Cisplatin alone or combined with gemcitabine in carcinomas of unknown primary: Results of the randomised GEFCAPI 02 trial

Synergic activity of FGFR2 and MEK inhibitors in the treatment of FGFR2-amplified cancers of unknown primary

Patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP) carry the double burden of an aggressive disease and reduced access to therapies. Experimental models are pivotal for CUP biology investigation and drug testing. We derived two CUP cell lines (CUP#55 and #96) and corresponding patient-derived xenografts (PDXs), from ascites tumor cells. CUP cell lines and PDXs underwent histological, immune-phenotypical, molecular, and genomic characterization confirming the features of the original tumor. The tissue-of-origin prediction was obtained from the tumor microRNA expression profile and confirmed by single-cell transcriptomics. Genomic testing and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis identified FGFR2 gene amplification in both models, in the form of homogeneously staining region (HSR) in CUP#55 and double minutes in CUP#96. FGFR2 was recognized as the main oncogenic driver and therapeutic target. FGFR2-targeting drug BGJ398 (infigratinib) in combination with the MEK inhibitor trametinib proved to be synergic and exceptionally active, both in vitro and in vivo. The effects of the combined treatment by single-cell gene expression analysis revealed a remarkable plasticity of tumor cells and the greater sensitivity of cells with epithelial phenotype. This study brings personalized therapy closer to CUP patients and provides the rationale for FGFR2 and MEK targeting in metastatic tumors with FGFR2 pathway activation.

Unfavorable carcinoma of unknown primary with a gastrointestinal profile: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) with a gastrointestinal profile is categorized by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines into favorable and unfavorable subsets. Favorable CUPs benefit from site-specific chemotherapy (CT), while the optimal treatment for unfavorable CUPs is still undefined.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective study to describe outcomes of patients with CUP with a gastrointestinal profile referred to our center from January 2000 to August 2023. Favorable CUPs were defined as CK7-/CK20+/CDX2+ by immunohistochemistry, according to the ESMO definition; all other cases were considered unfavorable. The main endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) of first-line CT for advanced disease in all patients and in the unfavorable group.

RESULTS

A total of 56 patients were included, of whom 46 (82%) had unfavorable CUPs. After a median follow-up of 43.9 months, the median overall survival (mOS) was 11.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.3-15.3 months]. At univariate analysis, the presence of peritoneal metastases and residual tumor after primary surgery were associated with a shorter OS. The median PFS (mPFS) was 6.1 months (95% CI 3.6-8.7 months). In the unfavorable CUP subgroup, the mOS was 12.6 months (95% CI 8.7-16.5 months), the mPFS was 6.1 months (95% CI 3.5-8.9 months) and none of the CT regimens used showed to portend better PFS. The most relevant altered genes included: KRAS (9/29; 31%), BRAF (1/26; 4%), NRAS (1/25; 4%), TP53 (9/23; 39%).

CONCLUSIONS

CUPs with a gastrointestinal profile are characterized by poor prognosis and the absence of biomarker for treatment personalization. No CT regimen was superior in terms of PFS in patients with unfavorable CUPs.

Frequency and Prognostic Value of Circulating Tumor Cells in Cancer of Unknown Primary

BACKGROUND

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is defined as a primary metastatic malignancy, in which the primary tumor remains elusive in spite of a comprehensive diagnostic workup. The frequency and prognostic value of circulating tumor cells (CTCs), which are considered to be the source of metastasis, has not yet been systematically evaluated in CUP.

METHODS

A total of 110 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of CUP according to the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines, who presented to our clinic between July 2021 and May 2023, provided blood samples for CTC quantification using CellSearch methodology. CTC counts were correlated with demographic, clinical, and molecular data generated by comprehensive genomic profiling of tumor tissue.

