Cisplatin based adjuvant chemoradiation following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery in advanced oral cavity cancers: A deliverable regimen?

Factors that impact the outcomes in testicular germ cell tumors in low-middle-income countries

Germ cell tumors (GCTs) are one of the most common tumors in adolescents and young adults. There is paucity of data on GCT from low-middle-income countries (LMIC). The present study was conducted to assess the demographic features, clinical manifestations, pathology, and outcomes of GCT patients treated at our center. Patients with testicular GCT above the age of 18 years, treated at our center from 2001 to 2015 were included in the study. Data were extracted retrospectively from the case records. Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the variables were compared using the log-rank test. The study included 421 patients among whom 128 (30%) had a histological diagnosis of seminoma and 293 (70%) had non-seminomatous germ cell tumor (NSGCT). Metastatic disease at presentation was observed in 83/128 (65%) with seminoma and 254/293 (87%) with NSGCT. According to the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) risk stratification for metastatic disease, good- and intermediate-risk seminoma were observed in 55/83 (66%) and 28/83 (34%) patients, respectively, and good-, intermediate-, and poor-risk NSGCT were observed in 82/254 (32%), 76/254 (30%), and 96/254 (38%) patients, respectively. The median follow-up was 32.3 months (range 0.03-200 months). The 3-year OS for the entire cohort was 80.3%. The 3-year OS for seminoma was 91.4%, and for NSGCT was 75.3%. Factors significantly associated with inferior EFS and OS on multivariate analysis included poor performance status, scrotal orchidectomy, carboplatin-based regimen, NSGCT histology, and treatment default. Patients with testicular GCT in India present in an advanced stage and higher IGCCCG risk compared to Western data. Factors unique to LMIC like treatment default, bulky disease, dose compromise, and scrotal orchidectomy have a negative impact on the outcome.

Evidence mapping and quality assessment of systematic reviews on therapeutic interventions for oral cancer

Purpose

This evidence mapping aims to describe and assess the quality of available evidence in systematic reviews (SRs) on treatments for oral cancer.

Materials and methods

We followed the methodology of Global Evidence Mapping. Searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Epistemonikos and The Cochrane Library were conducted to identify SRs on treatments for oral cancer. The methodological quality of SRs was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 tool. We organized the results according to identified Population–Intervention–Comparison–Outcome (PICO) questions and presented the evidence mapping in tables and a bubble plot.

Results

Fifteen SRs met the eligibility criteria, including 118 individual reports, of which 55.1% were randomized controlled clinical trials. Ten SRs scored “Critically low” methodological quality. We extracted 30 PICOs focusing on interventions such as surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy; 18 PICOs were for resectable oral cancer, of which 8 were reported as beneficial. There were 12 PICOs for unresectable oral cancer, of which only 2 interventions were reported as beneficial.

Conclusion

There is limited available evidence on treatments for oral cancer. The methodological quality of most included SRs scored “Critically low”. The main beneficial treatment reported by authors for patients with resectable oral cancer is surgery alone or in combination with radiotherapy or chemotherapy. Evidence about the benefits of the treatments for unresectable oral cancer is lacking. These findings highlight the need to address future research focused on new treatments and knowledge gaps in this field, and increased efforts are required to improve the methodology quality and reporting process of SRs on treatments for oral cancer.

Sorafenib resistance in hepatocarcinoma: role of hypoxia-inducible factors

Sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor with antiproliferative, antiangiogenic, and proapoptotic properties, constitutes the only effective first-line drug approved for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Despite its capacity to increase survival in HCC patients, its success is quite low in the long term owing to the development of resistant cells through several mechanisms. Among these mechanisms, the antiangiogenic effects of sustained sorafenib treatment induce a reduction of microvessel density, promoting intratumoral hypoxia and hypoxia-inducible factors (HIFs)-mediated cellular responses that favor the selection of resistant cells adapted to the hypoxic microenvironment. Clinical data have demonstrated that overexpressed HIF-1α and HIF-2α in HCC patients are reliable markers of a poor prognosis. Thus, the combination of current sorafenib treatment with gene therapy or inhibitors against HIFs have been documented as promising approaches to overcome sorafenib resistance both in vitro and in vivo. Because the depletion of one HIF-α subunit elevates the expression of the other HIF-α isoform through a compensatory loop, targeting both HIF-1α and HIF-2α would be a more interesting strategy than therapies that discriminate among HIF-α isoforms. In conclusion, there is a marked correlation between the hypoxic microenvironment and sorafenib resistance, suggesting that targeting HIFs is a promising way to increase the efficiency of treatment.

Targeting hypoxia-inducible factors (HIFs), regulatory proteins induced by low oxygen levels, could increase the effectiveness of sorafenib, the only systemic therapy approved for advanced liver cancer. Long-term treatment with sorafenib starves tumors of oxygen, which can lead to the proliferation of cancer cells that are able to survive low oxygen levels. HIFs regulate genes involved in this adaptation and HIF levels are increased in sorafenib-resistant cells. José Mauriz at the University of León, Spain, and colleagues review recent studies on the effects of HIF inhibition on sorafenib efficacy. They conclude that HIF-1α and HIF-2α are predictive markers of sorafenib resistance and that using inhibitors of both these factors as an add-on therapy could improve patient survival. This strategy may be applicable to other types of cancer in which reduced oxygen conditions lead to drug resistance.