CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,
\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,
\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,
\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,
\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,
\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,
\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,
\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,
\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,
\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,
\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,
\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,
\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,
\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,
\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,
\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,
\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,
\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,
\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,
\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,
\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,
\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,
\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,
\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,
\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,
\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,
\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,
\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,
\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,
\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,
\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,
\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,
\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,
\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,
\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,
\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,
\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,
\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,
\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,
\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,
\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,
\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,
\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,
\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,
\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,
\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,
\nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002,
\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,
\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,
\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,
\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,
\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,
\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,
\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,
\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,
\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,
\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,
\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,
\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,
\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,
\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,
\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,
\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,
\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,
\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,
\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,
\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,
\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,
\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,
\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,
\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,
\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,
\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,
\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,
\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,
\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,
\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,
\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,
\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,
\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,
\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,
\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,
\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,
\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,
\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,
\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

BACKGROUND: Most women with breast cancer who undergo breast-conserving surgery receive whole-breast irradiation. We examined whether the addition of regional nodal irradiation to whole-breast irradiation improved outcomes. METHODS: We randomly assigned women with node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer who were treated with breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant systemic therapy to undergo either whole-breast irradiation plus regional nodal irradiation (including internal mammary, supraclavicular, and axillary lymph nodes) (nodal-irradiation group) or whole-breast irradiation alone (control group). The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival, isolated locoregional disease-free survival, and distant disease-free survival. RESULTS: Between March 2000 and February 2007, a total of 1832 women were assigned to the nodal-irradiation group or the control group (916 women in each group). The median follow-up was 9.5 years. At the 10-year follow-up, there was no significant between-group difference in survival, with a rate of 82.8% in the nodal-irradiation group and 81.8% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 1.13; P=0.38). The rates of disease-free survival were 82.0% in the nodal-irradiation group and 77.0% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.94; P=0.01). Patients in the nodal-irradiation group had higher rates of grade 2 or greater acute pneumonitis (1.2% vs. 0.2%, P=0.01) and lymphedema (8.4% vs. 4.5%, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among women with node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer, the addition of regional nodal irradiation to whole-breast irradiation did not improve overall survival but reduced the rate of breast-cancer recurrence. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and others; MA.20 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00005957.).

Abstract Cancer cells have upregulated glycolysis compared with normal cells, which has led many to the assumption that oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) is downregulated in all cancers. However, recent studies have shown that OXPHOS can be also upregulated in certain cancers, including leukemias, lymphomas, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, high OXPHOS subtype melanoma, and endometrial carcinoma, and that this can occur even in the face of active glycolysis. OXPHOS inhibitors could therefore be used to target cancer subtypes in which OXPHOS is upregulated and to alleviate therapeutically adverse tumor hypoxia. Several drugs including metformin, atovaquone, and arsenic trioxide are used clinically for non-oncologic indications, but emerging data demonstrate their potential use as OXPHOS inhibitors. We highlight novel applications of OXPHOS inhibitors with a suitable therapeutic index to target cancer cell metabolism. Clin Cancer Res; 24(11); 2482–90. ©2018 AACR.

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors effectively kill tumours defective in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes through the concept of synthetic lethality. It is suggested that PARP inhibitors cause an increase in DNA single-strand breaks (SSBs), which are converted during replication to irreparable toxic DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) in BRCA1/2 defective cells. There are a number of recent reports challenging this model. Here, alternative models that are not mutually exclusive are presented to explain the synthetic lethality between BRCA1/2 and PARP inhibitors. One such model proposes that PARP inhibition causes PARP-1 to be trapped onto DNA repair intermediates, especially during base excision repair. This may in turn cause obstruction to replication forks, which require BRCA-dependent homologous recombination to be resolved. In another model, PARP is directly involved in catalysing replication repair in a distinct pathway from homologous recombination. Experimental evidence supporting these novel models to explain the PARP-BRCA synthetic lethality are discussed.

