Gal-1 Expression Analysis in the GLIOCAT Multicenter Study: Role as a Prognostic Factor and an Immune-Suppressive Biomarker

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most frequent primary malignant brain tumor and has a dismal prognosis. Unfortunately, despite the recent revolution of immune checkpoint inhibitors in many solid tumors, these have not shown a benefit in overall survival in GBM patients. Therefore, new potential treatment targets as well as diagnostic, prognostic, and/or predictive biomarkers are needed to improve outcomes in this population. The β-galactoside binding protein Galectin-1 (Gal-1) is a protein with a wide range of pro-tumor functions such as proliferation, invasion, angiogenesis, and immune suppression. Here, we evaluated Gal-1 expression by immunohistochemistry in a homogenously treated cohort of GBM (the GLIOCAT project) and correlated its expression with clinical and molecular data. We observed that Gal-1 is a negative prognostic factor in GBM. Interestingly, we observed higher levels of Gal-1 expression in the mesenchymal/classical subtypes compared to the less aggressive proneural subtype. We also observed a Gal-1 expression correlation with immune suppressive signatures of CD4 T-cells and macrophages, as well as with several GBM established biomarkers, including SHC1, PD-L1, PAX2, MEOX2, YKL-40, TCIRG1, YWHAG, OLIG2, SOX2, Ki-67, and SOX11. Moreover, Gal-1 levels were significantly lower in grade 4 IDH-1 mutant astrocytomas, which have a better prognosis. Our results confirm the role of Gal-1 as a prognostic factor and also suggest its value as an immune-suppressive biomarker in GBM.

P11.36.A Could a transcriptome profile predict local control for glioblastoma?

Background

Glioblastoma (GB) is the most frequent and aggressive primary brain tumor in adults. The standard of care is surgery followed by radiotherapy in combination with temozolomide. GB molecular subtypes (Classical [CL], Mesenchimal [MES] and Proneural [PN]) have been correlated with prognosis. In the preclinical setting, CL and MES glioma stem-like initiating cells have also been shown to be more radioresistant than PN subtype. If confirmed in patients, the molecular subtype could predict the specific benefit of adjuvant treatment. The aim of this work is therefore to investigate whether GB molecular profiles are associated with treatment resistance in vivo.

Material and Methods

We analyzed the spatiotemporal pattern of recurrence (progression-free survival [PFS] and local control) in 37 GB patients treated with adjuvant radiotherapy (30 x 2 Gy, following EORTC contouring guidelines) plus temozolomide in the context of a multi-centric study. Relapse was defined following the RANO criteria (gadolinium enhanced area on MRI T1 sequence) and classified into 3 groups: in-field relapse (Dmean > 57 Gy), out-of-field relapse (Dmean < 48 Gy) and not-defined relapse (no follow-up MR data or marginal relapse). We used three different classification algorithms (SVM, K-Nearest Neighbor and single sample gene set enrichment analysis) for the transcriptomic classification of tumor samples, and we only assigned a molecular profile when all three classifications agreed, otherwise we called it Mixed profile. Patients with a not-defined spatial pattern of recurrence were included in the PFS analysis, but excluded from the local control analysis.

Results

The transcriptomic classification resulted in 14 CL, 1 MES, 9 PN and 13 Mixed. Median PFS after radiotherapy was 6 months, with a mean follow-up of 11 months. No differences in PFS were found between CL, PN and Mixed groups (the single MES case was excluded). Local control was analyzed in 24 patients (10 CL, 4 PN, 10 Mixed). Non- statistically significant differences were found between PN/Mixed and CL subtypes, with a median in-field relapse-free survival of 6.9 months (PN), 6.3 months (Mixed) and 4.7 months (CL).

Conclusion

Although there is no difference in PFS among GB molecular subtypes, these results suggest that the Classical subtypes seem to relapse faster inside the radiotherapy field. This would suggest a higher radioresistance compared to Proneural and Mixed subtypes, in agreement with preclinical data. Due to the low number of patients these differences are statistically non-significant, but they provide the rationale for further investigation in a larger patient cohort. Grant: Marató -TV3

Correction to: SEOM clinical guidelines for anaplastic gliomas (2017)

The SEOM/GEINO clinical guidelines provide recommendations for radiological, and molecular diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of adult patients with anaplastic gliomas (AG). We followed the 2016 WHO classification which specifies the major diagnostic/prognostic and predictive value of IDH1/IDH2 missense mutations and 1p/19q codeletions in AG. The diagnosis of anaplastic oligoastrocytoma is discouraged. Surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy with PCV or TMZ are the first-line standard of care for AG with slight modifications according to molecular variables. A multidisciplinary team is highly recommended in the management of these tumors.