RESULTS

CTCs were detected in 26% of all patients at initial presentation to our department. The highest CTC frequency was observed among patients with unfavorable CUP (35.5%), while patients with single-site/oligometastatic CUP harbored the lowest CTC frequency (11.4%). No statistically significant association between CTC positivity and the number of affected organs (P = 0.478) or disease burden (P = 0.120) was found. High CTC levels (≥5 CTCs/7.5 mL; 12/95 analyzed patients) predicted for adverse overall survival compared to negative or low CTC counts (6-months overall survival rate 90% vs 32%, log-rank P < 0.001; HR 5.43; 95% CI 2.23-13.2). CTC dynamics were also prognostic for overall survival by landmark analysis (log-rank P < 0.001, HR 10.2, 95% CI 1.95-52.9).

CONCLUSIONS

CTC frequency is a strong, independent predictor of survival in patients with CUP. CTC quantification provides a useful prognostic tool in the management of these patients.

Nivolumab and ipilimumab in recurrent or refractory cancer of unknown primary: a phase II trial

Cancer of unknown primary has a dismal prognosis, especially following failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. 10-20% of patients have a high tumor mutational burden (TMB), which predicts response to immunotherapy in many cancer types. In this prospective, non-randomized, open-label, multicenter Phase II trial (EudraCT 2018-004562-33; NCT04131621), patients relapsed or refractory after platinum-based chemotherapy received nivolumab and ipilimumab following TMBhigh vs. TMBlow stratification. Progression-free survival (PFS) represented the primary endpoint; overall survival (OS), response rates, duration of clinical benefit and safety were the secondary endpoints. The trial was prematurely terminated in March 2021 before reaching the preplanned sample size (n = 194). Among 31 evaluable patients, 16% had a high TMB ( > 12 mutations/Mb). Overall response rate was 16% (95% CI 6-34%), with 7.7% (95% CI 1-25%) vs. 60% (95% CI 15-95%) in TMBlow and TMBhigh, respectively. Although the primary endpoint was not met, high TMB was associated with better median PFS (18.3 vs. 2.4 months) and OS (18.3 vs. 3.6 months). Severe immune-related adverse events were reported in 29% of cases. Assessing on-treatment dynamics of circulating tumor DNA using combined targeted hotspot mutation and shallow whole genome sequencing as part of a predefined exploratory analysis identified patients benefiting from immunotherapy irrespective of initial radiologic response.

Case Report: Combined pembrolizumab, 5-fluorouracil, and cisplatin therapy were remarkably effective in p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary

Background

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is a malignant tumor without a known primary lesion with a frequency of 3-5%. It can be divided into favorable and unfavorable prognosis subsets. While recommended treatments are available for the former group, there is no established treatment for the latter. Here, we report the effective treatment of a 32-year-old woman with p16-positive squamous cell CUP with pembrolizumab plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin therapy.

Case presentation

A 32-year-old woman presented with metastatic lesions in the liver, lung, bone, cervical region, abdominal region, and pelvic lymph nodes. She was diagnosed with p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary origin. The patient received pembrolizumab plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin therapy, which markedly reduced the metastasis and improved her Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status after two courses.

Conclusion

This case report highlights the potential of pembrolizumab plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin therapy for treating CUP with an unfavorable prognosis. p16 positivity is worth examining for squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary origin, and if present, this therapy should be considered a promising treatment option.

[Cancer of unknown primary-The new ESMO guidelines]

BACKGROUND

The European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) recently published extensively revised guidelines on cancer of unknown primary (CUP). The new version contains the following relevant amendments: with respect to diagnostics of CUP, the current guidelines aim for a more precise and standardized definition of CUP by establishing diagnostic algorithms. Recommendations for molecular diagnostics of cancer tissue have also been implemented. With respect to CUP classification, the favorable category has been revised. A carcinoma with immunohistochemistry typical for renal cell carcinoma (renal-like CUP) was introduced in the new definition of favorable subtypes, for which a specific treatment is indicated. Based on a newly defined oligometastatic situation a subgroup with localized cancer potentially curatively treatable with surgery and/or radiotherapy was introduced into the CUP classification. With respect to treatment of CUP, the current guidelines present options beyond empirical chemotherapy, which is still the standard of care treatment, and pinpoint indications and predictive biomarkers for targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

