Kimberly A. Jones

Structure function relationships in the lymphatic system and implications for cancer biology

The lymphatic system, composed of lymphatic vessels, lymph, lymph nodes, and lymphocytes, is a distinctive vasculature (discontinuous basement membrane, open endothelial junctions, anchoring filaments, valves, and intrinsic contractility), different yet similar to the blood vasculature; an integral component of the plasma-tissue fluid-lymph circulation (the “blood-lymph loop”); and the center of the immunoregulatory network. Lymphatics are involved in diverse developmental, growth, repair, and pathologic processes both analogous to and distinct from those affecting the blood vasculature. Interference with the blood-lymph loop produces swelling [an imbalance between lymph formation (regulated by Starling’s law of transcapillary fluid exchange) and lymph absorption], scarring, nutritional and immunodysregulatory disorders, as well as disturbances in lymph(hem)angiogenesis (lymphedema-angiodysplasia syndromes). The lymphatic system is also the stage on which key events during cancer development and progression are played out, and historically, also forms the basis for current evaluation, prognostication, and/or both operative and non-operative treatment of most cancers. Recent advances in molecular lymphology (e.g., discovery of lymphatic growth factors, endothelial receptors, transcription factors, genes, and highly specific immunohistochemical markers) and growing interest in lymphangiogenesis, combined with fresh insights and refined tools in clinical lymphology, including non-invasive lymphatic imaging, are opening up a window for translation to the clinical arena. Therefore, in cancer biology, attention to the multifaceted structure-function relationships within this vast, relatively unexplored system is long overdue.

Evolution from heterozygous to homozygous KIT mutation in gastrointestinal stromal tumor correlates with the mechanism of mitotic nondisjunction and significant tumor progression

Activating mutation in KIT or platelet-derived growth factor-α can lead to gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Eighty-four cases from two institutes were analyzed. Of them, 62 (74%) harbored KIT mutations, 7 of which are previously unreported. One exhibited duplication from both intron 11 and exon 11, which has not been reported in KIT in human cancer. A homozygous/hemizygous KIT-activating mutation was found in 9 of the 62 cases (15%). We identified three GIST patients with heterozygous KIT-activating mutations at initial presentation, who later recurred with highly aggressive clinical courses. Molecular analysis at recurrence showed total dominance of homozygous (diploid) KIT-activating mutation within a short period of 6–13 months, suggesting an important role of oncogene homozygosity in tumor progression. Topoisomerase II is active in the S- and G2 phases of cell cycle and is a direct and accurate proliferative indicator. Cellular and molecular analysis of serial tumor specimens obtained from consecutive surgeries or biopsy within the same patient revealed that these clones that acquired the homozygous KIT mutation exhibited an increased mitotic count and a striking fourfold increase in topoisomerase II proliferative index (percentage cells show positive topoisomerase II nuclear staining compared to the heterozygous counterpart within the same patient. KIT forms a homodimer as the initial step in signal transduction and this may account for the quadruple increase in proliferation. Using SNPs for allelotyping on the serial tumor specimens, we demonstrate that the mechanism of the second hit resulting in homozygous KIT-activating mutation and loss of heterozygosity is achieved by mitotic nondisjunction, contrary to the commonly reported mechanism of mitotic recombination.

Serum Platelet Factor 4 is an Independent Predictor of Survival and Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Background: Improved diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic biomarkers for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are urgently needed. Platelet factor 4 (PF4) has been proposed as a diagnostic biomarker for PDAC. We assessed the diagnostic and prognostic potential of serum PF4 levels in PDAC patients. Methods: Serum PF4 levels were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in an initial cohort of 62 PDAC patients, 62 healthy control subjects, and 34 chronic pancreatitis patients. A second validation set consisted of 71 PDAC patients. Linear regression models were used to relate PF4 to class, gender, age, stage, platelet count, and diagnosis. Survival analyses were done using univariate and multivariate Cox models. Results: In the initial cohort, serum PF4 levels distinguished PDAC from chronic pancreatitis patients (P = 0.011), but not from healthy control subjects (P = 0.624). In PDAC patients, high serum PF4 level significantly predicted decreased survival independent of all covariates examined (P < 0.01). The prognostic relationship of serum PF4 levels remained significant in the validation set. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurred in 20% of the 133 PDAC patients. The VTE risk was higher in subjects with elevated PF4 levels (P = 0.009). Conclusions: Serum PF4 is shown for the first time to be prognostic for survival in PDAC patients. High PF4 is associated with an increased risk for the development of VTE. Impact: Serum PF4 levels may be useful for patient stratification and for directing treatment options in patients with pancreatic cancer including anticoagulation prophylaxis. The relationship between high PF4 levels and poorer outcomes requires further study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 19(10); 2605–10. ©2010 AACR.