SEOM clinical guidelines for anaplastic gliomas (2017)

The SEOM/GEINO clinical guidelines provide recommendations for radiological, and molecular diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of adult patients with anaplastic gliomas (AG). We followed the 2016 WHO classification which specifies the major diagnostic/prognostic and predictive value of IDH1/IDH2 missense mutations and 1p/19q codeletions in AG. The diagnosis of anaplastic oligoastrocytoma is discouraged. Surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy with PCV or TMZ are the first-line standard of care for AG with slight modifications according to molecular variables. A multidisciplinary team is highly recommended in the management of these tumors.

Epigenetic profiling to classify cancer of unknown primary: a multicentre, retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Cancer of unknown primary ranks in the top ten cancer presentations and has an extremely poor prognosis. Identification of the primary tumour and development of a tailored site-specific therapy could improve the survival of these patients. We examined the feasability of using DNA methylation profiles to determine the occult original cancer in cases of cancer of unknown primary.

METHODS

We established a classifier of cancer type based on the microarray DNA methylation signatures (EPICUP) in a training set of 2790 tumour samples of known origin representing 38 tumour types and including 85 metastases. To validate the classifier, we used an independent set of 7691 known tumour samples from the same tumour types that included 534 metastases. We applied the developed diagnostic test to predict the tumour type of 216 well-characterised cases of cancer of unknown primary. We validated the accuracy of the predictions from the EPICUP assay using autopsy examination, follow-up for subsequent clinical detection of the primary sites months after the initial presentation, light microscopy, and comprehensive immunohistochemistry profiling.

FINDINGS

The tumour type classifier based on the DNA methylation profiles showed a 99·6% specificity (95% CI 99·5-99·7), 97·7% sensitivity (96·1-99·2), 88·6% positive predictive value (85·8-91·3), and 99·9% negative predictive value (99·9-100·0) in the validation set of 7691 tumours. DNA methylation profiling predicted a primary cancer of origin in 188 (87%) of 216 patients with cancer with unknown primary. Patients with EPICUP diagnoses who received a tumour type-specific therapy showed improved overall survival compared with that in patients who received empiric therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 3·24, p=0·0051 [95% CI 1·42-7·38]; log-rank p=0·0029).

INTERPRETATION

We show that the development of a DNA methylation based assay can significantly improve diagnoses of cancer of unknown primary and guide more precise therapies associated with better outcomes. Epigenetic profiling could be a useful approach to unmask the original primary tumour site of cancer of unknown primary cases and a step towards the improvement of the clinical management of these patients.

FUNDING

European Research Council (ERC), Cellex Foundation, the Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII), Cancer Australia, Victorian Cancer Agency, Samuel Waxman Cancer Research Foundation, the Health and Science Departments of the Generalitat de Catalunya, and Ferrer.

Should we continue temozolomide beyond six cycles in the adjuvant treatment of glioblastoma without an evidence of clinical benefit? A cost analysis based on prescribing patterns in Spain

PURPOSE

The standard adjuvant treatment for glioblastoma is temozolomide concomitant with radiotherapy, followed by a further six cycles of temozolomide. However, due to the lack of empirical evidence and international consensus regarding the optimal duration of temozolomide treatment, it is often extended to 12 or more cycles, even in the absence of residual disease. No clinical trial has shown clear evidence of clinical benefit of this extended treatment. We have explored the economic impact of this practice in Spain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Spanish neuro-oncologists completed a questionnaire on the clinical management of glioblastomas in their centers. Based on their responses and on available clinical and demographic data, we estimated the number of patients who receive more than six cycles of temozolomide and calculated the cost of this extended treatment.

RESULTS

Temozolomide treatment is continued for more than six cycles by 80.5 % of neuro-oncologists: 44.4 % only if there is residual disease; 27.8 % for 12 cycles even in the absence of residual disease; and 8.3 % until progression. Thus, 292 patients annually will continue treatment beyond six cycles in spite of a lack of clear evidence of clinical benefit. Temozolomide is covered by the National Health Insurance System, and the additional economic burden to society of this extended treatment is nearly 1.5 million euros a year.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal duration of adjuvant temozolomide treatment merits investigation in a clinical trial due to the economic consequences of prolonged treatment without evidence of greater patient benefit.

