteristics for PET imaging. The primary aims were assessment of safety, biodistribution, and dosimetry. The secondary aim was to investigate tumor-targeting potential. Methods: In total, 20 women with primary or metastatic breast carcinoma (score of 2+ or 3+ on HER2 immunohistochemical assessment) were included. Anti-HER2-Nanobody was labeled with 68Ga via a NOTA derivative. Administered activities were 53–174 MBq (average, 107 MBq). PET/CT scans for dosimetry assessment were obtained at 10, 60, and 90 min after administration. Physical evaluation and blood analysis were performed for safety evaluation. Biodistribution was analyzed for 11 organs using MIM software; dosimetry was assessed using OLINDA/EXM. Tumor-targeting potential was assessed in primary and metastatic lesions. Results: No adverse reactions occurred. A fast blood clearance was observed, with only 10% of injected activity remaining in the blood at 1 h after injection. Uptake was seen mainly in the kidneys, liver, and intestines. The effective dose was 0.043 mSv/MBq, resulting in an average of 4.6 mSv per patient. The critical organ was the urinary bladder wall, with a dose of 0.406 mGy/MBq. In patients with metastatic disease, tracer accumulation well above the background level was demonstrated in most identified sites of disease. Primary lesions were more variable in tracer accumulation. Conclusion: 68Ga-HER2-Nanobody PET/CT is a safe procedure with a radiation dose comparable to other routinely used PET tracers. Its biodistribution is favorable, with the highest uptake in the kidneys, liver, and intestines but very low background levels in all other organs that typically house primary breast carcinoma or tumor metastasis. Tracer accumulation in HER2-positive metastases is high, compared with normal surrounding tissues, and warrants further assessment in a phase II trial.

Colon Cancer: Update on Adjuvant Therapy

Colon cancer is a public health problem worldwide. Although potentially curable at early stages, a substantial number of patients will inevitably present with or eventually develop metastatic disease, which is often incurable. Despite the progress achieved with the introduction of new cytotoxic agents, recurrence rates for patients with resected stage II/III disease remain > 20%. Therefore, a great deal of effort and resources have been put into improving early diagnosis and prevention tools as well as the efficacy of adjuvant treatment. Oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is now considered the standard of care in node-positive colon cancer, but there remains controversy with regard to the indication and type of adjuvant treatment in patients with nodenegative disease. Oral fluoropyrimidines play a growing role in the management of colorectal cancer and can be currently considered an alternative to 5-fluorouracil. Numerous reports have suggested that elderly patients benefit equally from chemotherapy, but the growing numbers of octogenarian and nonagenarian patients in our clinics, many of whom occasionally struggle through treatment, are a reminder of the challenges ahead. Finally, as we might have reached a plateau in terms of cytotoxic chemotherapy, numerous clinical trials are now focusing on the role of biologic agents in the adjuvant setting.

Somatic uniparental isodisomy explains multifocality of glomuvenous malformations.

Inherited vascular malformations are commonly autosomal dominantly inherited with high, but incomplete, penetrance; they often present as multiple lesions. We hypothesized that Knudsons two-hit model could explain this multifocality and partial penetrance. We performed a systematic analysis of inherited glomuvenous malformations (GVMs) by using multiple approaches, including a sensitive allele-specific pairwise SNP-chip method. Overall, we identified 16 somatic mutations, most of which were not intragenic but were cases of acquired uniparental isodisomy (aUPID) involving chromosome 1p. The breakpoint of each aUPID is located in an A- and T-rich, high-DNA-flexibility region (1p13.1-1p12). This region corresponds to a possible new fragile site. Occurrences of these mutations render the inherited glomulin variant in 1p22.1 homozygous in the affected tissues without loss of genetic material. This finding demonstrates that a double hit is needed to trigger formation of a GVM. It also suggests that somatic UPID, only detectable by sensitive pairwise analysis in heterogeneous tissues, might be a common phenomenon in human cells. Thus, aUPID might play a role in the pathogenesis of various nonmalignant disorders and might explain local impaired function and/or clinical variability. Furthermore, these data suggest that pairwise analysis of blood and tissue, even on heterogeneous tissue, can be used for localizing double-hit mutations in disease-causing genes.