RELEVANT UPDATES

The European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) recently published extensively revised guidelines on the CUP syndrome. The new version contains the following relevant amendments: the current guidelines aim for a more precise and standardized definition of CUP by establishing diagnostic algorithms with respect to the diagnostics of CUP syndrome. Recommendations for molecular diagnostics of cancer tissue have also been implemented. The classification of the CUP syndrome has also been revised. A carcinoma with immunohistochemistry typical for renal cell carcinoma (renal-like CUP) was introduced in the new definition of favorable subtypes, for which a specific treatment is indicated. Based on a newly defined oligometastatic situation a local potentially curatively treatable with surgery and/or radiotherapy subgroup was introduced into the CUP classification. With respect to treatment of the CUP syndrome, the current guidelines present options beyond empirical chemotherapy, which is still the gold standard treatment, and pinpoint indications and predictive biomarkers for targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment.

SCHLUSSFOLGERUNG

The aim of this review is to present the current state of diagnostics, classification and treatment of CUP syndrome, with a focus on recent developments and revisions implemented in the current ESMO guidelines.

Treatment of drug-induced immune thrombocytopenias

Several therapeutic agents can cause thrombocytopenia by either immune-mediated or non-immune-mediated mechanisms. Non-immune-mediated thrombocytopenia is due to direct toxicity of drug molecules to platelets or megakaryocytes. Immune-mediated thrombocytopenia, on the other hand, involves the formation of antibodies that react to platelet-specific glycoprotein complexes, as in classic drug-induced immune thrombocytopenia (DITP), or to platelet factor 4, as in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). Clinical signs include a rapid drop in platelet count, bleeding or thrombosis. Since the patient's condition can deteriorate rapidly, prompt diagnosis and management are critical. However, the necessary diagnostic tests are only available in specialized laboratories. Therefore, the most demanding step in treatment is to identify the agent responsible for thrombocytopenia, which often proves difficult because many patients are taking multiple medications and have comorbidities that can themselves also cause thrombocytopenia. While DITP is commonly associated with an increased risk of bleeding, HIT and VITT have a high mortality rate due to the high incidence of thromboembolic complications. A structured approach to drug-associated thrombocytopenia/thrombosis can lead to successful treatment and a lower mortality rate. In addition to describing the treatment of DITP, HIT, VITT, and vaccine-associated immune thrombocytopenia, this review also provides the pathophysiological and clinical information necessary for correct patient management.

Treatment of chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia in patients with non-hematologic malignancies

Chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT) is a common complication of the treatment of non-hematologic malignancies. Many patient-related variables (e.g., age, tumor type, number of prior chemotherapy cycles, amount of bone marrow tumor involvement) determine the extent of CIT. CIT is related to the type and dose of chemotherapy, with regimens containing gemcitabine, platinum, or temozolomide producing it most commonly. Bleeding and the need for platelet transfusions in CIT are rather uncommon except in patients with platelet counts below 25x10⁹/L in whom bleeding rates increase significantly and platelet transfusions are the only treatment. Nonetheless, platelet counts below 70x10⁹/L present a challenge. In patients with such counts, it is important to exclude other causes of thrombocytopenia (medications, infection, thrombotic microangiopathy, post-transfusion purpura, coagulopathy and immune thrombocytopenia). If these are not present, the common approach is to reduce chemotherapy dose intensity or switch to other agents. Unfortunately decreasing relative dose intensity is associated with reduced tumor response and remission rates. Thrombopoietic growth factors (recombinant human thrombopoietin, pegylated human megakaryocyte growth and development factor, romiplostim, eltrombopag, avatrombopag and hetrombopag) improve pretreatment and nadir platelet counts, reduce the need for platelet transfusions, and enable chemotherapy dose intensity to be maintained. National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines permit their use but their widespread adoption awaits adequate phase III randomized, placebo-controlled studies demonstrating maintenance of relative dose intensity, reduction of platelet transfusions and bleeding, and possibly improved survival. Their potential appropriate use also depends on consensus by the oncology community as to what constitutes an appropriate pretreatment platelet count as well as identification of patient-related and treatment variables that might predict bleeding.

