The Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute
facilityDetroit, United States
Research output, citation impact, and the most-cited recent papers from The Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute (United States). Aggregated across the NobleBlocks index of 300M+ scholarly works.
Top-cited papers from The Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute
BACKGROUND: First-line therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that lacks targetable mutations is platinum-based chemotherapy. Among patients with a tumor proportion score for programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) of 50% or greater, pembrolizumab has replaced cytotoxic chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of choice. The addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy resulted in significantly higher rates of response and longer progression-free survival than chemotherapy alone in a phase 2 trial. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) 616 patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC without sensitizing EGFR or ALK mutations who had received no previous treatment for metastatic disease to receive pemetrexed and a platinum-based drug plus either 200 mg of pembrolizumab or placebo every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by pembrolizumab or placebo for up to a total of 35 cycles plus pemetrexed maintenance therapy. Crossover to pembrolizumab monotherapy was permitted among the patients in the placebo-combination group who had verified disease progression. The primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival, as assessed by blinded, independent central radiologic review. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 10.5 months, the estimated rate of overall survival at 12 months was 69.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.1 to 73.8) in the pembrolizumab-combination group versus 49.4% (95% CI, 42.1 to 56.2) in the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio for death, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.64; P<0.001). Improvement in overall survival was seen across all PD-L1 categories that were evaluated. Median progression-free survival was 8.8 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 9.2) in the pembrolizumab-combination group and 4.9 months (95% CI, 4.7 to 5.5) in the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.64; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 67.2% of the patients in the pembrolizumab-combination group and in 65.8% of those in the placebo-combination group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC without EGFR or ALK mutations, the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy of pemetrexed and a platinum-based drug resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by Merck; KEYNOTE-189 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02578680 .).
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: In a phase 1 trial, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, showed efficacy in patients with refractory large B-cell lymphoma after the failure of conventional therapy. METHODS: anti-CD19 CAR T cells per kilogram of body weight after receiving a conditioning regimen of low-dose cyclophosphamide and fludarabine. The primary end point was the rate of objective response (calculated as the combined rates of complete response and partial response). Secondary end points included overall survival, safety, and biomarker assessments. RESULTS: Among the 111 patients who were enrolled, axi-cel was successfully manufactured for 110 (99%) and administered to 101 (91%). The objective response rate was 82%, and the complete response rate was 54%.With a median follow-up of 15.4 months, 42% of the patients continued to have a response, with 40% continuing to have a complete response. The overall rate of survival at 18 months was 52%. The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher during treatment were neutropenia (in 78% of the patients), anemia (in 43%), and thrombocytopenia (in 38%). Grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome and neurologic events occurred in 13% and 28% of the patients, respectively. Three of the patients died during treatment. Higher CAR T-cell levels in blood were associated with response. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study, patients with refractory large B-cell lymphoma who received CAR T-cell therapy with axi-cel had high levels of durable response, with a safety profile that included myelosuppression, the cytokine release syndrome, and neurologic events. (Funded by Kite Pharma and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Therapy Acceleration Program; ZUMA-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02348216 .).
Emerging evidence has suggested that the capability of a tumor to grow and propagate is dependent on a small subset of cells within a tumor, termed cancer stem cells. Although data have been provided to support this theory in human blood, brain, and breast cancers, the identity of pancreatic cancer stem cells has not been determined. Using a xenograft model in which primary human pancreatic adenocarcinomas were grown in immunocompromised mice, we identified a highly tumorigenic subpopulation of pancreatic cancer cells expressing the cell surface markers CD44, CD24, and epithelial-specific antigen (ESA). Pancreatic cancer cells with the CD44(+)CD24(+)ESA(+) phenotype (0.2-0.8% of pancreatic cancer cells) had a 100-fold increased tumorigenic potential compared with nontumorigenic cancer cells, with 50% of animals injected with as few as 100 CD44(+)CD24(+)ESA(+) cells forming tumors that were histologically indistinguishable from the human tumors from which they originated. The enhanced ability of CD44(+)CD24(+)ESA(+) pancreatic cancer cells to form tumors was confirmed in an orthotopic pancreatic tail injection model. The CD44(+)CD24(+)ESA(+) pancreatic cancer cells showed the stem cell properties of self-renewal, the ability to produce differentiated progeny, and increased expression of the developmental signaling molecule sonic hedgehog. Identification of pancreatic cancer stem cells and further elucidation of the signaling pathways that regulate their growth and survival may provide novel therapeutic approaches to treat pancreatic cancer, which is notoriously resistant to standard chemotherapy and radiation.