Faithful DNA replication is essential to all life. Hydroxyurea (HU) depletes the cells of dNTPs, which initially results in stalled replication forks that, after prolonged treatment, collapse into DSBs. Here, we report that stalled replication forks are efficiently restarted in a RAD51-dependent process that does not trigger homologous recombination (HR). The XRCC3 protein, which is required for RAD51 foci formation, is also required for replication restart of HU-stalled forks, suggesting that RAD51-mediated strand invasion supports fork restart. In contrast, replication forks collapsed by prolonged replication blocks do not restart, and global replication is rescued by new origin firing. We find that RAD51-dependent HR is triggered for repair of collapsed replication forks, without apparent restart. In conclusion, our data suggest that restart of stalled replication forks and HR repair of collapsed replication forks require two distinct RAD51-mediated pathways.

PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence and prognostic value of mismatch repair (MMR) status and its relation to BRAF mutation (BRAF(MT)) status in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A pooled analysis of four phase III studies in first-line treatment of mCRC (CAIRO, CAIRO2, COIN, and FOCUS) was performed. Primary outcome parameter was the hazard ratio (HR) for median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in relation to MMR and BRAF. For the pooled analysis, Cox regression analysis was performed on individual patient data. RESULTS: The primary tumors of 3,063 patients were analyzed, of which 153 (5.0%) exhibited deficient MMR (dMMR) and 250 (8.2%) a BRAF(MT). BRAF(MT) was observed in 53 (34.6%) of patients with dMMR tumors compared with 197 (6.8%) of patients with proficient MMR (pMMR) tumors (P < 0.001). In the pooled dataset, median PFS and OS were significantly worse for patients with dMMR compared with pMMR tumors [HR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12-1.57 and HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.13-1.61, respectively), and for patients with BRAF(MT) compared with BRAF wild-type (BRAF(WT)) tumors (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.17-1.54 and HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.66-2.19, respectively). PFS and OS were significantly decreased for patients with BRAF(MT) within the group of patients with pMMR, but not for BRAF status within dMMR, or MMR status within BRAF(WT) or BRAF(MT). CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of dMMR and BRAF(MT) in patients with mCRC is low and both biomarkers confer an inferior prognosis. Our data suggest that the poor prognosis of dMMR is driven by the BRAF(MT) status.

DNA damage of exposed tumour tissue leading to cell death is one of the detrimental effects of ionising radiation that is exploited, with beneficial consequences, for radiotherapy. The pattern of the discrete energy depositions during passage of the ionising track of radiation defines the spatial distribution of lesions induced in DNA with a fraction of the DNA damage sites containing clusters of lesions, formed over a few nanometres, against a background of endogenously induced individual lesions. These clustered DNA damage sites, which may be considered as a signature of ionising radiation, underlie the deleterious biological consequences of ionising radiation. The concepts developed rely in part on the fact that ionising radiation creates significant levels of clustered DNA damage, including complex double-strand breaks (DSB), to kill tumour cells as clustered damage sites are difficult to repair. This reduced repairability of clustered DNA damage using specific repair pathways is exploitable in radiotherapy for the treatment of cancer. We discuss some potential strategies to enhance radiosensitivity by targeting the repair pathways of radiation-induced clustered damage and complex DNA DSB, through inhibition of specific proteins that are not required in the repair pathways for endogenous damage. The variety and severity of DNA damage from ionising radiation is also influenced by the tumour microenvironment, being especially sensitive to the oxygen status of the cells. For instance, nitric oxide is known to influence the types of damage induced by radiation under hypoxic conditions. A potential strategy based on bioreductive activation of pro-drugs to release nitric oxide is discussed as an approach to deliver nitric oxide to hypoxic tumours during radiotherapy. The ultimate aim of this review is to stimulate thinking on how knowledge of the complexity of radiation-induced DNA damage may contribute to the development of adjuncts to radiotherapy.