Cancer of Unknown Primary With Presumptive Pancreatic Cancer Treated With FOLFIRINOX

A 52-year-old man was found to have an increase in carbohydrate antigen (CA)19-9. He underwent endoscopic ultrasound/fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of the soft tissue shadow near the pancreas and was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma. The cancer was judged to be of unknown primary. Cancers of unknown primary make up 3-5% of malignant tumors, and it is difficult to determine the treatment policy. FOLFIRINOX's efficacy in cancer of unknown primary is unclear. In this case, he received chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX. After five cycles of treatment, the best effect was stable disease (SD). However, he died about 6 months after the onset of symptoms. Pathological anatomy after death revealed that the primary lesion was in the pancreas. FOLFIRINOX may be effective for cancers of unknown primary. Pathological anatomy is important to confirm the validity of treatment. It is important to consider giving chemotherapy if there is a presumed primary tumor even if the cancer is of unknown primary.

MicroRNA expression profiling with a droplet digital PCR assay enables molecular diagnosis and prognosis of cancers of unknown primary

Metastasis is responsible for the majority of cancer‐related deaths. Particularly, challenging is the management of metastatic cancer of unknown primary site (CUP), whose tissue of origin (TOO) remains undetermined even after extensive investigations and whose therapy is rather unspecific and poorly effective. Molecular approaches to identify the most probable TOO of CUPs can overcome some of these issues. In this study, we applied a predetermined set of 89 microRNAs (miRNAs) to infer the TOO of 53 metastatic cancers of unknown or uncertain origin. The miRNA expression was assessed with droplet digital PCR in 159 samples, including primary tumors from 17 tumor classes (reference set) and metastases of known and unknown origin (test set). We combined two different statistical models for class prediction to obtain the most probable TOOs: the nearest shrunken centroids approach of Prediction Analysis of Microarrays (PAMR) and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) models. The molecular test was successful for all formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded samples and provided a TOO identification within 1 week from the biopsy procedure. The most frequently predicted origins were gastrointestinal, pancreas, breast, lung, and bile duct. The assay was applied also to multiple metastases from the same CUP, collected from different metastatic sites: The predictions showed a strong agreement, intrinsically validating our assay. The final CUPs' TOO prediction was compared with the clinicopathological hypothesis of primary site. Moreover, a panel of 13 miRNAs proved to have prognostic value and be associated with overall survival in CUP patients. Our study demonstrated that miRNA expression profiling in CUP samples could be employed as diagnostic and prognostic test. Our molecular analysis can be performed on request, concomitantly with standard diagnostic workup and in association with genetic profiling, to offer valuable indications about the possible primary site, thereby supporting treatment decisions.

Clinical challenges and promising therapies for chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia

Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced thrombocytop enia (CIT) is a common complication of cancer treatment causing chemotherapy delays, dose reductions, and treatment discontinuation, negatively impacting treatment outcomes and putting patients at risk for bleeding complications. There is no FDA-approved agent available to manage CIT.Areas covered: This article covers the diagnosis, definitions, and clinical challenges of CIT, and then focuses on the therapeutics developed to manage CIT. The first-generation thrombopoietic agents (oprelvekin and recombinant human thrombopoietins) are reviewed for critical background and context, followed by a detailed discussion of the data for the thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) to manage CIT. Efficacy of TPO-RAs in treatment and prevention of CIT, as well as safety concerns such as the risk of thromboembolic complications, are reviewed in detail. For this review, a PubMed/MEDLINE literature search was undertaken for relevant articles published from 1995-2021.Expert opinion: After over two decades of drug development for CIT, multiple clinical trials and observational studies have found TPO-RAs, in particular romiplostim, to be safe and effective agents to manage patients with CIT, although no agent is yet FDA-approved for this indication. Active management of CIT with TPO-RAs is likely to improve oncologic outcomes, although additional data are needed. Phase 3 trials are ongoing.