BACKGROUND: Induction chemotherapy with cisplatin plus fluorouracil followed by radiotherapy is the standard alternative to total laryngectomy for patients with locally advanced laryngeal cancer. The value of adding chemotherapy to radiotherapy and the optimal timing of chemotherapy are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with locally advanced cancer of the larynx to one of three treatments: induction cisplatin plus fluorouracil followed by radiotherapy, radiotherapy with concurrent administration of cisplatin, or radiotherapy alone. The primary end point was preservation of the larynx. RESULTS: A total of 547 patients were randomly assigned to one of the three study groups. The median follow-up period was 3.8 years. At two years, the proportion of patients who had an intact larynx after radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin (88 percent) differed significantly from the proportions in the groups given induction chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy (75 percent, P=0.005) or radiotherapy alone (70 percent, P<0.001). The rate of locoregional control was also significantly better with radiotherapy and concurrent cisplatin (78 percent, vs. 61 percent with induction cisplatin plus fluorouracil followed by radiotherapy and 56 percent with radiotherapy alone). Both of the chemotherapy-based regimens suppressed distant metastases and resulted in better disease-free survival than radiotherapy alone. However, overall survival rates were similar in all three groups. The rate of high-grade toxic effects was greater with the chemotherapy-based regimens (81 percent with induction cisplatin plus fluorouracil followed by radiotherapy and 82 percent with radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin, vs. 61 percent with radiotherapy alone). The mucosal toxicity of concurrent radiotherapy and cisplatin was nearly twice as frequent as the mucosal toxicity of the other two treatments during radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with laryngeal cancer, radiotherapy with concurrent administration of cisplatin is superior to induction chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy or radiotherapy alone for laryngeal preservation and locoregional control.
The classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias was last updated in 2016 within a collaboration between the World Health Organization (WHO), the Society for Hematopathology, and the European Association for Haematopathology. This collaboration was primarily based on input from a clinical advisory committees (CACs) composed of pathologists, hematologists, oncologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticians from around the world. The recent advances in our understanding of the biology of hematologic malignancies, the experience with the use of the 2016 WHO classification in clinical practice, and the results of clinical trials have indicated the need for further revising and updating the classification. As a continuation of this CAC-based process, the authors, a group with expertise in the clinical, pathologic, and genetic aspects of these disorders, developed the International Consensus Classification (ICC) of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias. Using a multiparameter approach, the main objective of the consensus process was the definition of real disease entities, including the introduction of new entities and refined criteria for existing diagnostic categories, based on accumulated data. The ICC is aimed at facilitating diagnosis and prognostication of these neoplasms, improving treatment of affected patients, and allowing the design of innovative clinical trials.
Current research on prosocial behavior covers a broad and diverse range of phenomena. We argue that this large research literature can be best organized and understood from a multilevel perspective. We identify three levels of analysis of prosocial behavior: (a) the "meso" level--the study of helper-recipient dyads in the context of a specific situation; (b) the micro level--the study of the origins of prosocial tendencies and the sources of variation in these tendencies; and (c) the macro level--the study of prosocial actions that occur within the context of groups and large organizations. We present research at each level and discuss similarities and differences across levels. Finally, we consider ways in which theory and research at these three levels of analysis might be combined in future intra- and interdisciplinary research on prosocial behavior.
Advances in chronic myeloid leukemia treatment, particularly regarding tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mandate regular updating of concepts and management. A European LeukemiaNet expert panel reviewed prior and new studies to update recommendations made in 2009. We recommend as initial treatment imatinib, nilotinib, or dasatinib. Response is assessed with standardized real quantitative polymerase chain reaction and/or cytogenetics at 3, 6, and 12 months. BCR-ABL1 transcript levels ≤10% at 3 months, <1% at 6 months, and ≤0.1% from 12 months onward define optimal response, whereas >10% at 6 months and >1% from 12 months onward define failure, mandating a change in treatment. Similarly, partial cytogenetic response (PCyR) at 3 months and complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) from 6 months onward define optimal response, whereas no CyR (Philadelphia chromosome-positive [Ph+] >95%) at 3 months, less than PCyR at 6 months, and less than CCyR from 12 months onward define failure. Between optimal and failure, there is an intermediate warning zone requiring more frequent monitoring. Similar definitions are provided for response to second-line therapy. Specific recommendations are made for patients in the accelerated and blastic phases, and for allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Optimal responders should continue therapy indefinitely, with careful surveillance, or they can be enrolled in controlled studies of treatment discontinuation once a deeper molecular response is achieved.