Abstract Recommendations are made for standard potentials involving select inorganic radicals in aqueous solution at 25 °C. These recommendations are based on a critical and thorough literature review and also by performing derivations from various literature reports. The recommended data are summarized in tables of standard potentials, Gibbs energies of formation, radical p K a ’s, and hemicolligation equilibrium constants. In all cases, current best estimates of the uncertainties are provided. An extensive set of Data Sheets is appended that provide original literature references, summarize the experimental results, and describe the decisions and procedures leading to each of the recommendations.

// Su Yin Lim 1 , Arseniy E. Yuzhalin 1 , Alex N. Gordon-Weeks 1 and Ruth J. Muschel 1 1 CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom Correspondence to: Su Yin Lim, email: // Keywords : chemokines, cancer metastasis, cancer therapy, clinical trials Received : October 26, 2015 Accepted : January 31, 2016 Published : February 14, 2016 Abstract The CCL2-CCR2 signaling axis has generated increasing interest in recent years due to its association with the progression of cancer. Although first described as a chemotactic molecule with physiological roles in regulating inflammation, recent studies have revealed a pro-tumorigenic function for CCL2 in favoring cancer development and subsequent metastasis. CCL2 binds the cognate receptor CCR2, and together this signaling pair has been shown to have multiple pro-tumorigenic roles, from mediating tumor growth and angiogenesis to recruiting and usurping host stromal cells to support tumor progression. The importance of CCL2-CCR2 signaling has been further championed by the establishment of clinical trials targeting this signaling pair in solid and metastatic cancers. Here we review the roles of CCL2-CCR2 signaling in the development and progression of cancer metastasis. We further evaluate the outcome of several clinical trials targeting either CCL2 or CCR2, and discuss the prospects and challenges of manipulating CCL2-CCR2 interaction as a potential approach for combating metastatic disease.

Modulating chromatin through histone methylation orchestrates numerous cellular processes. SETD2-dependent trimethylation of histone H3K36 is associated with active transcription. Here, we define a role for H3K36 trimethylation in homologous recombination (HR) repair in human cells. We find that depleting SETD2 generates a mutation signature resembling RAD51 depletion at I-SceI-induced DNA double-strand break (DSB) sites, with significantly increased deletions arising through microhomology-mediated end-joining. We establish a presynaptic role for SETD2 methyltransferase in HR, where it facilitates the recruitment of C-terminal binding protein interacting protein (CtIP) and promotes DSB resection, allowing Replication Protein A (RPA) and RAD51 binding to DNA damage sites. Furthermore, reducing H3K36me3 levels by overexpressing KDM4A/JMJD2A, an oncogene and H3K36me3/2 demethylase, or an H3.3K36M transgene also reduces HR repair events. We propose that error-free HR repair within H3K36me3-decorated transcriptionally active genomic regions promotes cell homeostasis. Moreover, these findings provide insights as to why oncogenic mutations cluster within the H3K36me3 axis.

Radiotherapy is a cornerstone of both curative and palliative cancer care. However, radiotherapy is severely limited by radiation-induced toxicities. If these toxicities could be reduced, a greater dose of radiation could be given therefore facilitating a better tumor response. Initial pre-clinical studies have shown that irradiation at dose rates far exceeding those currently used in clinical contexts reduce radiation-induced toxicities whilst maintaining an equivalent tumor response. This is known as the FLASH effect. To date, a single patient has been subjected to FLASH radiotherapy for the treatment of subcutaneous T-cell lymphoma resulting in complete response and minimal toxicities. The mechanism responsible for reduced tissue toxicity following FLASH radiotherapy is yet to be elucidated, but the most prominent hypothesis so far proposed is that acute oxygen depletion occurs within the irradiated tissue. This review examines the tissue response to FLASH radiotherapy, critically evaluates the evidence supporting hypotheses surrounding the biological basis of the FLASH effect, and considers the potential for FLASH radiotherapy to be translated into clinical contexts.