Case Report: Long-Term Survival of a Pediatric Patient With an Intra-Abdominal Undifferentiated Carcinoma of Unknown Primary

An 8-year and 10-month-old boy presented following 2 weeks of abdominal pain, vomiting, constipation, and rectal pain. A diffuse lower-abdominal mass was felt upon palpation, with radiological findings confirming the presence of a large, multilobulated intraperitoneal mass with mesenteric lymphadenopathy and hepatic metastatic disease. A biopsy of the mass revealed anatomical pathological findings consistent with a diagnosis of intra-abdominal undifferentiated carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP). The patient was treated with six cycles of carboplatin and gemcitabine prior to surgery. Following incomplete resection of the tumor, four further cycles were administered resulting in resolution of the pelvic mass, but progression in the right and left lobes of the liver. Therapy was accordingly adjusted, with administration of six cycles of ifosfamide and doxorubicin followed by 1 year of metronomic vinorelbine and cyclophosphamide maintenance therapy. The patient remains in remission 7 years from completion of therapy. Whole exome sequencing revealed missense mutations in the DNA-repair and chromatin-remodeling genes FANCM and SMARCD2, and a tumor-derived cell line revealed a complex karyotype suggesting chromosomal instability. CUP is an extremely rare diagnosis in the pediatric population, previously reported during adolescence. This report provides detailed characterization of CUP in a young child and in the absence of defined therapeutic guidelines for pediatric CUP, the successful treatment strategy described should be considered for similar cases.

Redefining cancer of unknown primary: Is precision medicine really shifting the paradigm?

The concept of Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) has evolved with the advent of medical oncology. CUP can be difficult to diagnose and represents 2 to 5% of new cancers, therefore not exceptionally rare. Within CUPs can be identified a subset of favourable prognosis tumours, however the vast majority of CUP patients belongs to a poor prognosis group. CUP features significant oncological challenges, such as unravelling biological and transversal issues, and most importantly, improving patient's outcomes. In that regard, CUP patients' outcomes regrettably showed minimal improvement for decades and CUP remains a cancer group of very poor prognosis. The biology of CUP has two main hypotheses. One is that CUP is a subgroup of a given primary cancer, where the primary is present but cannot be seen due to its small size. The other, the "true" CUP hypothesis, states that CUP share features that make them a specific entity, whatever their tissue of origin. A true biological signature has not yet been described, but chromosomal instability is a hallmark of poor prognosis CUP group. Precision oncology, despite achieving identifying the putative origin of the CUP, so far failed to globally improve outcomes of patients. Targeting molecular pathways based on molecular analysis in CUP management is under investigation. Immunotherapy has not shown ground-breaking results, to date. Accrual is also a crucial issue in CUP trials. Herein we review CUP history, biological features and remaining questions in CUP biology, the two main approaches of molecular oncology in CUP management, in order to draw perspectives in the enormous challenge of improving CUP patient outcomes.

Cell-blocks and other ancillary studies (including molecular genetic tests and proteomics)

Many types of elective ancillary tests may be required to support the cytopathologic interpretations. Most of these tests can be performed on cell-blocks of different cytology specimens. The cell-block sections can be used for almost any special stains including various histochemistry stains and for special stains for different microorganisms including fungi, Pneumocystis jirovecii (carinii), and various organisms including acid-fast organisms similar to the surgical biopsy specimens. Similarly, in addition to immunochemistry, different molecular tests can be performed on cell-blocks. Molecular tests broadly can be divided into two main types Molecular genetic tests and Proteomics.

