Next-generation Sequencing in the Management of Gastric and Esophageal Cancers

Characteristics and response to next-generation sequencing-guided therapy in locally advanced or metastatic esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer (EC) is a main cause of cancer-related deaths. However, genomic alterations and the clinical value of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in advanced or metastatic EC for precision therapy remain largely unclear. Herein, we performed comprehensive analyses on a cohort of 47 individuals with advanced or metastatic EC who underwent NGS between May 2017 and February 2020. Eventually, 227 mutated genes were identified in the cohort. TP53, NQO1, DPYD, GSTM1, XRCC1 and ERCC1 were the most mutated genes and associated with immune cell infiltration, autophagy and hypoxia. Patients who received NGS-guided treatments exhibited better objective remission rate (ORR) (72.22%), disease control rate (DCR) (88.89%), overall survival (OS) (P = .0019) and progression-free survival (PFS) (P = .0077) than those not receiving NGS-guided therapies. The multivariate analyses further demonstrated that the NGS-guided therapy was an independently prognostic factor (OS: hazard radio [HR] 0.31, 95% coincidence interval [CI] 0.1-0.97, P = .04). In conclusion, we depicted a comprehensive mutational landscape of 47 patients with locally advanced or metastatic EC and illustrated the utility of NGS testing to guide clinical management in improving ORR, DCR, OS and PFS.

Identifying Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarkers and Candidate Therapeutic Drugs of Gastric Cancer Based on Transcriptomics and Single-Cell Sequencing

Background and Objective: Gastric cancer (GC) is an important health burden and the prognosis of GC is poor. We aimed to explore new diagnostic and prognostic indicators as well as potential therapeutic targets for GC in the current study.

Methods: We screened the overlapped differentially expressed genes (DEGs) from GSE54129 and TCGA STAD datasets. Protein-protein interaction network analysis recognized the hub genes among the DEGs. The roles of these genes in diagnosis, prognosis, and their relationship with immune infiltrates and drug sensitivity of GC were analyzed using R studio. Finally, the clinically significant hub genes were verified using single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data.

Results: A total of 222 overlapping genes were screened, which were enriched in extracellular matrix-related pathways. Further, 17 hub genes were identified, and our findings demonstrated that BGN, COMP, COL5A2, and SPARC might be important diagnostic and prognostic indicators of GC, which were also correlated with immune cell infiltration, tumor mutation burden (TMB), microsatellite instability (MSI), and sensitivity of therapeutic drugs. The scRNA-seq results further confirmed that all four hub genes were highly expressed in GC.

Conclusion: Based on transcriptomics and single-cell sequencing, we identified four diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers of GC, including BGN, COMP, COL5A2, and SPARC, which can help predict drug sensitivity for GC as well.

MSI and EBV Positive Gastric Cancer's Subgroups and Their Link With Novel Immunotherapy

Gastric cancers have been historically classified based on histomorphologic features. The Cancer Genome Atlas network reported the comprehensive identification of genetic alterations associated with gastric cancer, identifying four distinct subtypes- Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-positive, microsatellite-unstable/instability (MSI), genomically stable and chromosomal instability. In particular, EBV-positive and MSI gastric cancers seem responsive to novel immunotherapies drugs. The aim of this review is to describe MSI and EBV positive gastric cancer's subgroups and their relationship with novel immunotherapy.

Precision medicine for human cancers with Notch signaling dysregulation (Review)