PURPOSE: Population-based estimates of the incidence of brain metastases are not generally available. The purpose of this study was to calculate population-based incidence proportions (IPs) of brain metastases from single primary lung, melanoma, breast, renal, or colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with single primary lung, melanoma, breast, renal, or colorectal cancer (1973 to 2001) in the Metropolitan Detroit Cancer Surveillance System (MDCSS) were used for analysis. IP of brain metastases by primary site and variable of interest (race, sex, age at diagnosis of primary cancer, and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] stage of primary cancer) was calculated with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Total IP percentage (IP%) of brain metastases was 9.6% for all primary sites combined, and highest for lung (19.9%), followed by melanoma (6.9%), renal (6.5%), breast (5.1%), and colorectal (1.8%) cancers. Racial differences were seen with African Americans demonstrating higher IP% of brain metastases compared with other racial groups for most primary sites. IP% was significantly higher for female patients with lung cancer, and significantly higher for male patients with melanoma. The highest IP% of brain metastases occurred at different ages at diagnoses: age 40 to 49 years for primary lung cancer; age 50 to 59 years for primary melanoma, renal, or colorectal cancers; and age 20 to 39 for primary breast cancer. IP% significantly increased as SEER stage of primary cancer advanced for all primary sites. CONCLUSION: Total IP% of brain metastases was lower than previously reported, and it varied by primary site, race, sex, age at diagnosis of primary cancer, and SEER stage of primary cancer.
Importance: Therapeutic options are needed for patients with advanced gastric cancer whose disease has progressed after 2 or more lines of therapy. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in a cohort of patients with previously treated gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In the phase 2, global, open-label, single-arm, multicohort KEYNOTE-059 study, 259 patients in 16 countries were enrolled in a cohort between March 2, 2015, and May 26, 2016. Median (range) follow-up was 5.8 (0.5-21.6) months. Intervention: Patients received pembrolizumab, 200 mg, intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression, investigator or patient decision to withdraw, or unacceptable toxic effects. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were objective response rate and safety. Objective response rate was assessed by central radiologic review per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, in all patients and those with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. Expression of PD-L1 was assessed by immunohistochemistry. Secondary end points included response duration. Results: Of 259 patients enrolled, most were male (198 [76.4%]) and white (200 [77.2%]); median (range) age was 62 (24-89) years. Objective response rate was 11.6% (95% CI, 8.0%-16.1%; 30 of 259 patients), with complete response in 2.3% (95% CI, 0.9%-5.0%; 6 of 259 patients). Median (range) response duration was 8.4 (1.6+ to 17.3+) months (+ indicates that patients had no progressive disease at their last assessment). Objective response rate and median (range) response duration were 15.5% (95% CI, 10.1%-22.4%; 23 of 148 patients) and 16.3 (1.6+ to 17.3+) months and 6.4% (95% CI, 2.6%-12.8%; 7 of 109 patients) and 6.9 (2.4 to 7.0+) months in patients with PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative tumors, respectively. Forty-six patients (17.8%) experienced 1 or more grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events. Two patients (0.8%) discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events, and 2 deaths were considered related to treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: Pembrolizumab monotherapy demonstrated promising activity and manageable safety in patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer who had previously received at least 2 lines of treatment. Durable responses were observed in patients with PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative tumors. Further study of pembrolizumab for this group of patients is warranted. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02335411.
Several cancers are highly refractory to conventional chemotherapy. The survival of tumors in several cases is assisted by checkpoint immunomodulation to maintain the imbalance between immune surveillance and cancer cell proliferation. Check point antibody inhibitors, such as anti-PD-1/PD-L1, are a novel class of inhibitors that function as a tumor suppressing factor via modulation of immune cell-tumor cell interaction. These checkpoint blockers are rapidly becoming a highly promising cancer therapeutic approach that yields remarkable antitumor responses with limited side effects. In recent times, more than four check point antibody inhibitors have been commercialized for targeting PD-1, PDL-1, and CTLA-4. Despite the huge success and efficacy of the anti-PD therapy response, it is limited to specific types of cancers, which attributes to the insufficient and heterogeneous expression of PD-1 in the tumor microenvironment. Herein, we review the current landscape of the PD-1/PD-L1 mechanistic role in tumor immune evasion and therapeutic outcome for cancer treatment. We also review the current progress in clinical trials, combination of drug therapy with immunotherapy, safety, and future of check point inhibitors for multiple types of cancer.