Learning a novel motor skill is associated with well characterized structural and functional plasticity in the rodent motor cortex. Furthermore, neuroimaging studies of visuomotor learning in humans have suggested that structural plasticity can occur in white matter (WM), but the biological basis for such changes is unclear. We assessed the influence of motor skill learning on WM structure within sensorimotor cortex using both diffusion MRI fractional anisotropy (FA) and quantitative immunohistochemistry. Seventy-two adult (male) rats were randomly assigned to one of three conditions (skilled reaching, unskilled reaching, and caged control). After 11 d of training, postmortem diffusion MRI revealed significantly higher FA in the skilled reaching group compared with the control groups, specifically in the WM subjacent to the sensorimotor cortex contralateral to the trained limb. In addition, within the skilled reaching group, FA across widespread regions of WM in the contralateral hemisphere correlated significantly with learning rate. Immunohistological analysis conducted on a subset of 24 animals (eight per group) revealed significantly increased myelin staining in the WM underlying motor cortex in the hemisphere contralateral (but not ipsilateral) to the trained limb for the skilled learning group versus the control groups. Within the trained hemisphere (but not the untrained hemisphere), myelin staining density correlated significantly with learning rate. Our results suggest that learning a novel motor skill induces structural change in task-relevant WM pathways and that these changes may in part reflect learning-related increases in myelination.

BACKGROUND: Data suggest selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) in third-line or subsequent therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer has clinical benefit in patients with colorectal liver metastases with liver-dominant disease after chemotherapy. The FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-Global randomised studies evaluated the efficacy of combining first-line chemotherapy with SIRT using yttrium-90 resin microspheres in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with liver metastases. The studies were designed for combined analysis of overall survival. METHODS: continuous fluorouracil infusion over 46 h). Randomisation was done by central minimisation with four factors: presence of extrahepatic metastases, tumour involvement of the liver, planned use of a biological agent, and investigational centre. Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, using a two-stage meta-analysis of pooled individual patient data. All three trials have completed 2 years of follow-up. FOXFIRE is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83867919. SIRFLOX and FOXFIRE-Global are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00724503 (SIRFLOX) and NCT01721954 (FOXFIRE-Global). FINDINGS: Between Oct 11, 2006, and Dec 23, 2014, 549 patients were randomly assigned to FOLFOX alone and 554 patients were assigned FOLFOX plus SIRT. Median follow-up was 43·3 months (IQR 31·6-58·4). There were 411 (75%) deaths in 549 patients in the FOLFOX alone group and 433 (78%) deaths in 554 patients in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group. There was no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·90-1·19; p=0·61). The median survival time in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group was 22·6 months (95% CI 21·0-24·5) compared with 23·3 months (21·8-24·7) in the FOLFOX alone group. In the safety population containing patients who received at least one dose of study treatment, as treated, the most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia (137 [24%] of 571 patients receiving FOLFOX alone vs 186 (37%) of 507 patients receiving FOLFOX plus SIRT). Serious adverse events of any grade occurred in 244 (43%) of 571 patients receiving FOLFOX alone and 274 (54%) of 507 patients receiving FOLFOX plus SIRT. 10 patients in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group and 11 patients in the FOLFOX alone group died due to an adverse event; eight treatment-related deaths occurred in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group and three treatment-related deaths occurred in the FOLFOX alone group. INTERPRETATION: Addition of SIRT to first-line FOLFOX chemotherapy for patients with liver-only and liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer did not improve overall survival compared with that for FOLFOX alone. Therefore, early use of SIRT in combination with chemotherapy in unselected patients with metastatic colorectal cancer cannot be recommended. To further define the role of SIRT in metastatic colorectal cancer, careful patient selection and studies investigating the role of SIRT as consolidation therapy after chemotherapy are needed. FUNDING: Bobby Moore Fund of Cancer Research UK, Sirtex Medical.