Cancer of Unknown Primary: Challenges and Progress in Clinical Management

Simple Summary

Patients with cancer of unknown primary site suffer the burden of an uncertain disease, which is characterized by the impossibility to identify the tissue where the tumor has originated. The identification of the primary site of a tumor is of great importance for the patient to have access to site-specific treatments and be enrolled in clinical trials. Therefore, patients with cancer of unknown primary have reduced therapeutic opportunities and poor prognosis. Advancements have been made in the molecular characterization of this tumor, which could be used to infer the tumor site-of-origin and thus broaden the diagnostic outcome. Moreover, we describe here the novel therapeutic opportunities that are based on the genetic and immunophenotypic characterization of the tumor, and thus independent from the tumor type, which could provide most benefit to patients with cancer of unknown primary.

Abstract

Distant metastases are the main cause of cancer-related deaths in patients with advanced tumors. A standard diagnostic workup usually contains the identification of the tissue-of-origin of metastatic tumors, although under certain circumstances, it remains elusive. This disease setting is defined as cancer of unknown primary (CUP). Accounting for approximately 3–5% of all cancer diagnoses, CUPs are characterized by an aggressive clinical behavior and represent a real therapeutic challenge. The lack of determination of a tissue of origin precludes CUP patients from specific evidence-based therapeutic options or access to clinical trial, which significantly impacts their life expectancy. In the era of precision medicine, it is essential to characterize CUP molecular features, including the expression profile of non-coding RNAs, to improve our understanding of CUP biology and identify novel therapeutic strategies. This review article sheds light on this enigmatic disease by summarizing the current knowledge on CUPs focusing on recent discoveries and emerging diagnostic strategies.

"Metastatic Cancer of Unknown Primary" or "Primary Metastatic Cancer"?

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is an umbrella term used to classify a heterogeneous group of metastatic cancers based on the absence of an identifiable primary tumor. Clinically, CUPs are characterized by a set of distinct features comprising early metastatic dissemination in an atypical pattern, an aggressive clinical course, poor response to empiric chemotherapy and, consequently, a short life expectancy. Two opposing strategies to change the dismal prognosis for the better are pursued. On the one hand, following the traditional tissue-gnostic approach, more and more sophisticated tissue-of-origin (TOO) classifier assays are employed to push identification of the putative primary to its limits with the clear intent of allowing tumor-site specific treatment. However, robust evidence supporting its routine clinical use is still lacking, notably with two recent randomized clinical trials failing to show a patient benefit of TOO-prediction based site-specific treatment over empiric chemotherapy in CUP. On the other hand, with regards to a tissue-agnostic strategy, precision medicine approaches targeting actionable genomic alterations have already transformed the treatment for many known tumor types. Yet, an unmet need remains for well-designed clinical trials to scrutinize its potential role in CUP beyond anecdotal case reports. In the absence of practice changing results, we believe that the emphasis on finding the presumed unknown primary tumor at all costs, implicit in the term CUP, has biased recent research in the field. Focusing on the distinct clinical features shared by all CUPs, we advocate adopting the term primary metastatic cancer (PMC) to denominate a distinct cancer entity instead. In our view, PMC should be considered the archetype of metastatic disease and as such, despite accounting for a mere 2–3% of malignancies, unraveling the mechanisms at play goes beyond improving the prognosis of patients with PMC and promises to greatly enhance our understanding of the metastatic process and carcinogenesis across all cancer types.

Does Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) Truly Exist as a Distinct Cancer Entity?