Cancer immune evasion is a major stumbling block in designing effective anticancer therapeutic strategies. Although considerable progress has been made in understanding how cancers evade destructive immunity, measures to counteract tumor escape have not kept pace. There are a number of factors that contribute to tumor persistence despite having a normal host immune system. Immune editing is one of the key aspects why tumors evade surveillance causing the tumors to lie dormant in patients for years through "equilibrium" and "senescence" before re-emerging. In addition, tumors exploit several immunological processes such as targeting the regulatory T cell function or their secretions, antigen presentation, modifying the production of immune suppressive mediators, tolerance and immune deviation. Besides these, tumor heterogeneity and metastasis also play a critical role in tumor growth. A number of potential targets like promoting Th1, NK cell, γδ T cell responses, inhibiting Treg functionality, induction of IL-12, use of drugs including phytochemicals have been designed to counter tumor progression with much success. Some natural agents and phytochemicals merit further study. For example, use of certain key polysaccharide components from mushrooms and plants have shown to possess therapeutic impact on tumor-imposed genetic instability, anti-growth signaling, replicative immortality, dysregulated metabolism etc. In this review, we will discuss the advances made toward understanding the basis of cancer immune evasion and summarize the efficacy of various therapeutic measures and targets that have been developed or are being investigated to enhance tumor rejection.
The therapeutic landscape of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has profoundly changed over the past 7 years. Most patients with chronic phase (CP) now have a normal life expectancy. Another goal is achieving a stable deep molecular response (DMR) and discontinuing medication for treatment-free remission (TFR). The European LeukemiaNet convened an expert panel to critically evaluate and update the evidence to achieve these goals since its previous recommendations. First-line treatment is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI; imatinib brand or generic, dasatinib, nilotinib, and bosutinib are available first-line). Generic imatinib is the cost-effective initial treatment in CP. Various contraindications and side-effects of all TKIs should be considered. Patient risk status at diagnosis should be assessed with the new EUTOS long-term survival (ELTS)-score. Monitoring of response should be done by quantitative polymerase chain reaction whenever possible. A change of treatment is recommended when intolerance cannot be ameliorated or when molecular milestones are not reached. Greater than 10% BCR-ABL1 at 3 months indicates treatment failure when confirmed. Allogeneic transplantation continues to be a therapeutic option particularly for advanced phase CML. TKI treatment should be withheld during pregnancy. Treatment discontinuation may be considered in patients with durable DMR with the goal of achieving TFR.
Heterogeneity in the genomic landscape of metastatic prostate cancer has become apparent through several comprehensive profiling efforts, but little is known about the impact of this heterogeneity on clinical outcome. Here, we report comprehensive genomic and transcriptomic analysis of 429 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) linked with longitudinal clinical outcomes, integrating findings from whole-exome, transcriptome, and histologic analysis. For 128 patients treated with a first-line next-generation androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI; abiraterone or enzalutamide), we examined the association of 18 recurrent DNA- and RNA-based genomic alterations, including androgen receptor ( AR ) variant expression, AR transcriptional output, and neuroendocrine expression signatures, with clinical outcomes. Of these, only RB1 alteration was significantly associated with poor survival, whereas alterations in RB1 , AR , and TP53 were associated with shorter time on treatment with an ARSI. This large analysis integrating mCRPC genomics with histology and clinical outcomes identifies RB1 genomic alteration as a potent predictor of poor outcome, and is a community resource for further interrogation of clinical and molecular associations.
Image-guided tumor ablation has become a well-established hallmark of local cancer therapy. The breadth of options available in this growing field increases the need for standardization of terminology and reporting criteria to facilitate effective communication of ideas and appropriate comparison among treatments that use different technologies, such as chemical (eg, ethanol or acetic acid) ablation, thermal therapies (eg, radiofrequency, laser, microwave, focused ultrasound, and cryoablation) and newer ablative modalities such as irreversible electroporation. This updated consensus document provides a framework that will facilitate the clearest communication among investigators regarding ablative technologies. An appropriate vehicle is proposed for reporting the various aspects of image-guided ablation therapy including classification of therapies, procedure terms, descriptors of imaging guidance, and terminology for imaging and pathologic findings. Methods are addressed for standardizing reporting of technique, follow-up, complications, and clinical results. As noted in the original document from 2003, adherence to the recommendations will improve the precision of communications in this field, leading to more accurate comparison of technologies and results, and ultimately to improved patient outcomes. Online supplemental material is available for this article .
A common challenge in the analysis of genomics data is trying to understand the underlying phenomenon in the context of all complex interactions taking place on various signaling pathways. A statistical approach using various models is universally used to identify the most relevant pathways in a given experiment. Here, we show that the existing pathway analysis methods fail to take into consideration important biological aspects and may provide incorrect results in certain situations. By using a systems biology approach, we developed an impact analysis that includes the classical statistics but also considers other crucial factors such as the magnitude of each gene's expression change, their type and position in the given pathways, their interactions, etc. The impact analysis is an attempt to a deeper level of statistical analysis, informed by more pathway-specific biology than the existing techniques. On several illustrative data sets, the classical analysis produces both false positives and false negatives, while the impact analysis provides biologically meaningful results. This analysis method has been implemented as a Web-based tool, Pathway-Express, freely available as part of the Onto-Tools (http://vortex.cs.wayne.edu).