BACKGROUND: Definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is an alternative to surgery for the curative treatment of oesophageal carcinoma. The SCOPE1 trial aimed to investigate the addition of cetuximab to cisplatin and fluoropyrimidine-based definitive CRT in patients with localised oesophageal squamous-cell cancer and adenocarcinomas to assess activity, safety, and feasibility of use. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2/3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older from UK radiotherapy centres who had non-metastatic, histologically confirmed carcinoma of the oesophagus (adenocarcinoma, squamous-cell, or undifferentiated; WHO status 0-1; stage I-III disease) and been selected to receive definitive CRT. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a central computerised system using stratified minimisation (with an 80:20 random element) to receive CRT alone or CRT with cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) on day 1 followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly), stratified by recruiting hospital, primary reason for not having surgery, tumour histology, and tumour stage. CRT consisted of cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) (day 1) and capecitabine 625 mg/m(2) twice daily (days 1-21) for four cycles; cycles three and four were given concurrently with 50 Gy in 25 fractions of radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were treatment failure free at week 24 for the phase 2 trial and overall survival for the phase 3 trial, both measured from randomisation. We analysed data by intention to treat. This trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 47718479. FINDINGS: 258 patients (129 assigned to each treatment group) from 36 UK centres were recruited between Feb 7, 2008, and Feb 22, 2012. Recruitment was stopped without continuation to phase 3 because the trial met criteria for futility, but we continued to follow-up recruited patients until all had reached at least 24-week follow-up (median follow-up of patients who survived was 16.8 months [IQR 11.2-24.5]). Fewer patients were treatment failure free at 24 weeks in the CRT plus cetuximab group (79 of 119 patients [66·4%, 90% CI 58·6-73·6]) than in the CRT only group (93 of 121 patients [76.9%, 69.7-83.0]). The CRT plus cetuximab group also had shorter median overall survival (22.1 months [95% CI 15.1-24.5] vs 25.4 months [20.5-37.9]; adjusted HR 1.53 [95% CI 1.03-2.27]; p=0.035). Patients who received CRT plus cetuximab had more non-haematological grade 3 or 4 toxicities (102 [79%] of 129 patients vs 81 [63%] of 129 patients; p=0.004). The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities were low white blood cell count (14 [11%] in the CRT plus cetuximab group vs 21 [16%] in the CRT only group), low absolute neutrophil count (15 [12%] vs 24 [19%]), fatigue (26 [20%] vs 25 [19%]), and dysphagia (35 [27%] vs 37 [29%]). INTERPRETATION: The addition of cetuximab to standard chemotherapy and radiotherapy cannot be recommended for patients with oesophageal cancer suitable for definitive CRT. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Base excision repair (BER) is a frontline repair system that is responsible for maintaining genome integrity and thus preventing premature aging, cancer and many other human diseases by repairing thousands of DNA lesions and strand breaks continuously caused by endogenous and exogenous mutagens. This fundamental and essential function of BER not only necessitates tight control of the continuous availability of basic components for fast and accurate repair, but also requires temporal and spatial coordination of BER and cell cycle progression to prevent replication of damaged DNA. The major goal of this review is to critically examine controversial and newly emerging questions about mammalian BER pathways, mechanisms regulating BER capacity, BER responses to DNA damage and their links to checkpoint control of DNA replication.