KANK1, a candidate tumor suppressor gene, is fused to PDGFRB in an imatinib-responsive myeloid neoplasm with severe thrombocythemia

KANK1 , a candidate tumor suppressor gene, is fused to PDGFRB in an imatinib-responsive myeloid neoplasm with severe thrombocythemia

PRDM16 (1p36) translocations define a distinct entity of myeloid malignancies with poor prognosis but may also occur in lymphoid malignancies

The PRDM16 (1p36) gene is rearranged in acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with t(1;3)(p36;q21), sharing characteristics with AML and MDS with MECOM (3q26.2) translocations. We used fluorescence in situ hybridization to study 39 haematological malignancies with translocations involving PRDM16 to assess the precise breakpoint on 1p36 and the identity of the partner locus. Reverse‐transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed in selected cases in order to confirm the partner locus. PRDM16 expression studies were performed on bone marrow samples of patients, normal controls and CD34+ cells using TaqMan real‐time quantitative PCR. PRDM16 was rearranged with the RPN1 (3q21) locus in 30 cases and with other loci in nine cases. The diagnosis was AML or MDS in most cases, except for two cases of lymphoid proliferation. We identified novel translocation partners of PRDM16, including the transcription factors ETV6 and IKZF1. Translocations involving PRDM16 lead to its overexpression irrespective of the consequence of the rearrangement (fusion gene or promoter swap). Survival data suggest that patients with AML/MDS and PRDM16 translocations have a poor prognosis despite a simple karyotype and a median age of 65 years. There seems to be an over‐representation of late‐onset therapy‐related myeloid malignancies.

Tamoxifen and ovarian function.

Background Some studies suggest that the clinical parameter “amenorrhea” is insufficient to define the menopausal status of women treated with chemotherapy or tamoxifen. In this study, we investigated and compared the ovarian function defined either by clinical or biological parameters in pre-menopausal breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen administered as adjuvant therapy. Materials and Methods Between 1999 and 2003, 138 premenopausal patients consecutively treated for early breast cancer were included. Sixty-eight received tamoxifen in monotherapy as the only adjuvant systemic treatment (Group I) and 70 were treated with tamoxifen after adjuvant chemotherapy (Group II). All patients had a confirmed premenopausal status based on clinical parameters and hormonal values at study entry. They were followed prospectively every 3 months for 3 years: menses data, physical examination and blood tests (LH, FSH, 17-beta-estradiol). Vaginal ultrasonography was carried out every 6 months. After 3 years, prospective evaluation was completed and monitoring of ovarian function was performed as usual in our institution (1x/year). All data were retrospectively evaluated in 2011. Results Three patients were excluded from the study in group I and 2 were excluded in group II. Patients were divided into 4 subgroups according to clinical data, i.e. menses patterns. These patterns were assessed by questionnaires. a: Regular menses (>10 cycles/year) b: Oligomenorrhea (5 to 9 cycles/year) c: Severe oligomenorrhea (1 to 4 cycles/year) d: Complete amenorrhea Estrogen levels did not appear to have any impact on disease-free survival rates after 3 or 8 years. FSH values were also documented and analyzed. They exhibited the same profile as estradiol values. Conclusions Amenorrhea is an insufficient parameter to define menopausal status in patients receiving tamoxifen. Low estradiol levels must be coupled with other biological parameters to characterize endocrine status. These data are very important for the choice of endocrine therapy.

Refinement of 1p36 alterations not involving PRDM16 in myeloid and lymphoid malignancies