Phase II Clinical Trial With Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin (CAELYX(R)/Doxil(R)) and Quality of Life Evaluation (EORTC QLQ-C30) in Adult Patients With Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcomas: A study of the Spanish Group for Research in Sarcomas (GEIS)

BACKGROUND

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), a formulation with pharmacokinetic differences with respect to doxorubicin (DXR), might benefit patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) pretreated with DXR.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with measurable and progressive STS received PLD at 35 mg/(2) every 3 weeks. Quality of life before and during treatment was assessed with EORTC QLQ-C30.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients, 22 DXR-pretreated, were given 140 cycles (median 3, range 1-18). Activity in 27 patients (5 GIST): one complete and one partial remission (both non-GIST and without prior DXR), 12 stabilizations and 13 progressions (response rate 7.4%, 95% CI: 0-17%). Grade 3 toxicity: palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (19% of patients), stomatitis (4%) or cutaneous (4%). Neutropenia grade>/=3 was detected in 16% of patients. Median relative dose intensity was 95%. Progression-free rate at 3 and 6 months was, respectively, 48 and 22%, median progression-free survival 5.8 months and median overall survival 8.7 months. QLQ-C30 at baseline and at weeks 6-11 in 23 and 13 patients, respectively, showed good reliability and validity. Quality of life did not seem to worsen during therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

PLD did not induce objective remissions in 22 STS patients pretreated with DXR, but progression-free rate figures support the use of this agent in patients who have not progressed under a DXR-containing regimen. The toxicity observed was comparable to that of other PLD schedules.

Phase II study of docetaxel (T), carboplatin (C), and gemcitabine (G), in advanced tumors of unknown primary site

12028

Background: Treatment of tumors of unknown primary site is still a challenge nowadays. D, C and G have shown high activity in solid tumors. We designed this study to evaluate activity and toxicity profile of a combination of these three drugs, according a protocol previously tested in lung cancer (Pectasides D, et al. J Clin Oncol 1999). Methods: Patients with histological diagnosis of solid tumor of unknown primary site, age ≥ 18 years old, ECOG PS ≤ 2 and adequate bone marrow, renal, hepatic and cardiac functions, were included. Treatment consisted in (d1): C AUC = 5 and G 800 mg/m2 IV; and d8): D 75 mg/m2 and G 800 mg/m2 IV, with G-CSF support. Courses were repeated every 28d for a maximum of 8 cycles, unless progression, unacceptable toxicity or consent withdrawal, whichever comes first. Results: Sixty-three patients have been included: median age was 66 years old (28–90), 89.6% of patients had ECOG PS 0–1. Tumor histology included adenocarcinoma (65.1%), undifferentiated (17.5%) and carcinoma (7.9%) or large-cell carcinoma (1.6%). Main metastatic sites were lung (49%), liver (44%), lymph nodes (41%) and bone (25%). Previous treatments included surgery (20.6%), chemotherapy (1.6%) and radiotherapy (12.7%). Treatment: 296 cycles (median 6, range 1–11) were administered. Median relative dose intensity was 96% for D, C and G. Efficacy: 8 patients achieved CR and 15 PR, resulting in an overall response rate of 36.5% (95% CI: 24.6–48.4%). Main grade III/IV toxicity per patient were asthenia (19%), diarrhea (18%), mucositis (11%), vomiting (10%), nausea (6%), thrombocytopenia (38%), neutropenia (24%), leucopenia (19%) and anemia (13%). Febrile neutropenia was observed in 2 patients (3%). Fourteen patients (22.2%) experienced severe toxicity: 9 of them were dropped out and 5 were toxic deaths (2 sepses, 2 pancytopenia and 1 pulmonary thromboembolism). Median time to treatment failure was 6.0 months (95% CI: 4.8–7.1), median TTP was 10.8 months (95% CI: 8.6–13.0) and median OS was 11.8 months (95% CI: 9.4–12.3), with a median follow up of 10.8 months. Conclusions: Despite the combination of D, C and G shows high activity in tumors of unknown primary site, its toxic death rate is > 5%. Thus, our group is working no longer with such a triplet combination.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Phase I/II trial of doxorubicin and fixed dose-rate infusion gemcitabine in advanced soft tissue sarcomas: a GEIS study

The aim of the study was to determine the dose-limiting toxicity and maximum tolerated dose of a first-line combination of doxorubicin and gemcitabine in adult patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas and to explore its activity and toxicity, and the presence of possible interactions between these agents. Patients with measurable disease were initially treated with doxorubicin 60 mg m⁻² by i.v. bolus on day 1 followed by gemcitabine at 800 mg m⁻² over 80 min on days 1 and 8, every 21 days. Concentrations of gemcitabine and 2′,2′-difluorodeoxyuridine in plasma, and gemcitabine triphosphate levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells were determined during 8 h after the start of gemcitabine infusion. Myelosuppression and stomatitis were limiting toxicities, and the initial dose level was applied for the Phase II trial, where grade 3–4 granulocytopenia occurred in 70% of patients, grade 3 stomatitis in 46% and febrile neutropenia in 20%. Objective activity in 36 patients was 22% (95% CI: 9–35%), and a 50% remission rate was noted in leiomyosarcomas. Administration of doxorubicin preceding gemcitabine significantly reduced the synthesis of gemcitabine triphosphate. Clinical activity, similar to that of single-agent doxorubicin, and the toxicity encountered do not justify further studies with this schedule of administration.

