NCT01086826, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

This meta-analysis indicates that a higher level of PD-L1 expression is a negative prognostic factor in RCC. Its validation as an independent prognostic factor compared to other traditionally used clinical parameters in localized or advanced disease is recommended.

Introduction: The HER2/neu proto-oncogene encodes a transmembrane receptor protein involved in the development and progression of the majority of cancers. Prior studies have shown that HER2/neu oncogene is overexpressed in approximately 15–30% of ovarian carcinomas. However findings regarding the overexpression and prognosis are still conflicting. Methods: Our retrospective study was performed on 194 ovarian carcinoma tissues obtained at the time of first surgery. The staining procedure for HER2/neu overexpression was performed using a polyclonal antibody. Results: HER2/neu overexpression was found in 53 out of 194 (27.3%) investigated cases of which 26 (13.4%) carcinomas were weakly positive (score 1+) and 27 (13.9%) moderately (score 2+) to intensely positive (score 3+). No significant relationship was found between HER2/neu score and main clinical and pathological features. Significant difference in overall survival was evident between negative women (0/1+) and positive women (2+/3+): 48 and 29 months, respectively (p = 0.04). In multivariate analysis HER2/neu overexpression appeared to be the only variable significantly correlated with progression and death. CA125 normalization at 3 and 6 months appeared a strong predictor of progression and survival. Conclusion: In this study HER2/neu overexpression was associated with an increased risk of progression and death, especially among women with FIGO Stage I and II ovarian carcinoma.

CTCs basal value is a predictive indicator of prognosis and changes in CTC levels during therapy may indicate a clinical response. Testing CTC levels during targeted treatments might substitute other measurement parameters for response evaluation.

Around 80–90% of prostate cancer (PCa) cases are dependent on androgens at initial diagnosis; hence, androgen ablation therapy directed toward a reduction in serum androgens and the inhibition of androgen receptor (AR) is generally the first therapy adopted. However, the patient’s response to androgen ablation therapy is variable, and 20–30% of PCa cases become castration resistant (CRPCa). Several mechanisms can guide treatment resistance to anti-AR molecules. In this regard, AR-dependent and -independent resistance mechanisms can be distinguished within the AR pathway. In this article, we investigate the multitude of AR signaling aspects, encompassing the biological structure of AR, current AR-targeted therapies, mechanisms driving resistance to AR, and AR crosstalk with other pathways, in an attempt to provide a comprehensive review for the PCa research community. We also summarize the new anti-AR drugs approved in non-metastatic castration-resistant PCa, in the castration-sensitive setting, and combination therapies with other drugs.

Modeling the relationship between circulating tumour cells number and prognosis of metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Springer Verlag, 2009, 122 (1), pp.211-217. <10.1007/s10549-009-0668-7>. EPIDEMIOLOGYModeling the relationship between circulating tumour cells number and prognosis of metastatic breast cancer Abstract Circulating tumor cell (CTC) count has been shown to be an independent predictor of progression in metastatic breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. A cutpoint is generally used to identify favorable and unfavorable response groups. In this study, we propose an approach in which the number of CTCs is analyzed as a continuous predictor, to detect the shape of the relationship between CTCs and prognosis of metastatic breast cancer. We evaluated the association of baseline CTC with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in a series of 80 patients treated for advanced breast cancer at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan. The association between CTCs and prognosis was analyzed with standard categorical survival analysis and spline regression models. At baseline, median age was 55 years; 33 patients were newly diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer (41%), while 28 (35%) and 19 (24%) were pretreated with one and two previous chemotherapy lines, respectively. After a median follow-up of 28 months, 76 disease progressions and 44 deaths were observed. Kaplan-Meier curves showed a clear association between CTCs and PFS (P-value 0.03) and OS (Pvalue \ 0.01). Patients with no CTC at baseline had a significantly better prognosis. When analyzing the CTCs as a continuous variable, we found an increase in risk with increasing number of CTCs, for both PFS and OS. The increase rate lessened after approximately 5 CTCs. CTCs represent a robust prognostic factor in the metastatic breast cancer setting. A nonlinear increase in risk of both progression and death with increasing number of CTCs was observed, with a lessening increase after approximately 5 CTCs. If distinct prognostic groups are to be identified, women with no CTC could plausibly represent a distinct favorable one.

Background: Patients invited to take part in a clinical trial may evoke an archetype on which they may base their decision of adherence to participation, instead of on the study itself. Methods: A 17-item, multiple choice questionnaire was developed, tested and then administered to 102 Italian-speaking patients with advanced lung or breast cancers who had never been exposed to participation in a trial. Results: The questionnaire was answered by all patients. Eighty-five percent were positive about trial participation. Demographic factors did not influence patients’ willingness to participate. Trust in the investigator (76%) or in the institute (64%) and hope of receiving a new chance for cure (78%) were cited as reasons to accept participation. A minority was concerned by potential conflicts of interest (31%) or the thought of being ‘guinea pigs’ (36%), and feared that doctors were interested in advancing their own research, even though there were more efficient drugs available (28%). Fifty percent feared receiving a little-known medicine, and 76% considered that a thorough explanation of toxicity/safety of the proposed treatment helped them decide. Conclusion: Several prejudices, fears and some hopes have been captured by the questionnaire. Understanding such specifics will improve patient information leading patients to a more conscious motivation in deciding whether to participate in a clinical trial.

information for conducting a meta-analysis. Our statement 'no statistically significant associations were reported for prostate and pancreatic cancers', which refers to cancer risk, is supported by summary estimates provided in the text and in Figure 3 (RR per 1 score 0.99, 95% CI 0.97e1.02; I 2 ¼ 0%, P het 0.43; six studies and 0.86, 95% CI 0.62e1.18; I 2 ¼ 90%, P het <0.001; two studies, respectively). Apart from lacking a doseeresponse relationship, the results for pancreatic cancer were only reported in two studies and were highly heterogeneous. Unfortunately, a meta-analysis was not possible for mortality data, because not enough studies assessed the relationship between meeting the 2007 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) recommendations and survival in patients with pancreatic or prostate cancer (Table 2B). As already stated in our discussion, upcoming studies using the recently updated WCRF/AICR score are warranted to draw firmer conclusions regarding mortality or cancer survival. 2 Concerning the comment regarding the use of relative risks (RRs), we used this term to uniformly refer to risk estimates [i.e. hazard ratio (HR), risk ratio, odds ratio (OR)] in tables and figures. In particular, all cohort studies provided results in HRs and only caseecontrol studies used ORs. Thus, a primary meta-analysis synthesizing findings within the same study design does not have an issue of combining different measures of association. In addition, results for HR and OR were pooled to produce a summary estimate in the meta-analysis. This was done under the assumption that when events are rare and absolute cancer risks are small, these measures will be approximately equal in the studies. 3 Finally, we assessed between-study heterogeneity and small-study effects using standard methods (Cochran's Q, I 2 , Egger's regression asymmetry test and funnel plot), and we appreciate the efforts of Jayaraj et al. 1 to complement our analysis with additional statistics that make our findings more transparent.