Fluorescence in situ hybridization was performed to characterize 81 cases of myeloid and lymphoid malignancies with cytogenetic 1p36 alterations not affecting the PRDM16 locus. In total, three subgroups were identified: balanced translocations (N = 27) and telomeric rearrangements (N = 15), both mainly observed in myeloid disorders; and unbalanced non-telomeric rearrangements (N = 39), mainly observed in lymphoid proliferations and frequently associated with a highly complex karyotype. The 1p36 rearrangement was isolated in 12 cases, mainly myeloid disorders. The breakpoints on 1p36 were more widely distributed than previously reported, but with identifiable rare breakpoint cluster regions, such as the TP73 locus. We also found novel partner loci on 1p36 for the known multi-partner genes HMGA2 and RUNX1. We precised the common terminal 1p36 deletion, which has been suggested to have an adverse prognosis, in B-cell lymphomas [follicular lymphomas and diffuse large B-cell lymphomas with t(14;18)(q32;q21) as well as follicular lymphomas without t(14;18)]. Intrachromosomal telomeric repetitive sequences were detected in at least half the cases of telomeric rearrangements. It is unclear how the latter rearrangements occurred and whether they represent oncogenic events or result from chromosomal instability during oncogenesis.

Clinical relevance of 8q23, 15q13 and 18q21 SNP genotyping to evaluate colorectal cancer risk.

To determine if the at-risk single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) alleles for colorectal cancer (CRC) could contribute to clinical situations suggestive of an increased genetic risk for CRC, we performed a prospective national case–control study based on highly selected patients (CRC in two first-degree relatives, one before 61 years of age; or CRC diagnosed before 51 years of age; or multiple primary CRCs, the first before 61 years of age; exclusion of Lynch syndrome and polyposes) and controls without personal or familial history of CRC. SNPs were genotyped using SNaPshot, and statistical analyses were performed using Pearsons χ2 test, Cochran–Armitage test of trend and logistic regression. We included 1029 patients and 350 controls. We confirmed the association of CRC risk with four SNPs, with odds ratio (OR) higher than previously reported: rs16892766 on 8q23.3 (OR: 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.30–2.72; P=0.0007); rs4779584 on 15q13.3 (OR: 1.42, CI: 1.11–1.83; P=0.0061) and rs4939827 and rs58920878/Novel 1 on 18q21.1 (OR: 1.49, CI: 1.13–1.98; P=0.007 and OR: 1.49, CI: 1.14–1.95; P=0.0035). We found a significant (P<0.0001) cumulative effect of the at-risk alleles or genotypes with OR at 1.62 (CI: 1.10–2.37), 2.09 (CI: 1.43–3.07), 2.87 (CI: 1.76–4.70) and 3.88 (CI: 1.72–8.76) for 1, 2, 3 and at least 4 at-risk alleles, respectively, and OR at 1.71 (CI: 1.18–2.46), 2.29 (CI: 1.55–3.38) and 6.21 (CI: 2.67–14.42) for 1, 2 and 3 at-risk genotypes, respectively. Combination of SNPs may therefore explain a fraction of clinical situations suggestive of an increased risk for CRC.

Routine use of gene panel testing in hereditary breast cancer should be performed with caution

Breast cancer is the most frequent cancer occurring in women. Ten percent of these cancers are considered hereditary. Among them, 30% are attributed to germline mutations in the tumor suppressor genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Other genes of lower penetrance are also known, explaining together up to 40% of the hereditary risk of breast cancer. New techniques, such as next-generation sequencing, allow the simultaneous analysis of multiple genes in a cost-effective way. As a logical consequence, gene panel testing is entering clinical practice with the promise of personalized care. We however advocate that gene panel testing is not ready for non-specialist clinical use, as it generates many variants of unknown significance and includes more genes than are presently considered clinically useful. We hereby review the data for each gene that can change the risk management of patients carrying a pathogenic variant.

Window of opportunity studies: Do they fulfil our expectations?

Window of opportunity studies are trials in which patients receive one or more new compounds between their cancer diagnosis and standard treatment (mainly surgery). Patients are generally cancer treatment naïve. Tumor biopsies before and after the investigational treatment are collected for translational research. Similarly, anatomic and functional pre- and post-treatment imaging may be incorporated. Ideally, the investigational treatment is kept short to avoid delaying standard treatment. Window of opportunity trials may expedite drug development, improve our understanding of pharmacodynamic parameters, and help to identify biomarkers for better patient selection. They can, however, have major drawbacks including potential safety and logistical issues, delayed standard treatment, and a probable lack of patient benefit. By focusing on breast and head and neck cancers, in this paper we discuss the advantages, disadvantages and design of window of opportunity studies.