The relationship between tumor size and stage in early versus advanced ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND Ovarian cancer has a different prognosis between early (I and II) and advanced stage (III and IV). The mechanism of disease progression is unknown, but patients with advanced disease may have a higher propensity for seeding of the abdominal cavity early in the disease process than those with early stage. Theoretically if this is so, then patients with advanced stage should have smaller sized tumors than patients with early stage. METHODS This was a retrospective chart review of patients in the tumor registry in 2003-2006. Patients had epithelial ovarian cancer, other cell types were excluded. Only cases with documentation of surgical and pathologic staging and measured dimensions on pathologic specimen were included. Patient stage and all available dimensions measured on diseased ovaries were recorded. The dimensions for each patient were averaged into a single dimension for that patient, and then these measurements were totaled and averaged. RESULTS There were 110 patients analyzed: 85 with advanced disease, 25 with early stage. The average measurement was 4.8 cm in advanced disease, and was 10.7 cm in early stage disease. This difference was statistically significant (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Overall, patients with early stage ovarian cancer have diseased ovaries that are more than twice as large as those found in advanced disease. This finding supports the fact that early versus advanced ovarian cancer are 2 separate disease processes. Early stage grows locally and does not disseminate, and advanced stage disseminates while the tumor is still relatively small. Theoretically there may be a factor that separates these 2 into different diseases, where advanced disease patients have a substance produced by their tumor that allows for early dissemination, and early stage lacks this substance and only grows locally. Basic science research comparing the tissue microarrays of early versus advanced stage disease may be able to identify this difference. If the difference is found, perhaps therapy can be targeted against this difference, and screening tests for advanced ovarian cancer can be improved.

Optimizing the administration of fixed-dose rate gemcitabine plus capecitabine using an alternating-week schedule: a dose finding and early efficacy study in advanced pancreatic and biliary carcinomas.

ObjectivesThis multisite study sought to optimize the dosing, schedule, and administration of fixed-dose rate (FDR) gemcitabine plus capecitabine for advanced pancreatic and biliary tract cancers using an alternating-week dose schedule of both agents. MethodsPatients with previously untreated advanced pancreatic and biliary tract cancers with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible. For the dose-finding portion, a standard 3+3 dose-escalation schema was used, with the gemcitabine dose kept at 1000 mg/m2 administered by FDR (10 mg/m2/min) on day 1 of each 14-day cycle, and capecitabine given on days 1 to 7 at doses ranging from 800 to 1500 mg/m2 twice daily. Primary study objective was determination of maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The cohort at MTD was expanded for further efficacy assessment. ResultsA total of 45 patients (median age 61 y; 93% pancreatic/7% biliary; 84% with metastatic disease) were enrolled. Median number of cycles received was 11.5. The MTD using this dose schedule was FDR gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 plus capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 bid, due to a high incidence of late hand-foot syndrome observed at the next higher dose level. Most common nonhematologic adverse events related to treatment included nausea/vomiting (overall rate, 64%; all grade 1/2) and hand-foot syndrome (overall rate, 60%; grade 3, 22%). The incidence of grade 3/4 hematologic adverse events was 24%. Six of 41 evaluable patients (14.6%) had a partial response; 18 of 31 patients (58%) with elevated baseline CA 19-9 level had ≥50% biomarker decline during treatment. Estimated median time to tumor progression and overall survival were 5.5 and 9.8 months, respectively (5.5 and 10.1 mo in the metastatic pancreatic cancer cohort). ConclusionsThis dosing schedule of FDR gemcitabine plus capecitabine is active in patients with advanced pancreatobiliary cancers. Given its favorable toxicity profile and convenience, this regimen represents an appropriate front-line option for this patient population and may serve as the foundation on which new investigational agents are added in future trial design.