Lack of a general matrix formula hampers implementation of the semi-partial correlation, also known as part correlation, to the higher-order coefficient. This is because the higher-order semi-partial correlation calculation using a recursive formula requires an enormous number of recursive calculations to obtain the correlation coefficients. To resolve this difficulty, we derive a general matrix formula of the semi-partial correlation for fast computation. The semi-partial correlations are then implemented on an R package ppcor along with the partial correlation. Owing to the general matrix formulas, users can readily calculate the coefficients of both partial and semi-partial correlations without computational burden. The package ppcor further provides users with the level of the statistical significance with its test statistic.
PURPOSE: In KEYNOTE-189, first-line pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo plus pemetrexed-platinum in patients with metastatic nonsquamous non‒small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), irrespective of tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. We report an updated analysis from KEYNOTE-189 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02578680). METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive pemetrexed and platinum plus pembrolizumab (n = 410) or placebo (n = 206) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, then pemetrexed maintenance plus pembrolizumab or placebo for up to a total of 35 cycles. Eligible patients with disease progression in the placebo-combination group could cross over to pembrolizumab monotherapy. Response was assessed per RECIST (version 1.1) by central review. No alpha was assigned to this updated analysis. RESULTS: As of September 21, 2018 (median follow-up, 23.1 months), the updated median (95% CI) OS was 22.0 (19.5 to 25.2) months in the pembrolizumab-combination group versus 10.7 (8.7 to 13.6) months in the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.70]). Median (95% CI) PFS was 9.0 (8.1 to 9.9) months and 4.9 (4.7 to 5.5) months, respectively (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.58). Median (95% CI) time from randomization to objective tumor progression on next-line treatment or death from any cause, whichever occurred first (progression-free-survival-2; PFS-2) was 17.0 (15.1 to 19.4) months and 9.0 (7.6 to 10.4) months, respectively (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.59). OS and PFS benefits with pembrolizumab were observed regardless of PD-L1 expression or presence of liver/brain metastases. Incidence of grade 3-5 adverse events was similar in the pembrolizumab-combination (71.9%) and placebo-combination (66.8%) groups. CONCLUSION: First-line pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum continued to demonstrate substantially improved OS and PFS in metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression or liver/brain metastases, with manageable safety and tolerability.
Abstract Advanced, anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)–positive lung cancer is currently treated with the first-generation ALK inhibitor crizotinib followed by more potent, second-generation ALK inhibitors (e.g., ceritinib and alectinib) upon progression. Second-generation inhibitors are generally effective even in the absence of crizotinib-resistant ALK mutations, likely reflecting incomplete inhibition of ALK by crizotinib in many cases. Herein, we analyzed 103 repeat biopsies from ALK-positive patients progressing on various ALK inhibitors. We find that each ALK inhibitor is associated with a distinct spectrum of ALK resistance mutations and that the frequency of one mutation, ALKG1202R, increases significantly after treatment with second-generation agents. To investigate strategies to overcome resistance to second-generation ALK inhibitors, we examine the activity of the third-generation ALK inhibitor lorlatinib in a series of ceritinib-resistant, patient-derived cell lines, and observe that the presence of ALK resistance mutations is highly predictive for sensitivity to lorlatinib, whereas those cell lines without ALK mutations are resistant. Significance: Secondary ALK mutations are a common resistance mechanism to second-generation ALK inhibitors and predict for sensitivity to the third-generation ALK inhibitor lorlatinib. These findings highlight the importance of repeat biopsies and genotyping following disease progression on targeted therapies, particularly second-generation ALK inhibitors. Cancer Discov; 6(10); 1118–33. ©2016 AACR. See related commentary by Qiao and Lovly, p. 1084. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1069
In the United States, lung cancer is the second most common diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related death. Though tobacco smoking is the major risk factor accounting for 80 to 90% of all lung cancer diagnoses, there are numerous other risk factors that have been identified as casually associated with lung cancer etiology. However, there are few causally-linked risk factors for lung cancer diagnosed among never smokers which, if considered a unique reportable category, is the 11th most common cancer and the 7th leading cause of cancer-related death. Lung cancer survival has only marginally improved over the last several decades, but the availability of screening and early detection by low-dose computer tomography and advances in targeted treatments and immunotherapy will likely decrease mortality rates and improve patient survival outcomes in the near future.