The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling pathway has emerged as a promising target for cancer therapy. Rapamycin inhibits mTOR activity but induces upstream signaling, leading to Akt activation, potentially limiting antitumor activity. Octreotide, a somatostatin analog, decreases phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase/Akt signaling in some models, and thus theoretically may enhance rapamycin's antitumor activity. The aim of this study was to determine the antitumor activity of rapamycin and octreotide as single agents and in combination in neuroendocrine tumors. In carcinoid cell lines BON-1 and NCI-H727, cell proliferation was significantly inhibited by rapamycin in vitro, although rapamycin treatment did lead to Akt phosphorylation. Octreotide had limited antiproliferative effects alone, and did not demonstrate synergistic or additive interactions with rapamycin. Furthermore, octreotide did not overcome rapamycin-induced Akt phosphorylation. In vivo, rapamycin alone caused significant tumor suppression. Octreotide alone did not inhibit in vivo tumor growth and did not enhance rapamycin-mediated growth inhibition. In conclusion, rapamycin causes significant growth inhibition in carcinoid tumor cell lines in vitro and in vivo, thus mTOR is a promising therapeutic target for neuroendocrine tumors. Octreotide does not enhance the efficacy of rapamycin's antiproliferative effects in the models tested, and does not inhibit rapamycin-mediated feedback activation of Akt. Further study is needed in order to determine whether octreotide or other somatostatin analogs enhance the efficacy of mTOR inhibitors in other models.

Summary Radiation therapy plays an integral role in the management of head and neck cancers (HNCs). While most HNC patients have historically been treated with photon-based radiation techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), there is a growing awareness of the potential clinical benefit of proton therapy over IMRT in the definitive, postoperative and reirradiation settings given the unique physical properties of protons. Intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), also known as “pencil beam proton therapy,” is a sophisticated mode of proton therapy that is analogous to IMRT and an active area of investigation in cancer care. Multifield optimization IMPT allows for high quality plans that can target superficially located HNCs as well as large neck volumes while significantly reducing integral doses. Several dosimetric studies have demonstrated the superiority of IMPT over IMRT to improve dose sparing of nearby organs such as the larynx, salivary glands, and esophagus. Evidence of the clinical translation of these dosimetric advantages has been demonstrated with documented toxicity reductions (such as decreased feeding tube dependency) after IMPT for patients with HNCs. While there are relative challenges to IMPT planning that exist today such as particle range uncertainties and high sensitivity to anatomical changes, ongoing investigations in image-guidance techniques and robust optimization methods are promising. A systematic approach towards utilizing IMPT and additional prospective studies are also necessary in order to more accurately estimate the clinical benefit of IMPT over IMRT and passive proton therapy on a case-by-case basis for patients with sub-site specific HNCs.

No abstract

Quantitative volume ΔADC and TLG during treatment may serve as early imaging biomarkers for discriminating pathologic response to chemoradiation in esophageal cancer. Validation of these data in larger, prospective, multicenter studies is essential.

Purpose: Metaplastic breast cancer (BC) is an uncommon yet aggressive histologic subtype of BC. We sought to identify factors associated with its diagnosis and compare the management and outcomes of metaplastic BC with those of other BCs and triple negative invasive ductal carcinoma in particular given how often it has a triple negative phenotype. Patients and Methods:We identified women diagnosed with invasive BC in 2010-2014 in the National Cancer Data Base, and used univariate analysis to compare baseline patient and tumor characteristics by BC subtype. Overall survival (OS) was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify independent predictors of OS. Results: Of 247,355 cases, 2,084 (0.8%) were metaplastic BC, 55,998 (23%) triple negative BC, and 77% other BC. Relative to non-metaplastic BC, women with metaplastic BC were more likely to be older at diagnosis (median age, 62 vs. 59 years), have ≥1 comorbid conditions (22% vs. 18%), and be on Medicare (41% vs. 33%; P<0.001). Metaplastic BCs tended to be basal-like (77%), and relative to triple-negative or other BC, metaplastic BC was associated with higher clinical T status (cT3-4, 18% vs. 11%, 8%), no clinical nodal involvement (cN0, 86%, 77%, 80%), no lymphovascular invasion (72%, 65%, 62%), and high-grade tumors (71%, 77%, 35%) (P<0.001). Most metaplastic BCs were treated with mastectomy (58%), sentinel lymph node dissection (65%), chest wall or breast irradiation (74%), and chemotherapy (75%) as adjuvant therapy (60%). At a median follow-up time of 44.5 months, OS rates were lower for metaplastic BC than for triple-negative or other BC across all clinical stages at 5 years (stage I, 85%, 87%, 91%; II, 73%, 77%, 87%; III, 43%, 53%, 75%) and at 3 years (Stage IV, 15%, 22%, 64%; P<0.001). On multivariate analysis, increasing age, advanced clinical stage, lymphovascular invasion, axillary (vs. sentinel) node dissection, and no radiation or chemotherapy were associated with worse outcomes in metaplastic BC. Extent of surgery affected survival for triple-negative and other BC but not for metaplastic BC. Conclusion: Outcomes for metaplastic BC continue to be worse than those for other BC subtypes despite modern treatments. Optimizing systemic therapy options, which was a significant predictor of survival, should be a priority in managing metaplastic BC.