NOTCH1, NOTCH2, NOTCH3 and NOTCH4 are transmembrane receptors that transduce juxtacrine signals of the delta‑like canonical Notch ligand (DLL)1, DLL3, DLL4, jagged canonical Notch ligand (JAG)1 and JAG2. Canonical Notch signaling activates the transcription of BMI1 proto‑oncogene polycomb ring finger, cyclin D1, CD44, cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor 1A, hes family bHLH transcription factor 1, hes related family bHLH transcription factor with YRPW motif 1, MYC, NOTCH3, RE1 silencing transcription factor and transcription factor 7 in a cellular context‑dependent manner, while non‑canonical Notch signaling activates NF‑κB and Rac family small GTPase 1. Notch signaling is aberrantly activated in breast cancer, non‑small‑cell lung cancer and hematological malignancies, such as T‑cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and diffuse large B‑cell lymphoma. However, Notch signaling is inactivated in small‑cell lung cancer and squamous cell carcinomas. Loss‑of‑function NOTCH1 mutations are early events during esophageal tumorigenesis, whereas gain‑of‑function NOTCH1 mutations are late events during T‑cell leukemogenesis and B‑cell lymphomagenesis. Notch signaling cascades crosstalk with fibroblast growth factor and WNT signaling cascades in the tumor microenvironment to maintain cancer stem cells and remodel the tumor microenvironment. The Notch signaling network exerts oncogenic and tumor‑suppressive effects in a cancer stage‑ or (sub)type‑dependent manner. Small‑molecule γ‑secretase inhibitors (AL101, MRK‑560, nirogacestat and others) and antibody‑based biologics targeting Notch ligands or receptors [ABT‑165, AMG 119, rovalpituzumab tesirine (Rova‑T) and others] have been developed as investigational drugs. The DLL3‑targeting antibody‑drug conjugate (ADC) Rova‑T, and DLL3‑targeting chimeric antigen receptor‑modified T cells (CAR‑Ts), AMG 119, are promising anti‑cancer therapeutics, as are other ADCs or CAR‑Ts targeting tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily member 17, CD19, CD22, CD30, CD79B, CD205, Claudin 18.2, fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR)2, FGFR3, receptor‑type tyrosine‑protein kinase FLT3, HER2, hepatocyte growth factor receptor, NECTIN4, inactive tyrosine‑protein kinase 7, inactive tyrosine‑protein kinase transmembrane receptor ROR1 and tumor‑associated calcium signal transducer 2. ADCs and CAR‑Ts could alter the therapeutic framework for refractory cancers, especially diffuse‑type gastric cancer, ovarian cancer and pancreatic cancer with peritoneal dissemination. Phase III clinical trials of Rova‑T for patients with small‑cell lung cancer and a phase III clinical trial of nirogacestat for patients with desmoid tumors are ongoing. Integration of human intelligence, cognitive computing and explainable artificial intelligence is necessary to construct a Notch‑related knowledge‑base and optimize Notch‑targeted therapy for patients with cancer.

S-1 plus apatinib followed by salvage esophagectomy for irinotecan-refractory small cell carcinoma of the esophagus: A case report and review of the literature

RATIONALE

Small cell carcinoma of the esophagus (SCCE) is an uncommon but lethal disease characterized by dismal prognosis. Only 10% of advanced SCCE patients survive longer than 1 year. Resection is a choice for limited-stage cases, whereas the optimal treatment regimen for primary SCCE is yet to be elucidated. To the best of our knowledge, the efficacy of S-1 plus apatinib for irinotecan-refractory SCCE has not been reported before.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 61-year old, previously healthy male was admitted for dysphagia and fatigue. Endoscopic biopsy revealed a tumor in the middle third of the esophagus. Further exams including abdomen computed tomography excluded distant metastasis.

DIAGNOSES

Primary SCCE (pT1bN1M0, IIB) was established after salvage operation.

INTERVENTIONS

The tumor was enlarged after 1 cycle of first-line chemotherapy using irinotecan plus cisplatin, which indicated drug resistance. Second-line oral apatinib (425 mg daily) plus S-1 (60 mg, twice daily for 4 weeks with a 2-week drug-free interval) for a month showed efficacy, as shown by decreased serum neuron-specific enolase and stable of the esophageal lesion. Thereafter, salvage minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy and 2-field lymph node dissection was performed, followed by oral apatinib plus S-1 at the prior dosage for 6 months. In addition, maintenance therapy using low-dose apatinib (250 mg daily) plus S-1 (40 mg, twice daily for 4 weeks with a 2-week interval) were administered for another 6 months. Then the patient was followed up irregularly at the outpatient clinic.

OUTCOMES

The adverse events including hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, vomiting, leukopenia, impaired hepatic function, and fatigue were mainly tolerable. Forty months after the operation, he was readmitted for back pain and disseminated bone metastases appeared in magnetic resonance images. His progression-free survival could not be obtained precisely, and his overall survival was longer than 40 months up to September 2019.

LESSONS

S-1 plus apatinib followed by a timely esophagectomy with curative intent might be an alternative option for chemotherapy-refractory SCCE in selected patients. Better evidence is warranted.