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) designates an enigmatic cancer entity with histologic confirmation of malignancy from a metastasis but no identifiable primary tumor in spite of a thorough diagnostic work-up. In this review, we discuss the validity of CUP as a distinct cancer entity as well as diagnostic pitfalls. As arguments against a distinct entity, the diagnosis of CUP is erroneous in some cases. Diagnostic pitfalls include incomplete diagnostics, uncertainty in classifying a lesion as either primary or metastasis and mistaking a relapse of an antecedent malignancy as CUP due to histologic and immunohistologic disparities. Given the high frequency of prior malignancies in CUP patients, relapse of an antecedent cancer should always be carefully excluded. Gene expression profiling-based classifier assays aim at aligning the molecular profile of CUP patients with established primary cancer patterns for highest congruency in order to identify the putative primary and treat accordingly. However, the spectrum of predicted putative primaries by molecular techniques is somewhat at odds with the primaries identified in autopsy series. Also, a first randomized clinical trial did not show superiority of primary-tailored therapy over unspecific platinum-based chemotherapy. CUP cases share an aggressive clinical course, atypical metastasis pattern, rapid progression of metastases, a generally poor response to chemotherapy and dismal outcome as distinct clinical features. Metastatic spread appears to take place in the early stages of tumor evolution, with CUP metastases subsequently undergoing genetic evolution toward a chromosomally highly complex and instable karyotype independent from the primary tumor. In clinical practice, the diagnosis of CUP is valid when no primary tumor is detectable. Treatment should ideally offer broad spectrum coverage across numerous malignancies and be well-established in CUP as is the case for carboplatin/paclitaxel and cisplatin / gemcitabine in particular, but it should also cover the most likely putative primary. The diligent diagnosis of CUP is warranted for clinical trials, making the eligibility process particularly laborious. In conclusion, we deem CUP a distinct cancer entity and the diagnosis accurate in most patient cases.

[2018 Consensus statement by the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology on the diagnosis and treatment of cancer of unknown primary]

Cancer of unknown primary is defined as a heterogeneous group of tumours that present with metastasis, and in which attempts to identify the original site have failed. They differ from other primary tumours in their biological features and how they spread, which means they can be considered a separate entity. There are several hypotheses regarding their origin, but the most plausible explanation for their aggressiveness and chemoresistance seems to involve chromosomal instability. Depending on the type of study done, cancer of unknown primary can account for 2-9% of all cancer patients, mostly 60-75 years old. This article reviews the main clinical, pathological and molecular studies conducted to analyse and determine the origin of cancer of unknown primary. The main strategies for patient management and treatment, by both clinicians and pathologists, are also addressed.

2018 consensus statement by the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology on the diagnosis and treatment of cancer of unknown primary

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is defined as a heterogeneous group of tumours that present with metastasis, and in which attempts to identify the original site have failed. They differ from other primary tumours in their biological features and how they spread, which means that they can be considered a separate entity. There are several hypotheses regarding their origin, but the most plausible explanation for their aggressiveness and chemoresistance seems to involve chromosomal instability. Depending on the type of study done, CUP can account for 2–9% of all cancer patients, mostly 60–75 years old. This article reviews the main clinical, pathological, and molecular studies conducted to analyse and determine the origin of CUP. The main strategies for patient management and treatment, by both clinicians and pathologists, are also addressed.

Immunohistochemistry for Diagnosis of Metastatic Carcinomas of Unknown Primary Site

Immunohistochemistry has become an essential ancillary examination for the identification and classification of carcinomas of unknown primary site (CUPs). Over the last decade, the diagnostic accuracy of organ- or tumour-specific immunomarkers and the clinical validation of effective immunohistochemical panels has improved significantly. When dealing with small sample sizes, diagnostic accuracy is crucial, particularly in the current era of targeted molecular and immune-based therapies. Effective systematic use of appropriate immunohistochemical panels enables accurate classification of most of the undifferentiated carcinomas as well as careful preservation of tissues for potential molecular or other ancillary tests. This review discusses the algorithmic approach to the diagnosis of CUPs using CK7 and CK20 staining patterns. It outlines the most frequently used tissue-specific antibodies, provides some pitfalls essential in avoiding potential diagnostic errors and discusses the complementary tools, such as molecular tumour profiling and mutation-specific antibodies, for the improvement of diagnosis and prediction of the treatment response.

