Approximately one-half of advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanomas harbor a mutation in the BRAF gene, with V600E being the most common mutation. Targeted therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors is associated with significant long-term treatment benefit in patients with BRAF V600-mutated melanoma. Therefore, molecular testing for BRAF mutations is a priority in determining the course of therapy. A literature search was performed using MEDLINE/PubMed and scientific congress databases using the terms ‘BRAF,’ ‘mutation,’ and ‘cancer/tumor.’ These results were filtered to include manuscripts that focused on diagnostic tests for determining BRAF mutation status. Numerous BRAF testing methods were identified, including DNA-based companion diagnostic tests and DNA- and protein-based laboratory-developed tests. Herein we review the characteristics of each method and highlight the strengths and weaknesses that should be considered before use and when interpreting results for each patient. Molecular profiling has shown that mutation load increases with melanoma tumor progression and that unique patterns of genetic changes and evolutionary trajectories for different melanoma subtypes can occur. Discordance in the BRAF mutational status between primary and metastatic lesions, as well as intratumoral heterogeneity, is known to occur. Additionally, the development of acquired resistance to combination BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy is still a formidable obstacle. Therefore, tumor heterogeneity and the development of acquired resistance have important implications for molecular testing and ultimately the treatment of patients with advanced-stage melanoma. Overall, this information may help community oncologists more accurately and effectively interpret results of diagnostic tests within the context of recent data characterizing melanoma tumor progression.

No abstract

Cancer immunotherapy by chimeric antigen receptor-modified T (CAR-T) cells has shown exhilarative clinical efficacy for hematological malignancies. Recently two CAR-T cell based therapeutics, Kymriah (Tisagenlecleucel) and Yescarta (Axicabtagene ciloleucel) approved by US FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) are now used for treatment of B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) respectively in the US. Despite the progresses made in treating hematological malignancies, challenges still remain for use of CAR-T cell therapy to treat solid tumors. In this landscape, most studies have primarily focused on improving CAR-T cells and overcoming the unfavorable effects of tumor microenvironment on solid tumors. To further understand the current status and trend for developing CAR-T cell based therapies for various solid tumors, this review emphasizes on CAR-T techniques, current obstacles, and strategies for application, as well as necessary companion diagnostics for treatment of solid tumors with CAR-T cells.

No abstract

No abstract

Most prior studies of primary diagnosis in surgical pathology using whole slide imaging (WSI) versus microscopy have focused on specific organ systems or included relatively few cases. The objective of this study was to demonstrate that WSI is noninferior to microscopy for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology. A blinded randomized noninferiority study was conducted across the entire range of surgical pathology cases (biopsies and resections, including hematoxylin and eosin, immunohistochemistry, and special stains) from 4 institutions using the original sign-out diagnosis (baseline diagnosis) as the reference standard. Cases were scanned, converted to WSI and randomized. Sixteen pathologists interpreted cases by microscopy or WSI, followed by a wash-out period of ≥4 weeks, after which cases were read by the same observers using the other modality. Major discordances were identified by an adjudication panel, and the differences between major discordance rates for both microscopy (against the reference standard) and WSI (against the reference standard) were calculated. A total of 1992 cases were included, resulting in 15,925 reads. The major discordance rate with the reference standard diagnosis was 4.9% for WSI and 4.6% for microscopy. The difference between major discordance rates for microscopy and WSI was 0.4% (95% confidence interval, −0.30% to 1.01%). The difference in major discordance rates for WSI and microscopy was highest in endocrine pathology (1.8%), neoplastic kidney pathology (1.5%), urinary bladder pathology (1.3%), and gynecologic pathology (1.2%). Detailed analysis of these cases revealed no instances where interpretation by WSI was consistently inaccurate compared with microscopy for multiple observers. We conclude that WSI is noninferior to microscopy for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology, including biopsies and resections stained with hematoxylin and eosin, immunohistochemistry and special stains. This conclusion is valid across a wide variety of organ systems and specimen types.

No abstract

Protein arginine methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5) is an emerging epigenetic enzyme that mainly represses transcription of target genes via symmetric dimethylation of arginine residues on histones H4R3, H3R8 and H2AR3. Accumulating evidence suggests that PRMT5 may function as an oncogene to drive cancer cell growth by epigenetic inactivation of several tumor suppressors. Here we provide evidence that PRMT5 promotes prostate cancer cell growth by epigenetically activating transcription of the androgen receptor (AR) in prostate cancer cells. Knockdown of PRMT5 or inhibition of PRMT5 by a specific inhibitor reduces the expression of AR and suppresses the growth of multiple AR-positive, but not AR-negative, prostate cancer cells. Significantly, knockdown of PRMT5 in AR-positive LNCaP cells completely suppresses the growth of xenograft tumors in mice. Molecular analysis reveals that PRMT5 binds to the proximate promoter region of the AR gene and contributes mainly to the enriched symmetric dimethylation of H4R3 in the same region. Mechanistically, PRMT5 is recruited to the AR promoter by its interaction with Sp1, the major transcription factor responsible for AR transcription, and forms a complex with Brg1, an ATP-dependent chromatin remodeler, on the proximate promoter region of the AR gene. Furthermore, PRMT5 expression in prostate cancer tissues is significantly higher than that in benign prostatic hyperplasia tissues, and PRMT5 expression correlates positively with AR expression at both the protein and mRNA levels. Taken together, our results identify PRMT5 as a novel epigenetic activator of AR in prostate cancer. Given that inhibiting AR transcriptional activity or androgen synthesis remains the major mechanism of action for most existing anti-androgen agents, our findings also raise an interesting possibility that targeting PRMT5 may represent a novel approach for prostate cancer treatment by eliminating AR expression.