Randomized phase II trial of carboplatin versus paclitaxel and carboplatin in platinum-sensitive recurrent advanced ovarian carcinoma: a GEICO (Grupo Espanol de Investigacion en Cancer de Ovario) study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine whether the response rate for the paclitaxel-carboplatin combination is superior to carboplatin alone in the treatment of patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian carcinoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma, 6 months after treatment with a platinum-based regimen and with no more than two previous chemotherapy lines, were randomized to receive carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 5 (arm A) or paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) + carboplatin AUC 5 (arm B). The primary end point was objective response, following a 'pick up the winner' design. Secondary end points included time to progression (TTP), overall survival, tolerability and quality of life (QoL).

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients were randomized and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The response rate in arm B was 75.6% [26.8% complete response (CR) + 48.8% partial response (PR)] [95% confidence interval (CI) 59.7% to 87.6%] and 50% in arm A (20% CR + 30% PR) (95% CI 33.8% to 66.2%). No significant differences were observed in grade 3-4 hematological toxicity. Conversely, mucositis, myalgia/arthralgia and peripheral neurophaty were more frequent in arm B. Median TTP was 49.1 weeks in arm B (95% CI 36.9-61.3) and 33.7 weeks in arm A (95% CI 25.8-41.5). No significant differences were found in the QoL analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Paclitaxel-carboplatin combination is a tolerable regimen with a higher response rate than carboplatin monotherapy in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian carcinoma.

Phase II non-randomized study of three different sequences of docetaxel and vinorelbine in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Docetaxel and vinorelbine as single agents and in combination with cisplatin have shown significant activity in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Significant neutropenia has been observed with the combination of docetaxel/vinorelbine. To gain insight into the potential synergism of this combination, we examined three different sequences of docetaxel 75 and vinorelbine 20 mg/m(2), every 3 weeks, in locally advanced and metastatic NSCLC patients. About 14 patients were evaluable in each schedule: schedule A, docetaxel day 1, vinorelbine days 1 and 6; schedule B, docetaxel day 6, vinorelbine days 1 and 6; schedule C, docetaxel day 1, vinorelbine days 6 and 15. Response rates were: 42.8, 7.1 and 21.4% for schedules A, B and C, respectively (P=0.01, schedule A vs. B). Median survival time was 16, 6.5 and 10.6 months for schedules A, B and C, respectively (P=0.04, schedule A vs. B). Neutropenia was the commonest toxicity; 43% of patients in schedule A and 57% of patients in schedule B had a febrile neutropenia episode. Prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) was prescribed in schedule C after the first episode of febrile neutropenia. Non-hematologic toxicities were mild in all three schedules. For future studies, schedule A with lower doses is recommended.

[Rheumatoid arthritis and multiple neoplasms]

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis the appearance of neoplastic disease has been fundamentally described of lymphoproliferative origin. The case of a 59 year old woman with rheumatoid arthritis of a 4 year evolution is reported. The patient was treated with gold salts and methotrexate and presented successively a bronchogenic carcinoma and a non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The epidemiologic studies in the relation of rheumatoid arthritis-neoplasia are discussed and the pathogenic hypotheses to the immune alterations as well as the treatments employed are described.

Mitomycin-C and vinblastine in advanced breast cancer

Forty-two patients with metastatic breast cancer refractory to first-line therapies were treated with combination chemotherapy with mitomycin-C and vinblastine. A response to treatment was observed in 11 of 34 evaluable patients (32.3%), with 3 complete remissions (8.8%) and 8 partial remissions (23.5%). The median duration of response was 185+ days. The 12-month survival was 78% for responders, 48% for patients with stable disease and 0% for patients with progressive disease. The toxicity was acceptable with 20 episodes of moderate myelosuppression (58.8%) and 2 cases with congestive heart failure that responded to medical treatment. The MMC-VBL combination is an active regime for advanced breast cancer previously treated with antracyclines. This combination may be regarded as a standard second-line treatment for this type of tumor.