The telomere repeat-binding factor 1 (TERF1, referred to hereafter as TRF1) is a component of mammalian telomeres whose role in telomere biology and disease has remained elusive. Here, we report on cells and mice conditionally deleted for TRF1. TRF1-deleted mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) show rapid induction of senescence, which is concomitant with abundant telomeric gamma-H2AX foci and activation of the ATM/ATR downstream checkpoint kinases CHK1 and CHK2. DNA damage foci are rescued by both ATM and ATM/ATR inhibitors, further indicating that both signaling pathways are activated upon TRF1 deletion. Abrogation of the p53 and RB pathways bypasses senescence but leads to chromosomal instability including sister chromatid fusions, chromosome concatenation, and occurrence of multitelomeric signals (MTS). MTS are also elevated in ATR-deficient MEFs or upon treatment with aphidicolin, two conditions known to induce breakage at fragile sites, suggesting that TRF1-depleted telomeres are prone to breakage. To address the impact of these molecular defects in the organism, we deleted TRF1 in stratified epithelia of TRF1(Delta/Delta)K5-Cre mice. These mice die perinatally and show skin hyperpigmentation and epithelial dysplasia, which are associated with induction of telomere-instigated DNA damage, activation of the p53/p21 and p16 pathways, and cell cycle arrest in vivo. p53 deficiency rescues mouse survival but leads to development of squamous cell carcinomas, demonstrating that TRF1 suppresses tumorigenesis. Together, these results demonstrate that dysfunction of a telomere-binding protein is sufficient to produce severe telomeric damage in the absence of telomere shortening, resulting in premature tissue degeneration and development of neoplastic lesions.

Combined radiochemotherapy is the currently used therapy for locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), but normal tissue toxicity limits its application. Here we test the hypothesis that inhibition of ATR (ATM-Rad3-related) could increase the sensitivity of the cancer cells to radiation or chemotherapy without affecting normal cells. We tested VE-822, an ATR inhibitor, for in vitro and in vivo radiosensitization. Chk1 phosphorylation was used to indicate ATR activity, γH2AX and 53BP1 foci as evidence of DNA damage and Rad51 foci for homologous recombination activity. Sensitivity to radiation (XRT) and gemcitabine was measured with clonogenic assays in vitro and tumor growth delay in vivo. Murine intestinal damage was evaluated after abdominal XRT. VE-822 inhibited ATR in vitro and in vivo. VE-822 decreased maintenance of cell-cycle checkpoints, increased persistent DNA damage and decreased homologous recombination in irradiated cancer cells. VE-822 decreased survival of pancreatic cancer cells but not normal cells in response to XRT or gemcitabine. VE-822 markedly prolonged growth delay of pancreatic cancer xenografts after XRT and gemcitabine-based chemoradiation without augmenting normal cell or tissue toxicity. These findings support ATR inhibition as a promising new approach to improve the therapeutic ration of radiochemotherapy for patients with PDAC.

