No abstract

Selection of cancer patients for treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors remains a challenge due to tumour heterogeneity and variable biomarker detection. PD-L1 expression in 24 surgical chordoma specimen was determined immunohistochemically with antibodies 28-8 and E1L3N. The ability of patient-derived organoids to detect treatment effects of nivolumab was explored by quantitative and qualitative immunofluorescence and FACS analysis. The more sensitive antibody, E1L3N (ROC = 0.896, p = 0.001), was associated with greater tumour diameters (p = 0.014) and detected both tumour cells and infiltrating lymphocytes in 54% of patients, but only 1–15% of their cells. Organoids generated from PD-L1-positive patients contained both tumour cells and PD-1/CD8-positive lymphocytes and responded to nivolumab treatment with marked dose-dependent diameter reductions of up to 50% and increased cell death in both PD-L1-positive and negative organoids. Patient-derived organoids may be valuable to predict individual responses to immunotherapy even in patients with low or no immunohistochemical PD-L1 expression.

Summary Specific trials on adult Burkitt lymphoma (BL) and ‘unclassifiable’ lymphomas with features intermediate between BL and diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (BL/DLBCL) are advocated which include substantial numbers of older patients, to improve treatment feasibility, while countering risks of systemic and central nervous system (CNS) recurrences. We prospectively evaluated a modified CODOX‐M/IVAC (CODOX‐M: cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, high‐dose methotrexate; IVAC: ifosfamide, etoposide and high‐dose cytarabine) regimen by the addition of rituximab (R) and liposome‐encapsulated cytarabine (D) to increase antitumour activity and halve the number of intrathecal treatments. Thirty adults (40% >60 years) with BL (n = 15) and BL/DLBCL (n = 15) were accrued. Primary endpoints were progression‐free survival (PFS), CNS recurrence, and liposomal cytarabine‐associated toxicity. Eighty percent of patients received the whole treatment programme, the remaining cases received at least three full courses. Application of the RD‐CODOX‐M/IVAC regimen resulted in remarkable 4‐year PFS (78%) and complete remission (CR) rates (93%). However, PFS was significantly lower in patients older than 60 years as compared to younger ones (49%vs 93%, P = 0·03; median, 36 months), despite high actual dose‐intensity, CR rate and tolerability. Reduced‐intensity intratechal prophylaxis through liposomal cytarabine was effective because the CNS failure rate was low (3·4%) and without severe neurological toxicities. The RD‐CODOX‐M/IVAC strategy is feasible and highly effective, but improving outcomes in elderly patients remains a priority.

Soft tissue tumors are a heterogeneous group of tumors, traditionally classified according to morphology and histogenesis. Molecular classification divides sarcomas into two main categories: (a) sarcomas with specific genetic alterations and (b) sarcomas showing multiple complex karyotypic abnormalities without any specific pattern. Most chromosomal alterations are represented by translocations which are increasingly detected. The identification of fusion transcripts, in fact, not only support the diagnosis but also provides the basis for the development of new therapeutic strategies aimed at blocking aberrant activity of the chimeric proteins. One of the genes most susceptible to breakage/translocation in soft tissue tumors is represented by Ewing sarcoma breakpoint region 1 (EWSR1). This gene has a large number of fusion partners, mainly associated with the pathogenesis of Ewing’s sarcoma but with other soft tissue tumors too. In this review, we illustrate the characteristics of this gene/protein, both in normal cellular physiology and in carcinogenesis. We describe the different fusion partners of EWSR1, the molecular pathways in which is involved and the main molecular biology techniques for the identification of fusion transcripts and for their inhibition.

BACKGROUND Therapeutic options to cure advanced, recurrent, and metastatic thymic tumors are limited. Evidence of a high uptake of indium‐labeled octreotide (111In‐DTPA‐D‐Phe1‐octreotide) in thymic tumors and the curative application of somatostatin analogs and prednisone in one patient with thymoma and pure red cell aplasia led the authors to start a Phase II study. METHODS Sixteen patients with advanced thymic tumors, unresponsive to conventional chemotherapeutic regimens, were enrolled in the study. The schedule includes administration of somatostatin analog octreotide (1.5 mg/day subcutaneously) associated with prednisone (0.6 mg/kg/day orally for 3 months, 0.2 mg/kg/day orally during follow‐up). In 8 cases, octreotide was replaced by the long‐acting analog lanreotide (30 mg/every 14 days intramuscolarly). Treatment was prolonged until progression of disease was documented. Overall response rate, survival, progression free survival, and toxicity were evaluated. RESULTS The overall response rate among 16 evaluable patients was 37%. One patient (6%) had a complete response, 5 (31%) had a partial response, 6 obtained a stabilization of disease, and 4 progressed during the treatment. After a median follow‐up of 43 months, the median survival was 15 months, and median time to progression was 14 months. Treatment was generally well tolerated with acceptable toxicity: cholelithiasis (1 patient), Grade 2 cushingoid appearance (3 patients), Grade 1 diarrhea (5 patients), Grade 2 hyperglycemia (3 patients). CONCLUSIONS Treatment with somatostatin analogs and prednisone has shown efficacy in patients with recurrent and metastatic malignant thymic tumors refractory to standard therapeutic options. The results obtained are very satisfactory given the lack of effective alternative treatments. Such therapy is not burdened by the same toxicity of chemotherapy; thus, it can be administered to heavily pretreated patients. Somatostatin analogs and prednisone are well tolerated, and the long‐acting analog lanreotide, which requires fewer injections, improves patients' compliance. Cancer 2002;94:1414–20. © 2002 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.10374