Diagnosis and management of metastatic neoplasms with unknown primary

In cancer of unknown primary (CUP), metastases are clinically and histologically confirmed, but the primary tumor site remains elusive after extensive work-up. CUPs make up for 2-3% of all epithelial malignancies. The two prevailing histologies are adenocarcinomas and undifferentiated carcinomas, whereas squamous cell carcinomas, neuroendocrine carcinomas and rare histologies account for the remaining 10%. The diagnostic work-up in CUP relies strongly on a detailed immunohistological (IHC) analysis in order to characterize the tumor type, nowadays aided by molecular techniques. Diagnostics also include a thorough clinical examination, a basic lab draw with the most relevant tumor markers, and cross sectional imaging. Additional PET-CT is recommended in cervical lymph nodes suggestive of head and neck cancer and in limited metastases potentially treatable in curative intent. As for treatment, it is paramount to identify patients who fall into one of the six well defined "favorable" subset categories, namely extragonadal germ cell tumors, adenocarcinoma with isolated unilateral axillary lymph nodes in female patients, squamous cell carcinoma with neck lymph nodes, squamous cell carcinoma with inguinal lymph nodes, serous papillary peritoneal carcinomatosis in females and blastic bone metastasis in males with elevated PSA. These subsets are distinct both regarding the required treatment and the comparably favorable prognosis. Within the remaining "unfavorable" group, patients of colon and renal cancer type should be identified based on IHC and clinical picture, since the prognosis of these patients seems to improve with the use of therapy tailored to the presumed primary as well. For the few patients with limited metastases it should be assessed whether they are candidates for surgery, radiotherapy or surgery followed by irradiation in curative intent. The remaining majority of patients are treated with empiric palliative chemotherapy, typically a platinum - paclitaxel combination, though the level of evidence for this therapy recommendation is low. Gemcitabine alone or in combination can be used as an alternative. Decoding of the molecular profiles in CUP offers the prospect of targeted therapy with novel agents. However, there appears to be no uniform molecular pattern for CUP, and the observed molecular diversity thus poses a challenge to respective clinical trials.

[Standard of care of carcinomas on cancer of unknown primary site in 2016]

Patients with Cancer of unknown primary (cup) represent 2-10%, and have disseminated cancers for which we cannot find the primary site despite the clinical, pathological and radiological exams at our disposal. Diagnosis is based on a thorough clinical and histopathologic examination as well as new imaging techniques. Several clinicopathologic entities requiring specific treatment can be identified. Genome sequencing and liquid biopsy (circulating tumor cells and tumor free DNA) could allow further advances in the diagnosis. Therapeutically, in addition to surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, precision medicine provides new therapeutic approaches.

Gene expression profiling identifies responsive patients with cancer of unknown primary treated with carboplatin, paclitaxel, and everolimus: NCCTG N0871 (alliance)

BACKGROUND

Carboplatin (C) and paclitaxel (P) are standard treatments for carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP). Everolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, exhibits activity in diverse cancer types. We did a phase II trial combining everolimus with CP for CUP. We also evaluated whether a gene expression profiling (GEP) test that predicts tissue of origin (TOO) could identify responsive patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A tumor biopsy was required for central confirmation of CUP and GEP. Patients with metastatic, untreated CUP received everolimus (30 mg weekly) with P (200 mg/m(2)) and C (area under the curve 6) every 3 weeks. The primary end point was response rate (RR), with 22% needed for success. The GEP test categorized patients into two groups: those having a TOO where CP is versus is not considered standard therapy.

RESULTS

Of 45 assessable patients, the RR was 36% (95% confidence interval 22% to 51%), which met criteria for success. Grade ≥3 toxicities were predominantly hematologic (80%). Adequate tissue for GEP was available in 38 patients and predicted 10 different TOOs. Patients with a TOO where platinum/taxane is a standard (n = 19) tended to have higher RR (53% versus 26%) and significantly longer PFS (6.4 versus 3.5 months) and OS (17.8 versus 8.3 months, P = 0.005), compared with patients (n = 19) with a TOO where platinum/taxane is not standard.

CONCLUSIONS

Everolimus combined with CP demonstrated promising antitumor activity and an acceptable side-effect profile. A tumor biomarker identifying TOO may be useful to select CUP patients for specific antitumor regimens.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV

NCT00936702.