Tissue factor (TF) expression by tumor cells correlates with metastasis clinically and supports metastasis in experimental settings. However, the precise pathways coupling TF to malignancy remain incompletely defined. Here, we show that clot formation by TF indirectly enhances tumor cell survival after arrest in the lung, during experimental lung metastasis, by recruiting macrophages characterized by CD11b, CD68, F4/80, and CX(3)CR1 (but not CD11c) expression. Genetic or pharmacologic inhibition of coagulation, by either induction of TF pathway inhibitor ex-pression or by treatment with hirudin, respectively, abrogated macrophage recruitment and tumor cell survival. Furthermore, impairment of macrophage function, in either Mac1-deficient mice or in CD11b-diphtheria toxin receptor mice in which CD11b-positive cells were ablated, decreased tumor cell survival without altering clot formation, demonstrating that the recruitment of functional macrophages was essential for tumor cell survival. This effect was independent of NK cells. Moreover, a similar population of macrophages was also recruited to the lung during the formation of a premetastatic niche. Anticoagulation inhibited their accumulation and prevented the enhanced metastasis associated with the formation of the niche. Our study, for the first time, links TF induced coagulation to macrophage recruitment in the metastatic process.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, chemotherapy is the standard treatment for inoperable, locally advanced, non-metastatic pancreatic cancer. Chemoradiotherapy is also an acceptable treatment option, for which gemcitabine, fluorouracil, or capecitabine can be used as concurrent chemotherapy agents. We aimed to assess the activity, safety, and feasibility of both gemcitabine-based and capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy after induction chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, two-arm, phase 2 trial, patients aged 18 years or older with histologically proven, locally advanced pancreatic cancer (with a tumour diameter of 7 cm or less) were recruited from 28 UK centres between Dec 24, 2009 and Oct 25, 2011. After 12 weeks of induction gemcitabine and capecitabine chemotherapy (three cycles of gemcitabine [1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle] and capecitabine [830 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle]), patients with stable or responding disease, tumour diameter of 6 cm or less, and WHO performance status 0-1 were randomly assigned to receive a further cycle of gemcitabine and capecitabine chemotherapy followed by either gemcitabine (300 mg/m(2) once per week) or capecitabine (830 mg/m(2) twice daily, Monday to Friday only), both in combination with radiation (50·4 Gy in 28 fractions). Randomisation (1:1) was done via a central computerised system and used stratified minimisation. The primary endpoint was 9-month progression-free survival, analysed by intention to treat including only those patients with valid CT assessments. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 96169987. FINDINGS: 114 patients were registered and 74 were randomly allocated (38 to the gemcitabine group and 36 to the capecitabine group). After 9 months, 22 of 35 assessable patients (62·9%, 80% CI 50·6-73·9) in the capecitabine group and 18 of 35 assessable patients (51·4%, 39·4-63·4) in the gemcitabine group had not progressed. Median overall survival was 15·2 months (95% CI 13·9-19·2) in the capecitabine group and 13·4 months (95% CI 11·0-15·7) in the gemcitabine group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·39, 95% CI 0·18-0·81; p=0·012). 12-month overall survival was 79·2% (95% CI 61·1-89·5) in the capecitabine group and 64·2 (95% CI 46·4-77·5) in the gemcitabine group. Median progression-free survival was 12·0 months (95% CI 10·2-14·6) in the capecitabine group and 10·4 months (95% CI 8·9-12·5) in the gemcitabine group (adjusted HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·32-1·12; p=0·11). Eight patients in the capecitabine group had an objective response at 26 weeks, as did seven in the gemcitabine group. More patients in the gemcitabine group than in the capecitabine group had grade 3-4 haematological toxic effects (seven [18%] vs none, p=0·008) and non-haematological toxic effects (ten [26%] vs four [12%], p=0·12) during chemoradiation treatment; the most frequent events were leucopenia, neutropenia, and fatigue. Two patients in the capecitabine group progressed during the fourth cycle of induction chemotherapy. Of the 34 patients in the capecitabine group who received chemoradiotherapy, 25 (74%) received the full protocol dose of radiotherapy, compared with 26 (68%) of 38 patients in the gemcitabine group. Quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between the treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that a capecitabine-based regimen might be preferable to a gemcitabine-based regimen in the context of consolidation chemoradiotherapy after a course of induction chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution because the difference in the primary endpoint was non-significant and the number of patients in the trial was small. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Abstract Cancer is a disease associated with genomic instability that often results from oncogene activation. This in turn leads to hyperproliferation and replication stress. However, the molecular mechanisms that underlie oncogene-induced replication stress are still poorly understood. Oncogenes such as HRAS V12 promote proliferation by upregulating general transcription factors to stimulate RNA synthesis. Here we investigate whether this increase in transcription underlies oncogene-induced replication stress. We show that in cells overexpressing HRAS V12 , elevated expression of the general transcription factor TATA-box binding protein (TBP) leads to increased RNA synthesis, which together with R-loop accumulation results in replication fork slowing and DNA damage. Furthermore, overexpression of TBP alone causes the hallmarks of oncogene-induced replication stress, including replication fork slowing, DNA damage and senescence. Consequently, we reveal that increased transcription can be a mechanism of oncogene-induced DNA damage, providing a molecular link between upregulation of the transcription machinery and genomic instability in cancer.