NCT01523353 (https://clinicaltrials.gov).

Modifying the t-CS by replacing disease-free interval, number of metastases, and CEA level with RAS mutation status produced an m-CS that outperformed the t-CS. The m-CS is therefore a simple validated tool that predicts survival after resection of CLM.

Background:Activating mutations in KRAS have been suggested as potential predictive and prognostic biomarkers. However, the prognostic impact of specific point mutations remains less clear. This study assessed the prognostic impact of specific KRAS mutations on survival for patients with colorectal cancer.Methods:Retrospective review of patients KRAS typed for advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer between 2010 and 2015 in a UK Cancer Network.Results:We evaluated the impact of KRAS genotype in 392 patients. Mutated KRAS was detected in 42.9% of tumours. KRAS mutations were more common in moderate vs well-differentiated tumours. On multivariate analysis, primary tumour T stage (HR 2.77 (1.54–4.98), P=0.001), N stage (HR 1.51 (1.01–2.26), P=0.04), curative intent surgery (HR 0.51 (0.34–0.76), P=0.001), tumour grade (HR 0.44 (0.30–0.65), P=0.001) and KRAS mutation (1.54 (1.23–2.12), P=0.005) were all predictive of overall survival. Patients with KRAS codon 12 mutations had worse overall survival (HR 1.76 (95% CI 1.27–2.43), P=0.001). Among the five most common codon 12 mutations, only p.G12C (HR 2.21 (1.15–4.25), P=0.01) and p.G12V (HR 1.69 (1.08–2.62), P=0.02) were predictive of overall survival.Conclusions:For patients with colorectal cancer, p.G12C and p.G12V mutations in codon 12 were independently associated with worse overall survival after diagnosis.

Ablative therapies offer significantly improved survival compared with palliative chemotherapy alone with 5-year survival rates of 17-24%. Complication rates amongst commonly used techniques are low.

for the European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer IMPORTANCE The patterns of disease recurrence after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with adjuvant chemotherapy remain unclear. OBJECTIVE To define patterns of recurrence after adjuvant chemotherapy and the association with survival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Prospectively collected data from the phase 3 European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer 4 adjuvant clinical trial, an international multicenter study. The study included 730 patients who had resection and adjuvant chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer. Data were analyzed between July 2017 and May 2019. INTERVENTIONS Randomization to adjuvant gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus capecitabine. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Overall survival, recurrence, and sites of recurrence. RESULTSOf the 730 patients, median age was 65 years (range 37-81 years), 414 were men (57%), and 316 were women (43%). The median follow-up time from randomization was 43.2 months (95% CI, 39.7-45.5 months), with overall survival from time of surgery of 27.9 months (95% CI, 24.8-29.9 months) with gemcitabine and 30.2 months (95% CI, 25.8-33.5 months) with the combination (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.98; P = .03). The 5-year survival estimates were 17.1% (95% CI, 11.6%-23.5%) and 28.0% (22.0%-34.3%), respectively. Recurrence occurred in 479 patients (65.6%); another 78 patients (10.7%) died without recurrence. Local recurrence occurred at a median of 11.63 months (95% CI, 10.05-12.19 months), significantly different from those with distant recurrence with a median of 9.49 months (95% CI, 8.44-10.71 months) (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.45; P = .04). Following recurrence, the median survival was 9.36 months (95% CI, 8.08-10.48 months) for local recurrence and 8.94 months (95% CI, 7.82-11.17 months) with distant recurrence (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.09; P = .27). The median overall survival of patients with distant-only recurrence (23.03 months; 95% CI, 19.55-25.85 months) or local with distant recurrence (23.82 months; 95% CI, 17.48-28.32 months) was not significantly different from those with only local recurrence (24.83 months; 95% CI, 22.96-27.63 months) (P = .85 and P = .35, respectively). Gemcitabine plus capecitabine had a 21% reduction of death following recurrence compared with monotherapy (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThere were no significant differences between the time to recurrence and subsequent and overall survival between local and distant recurrence. Pancreatic cancer behaves as a systemic disease requiring effective systemic therapy after resection.

The application of primary human hepatocytes following isolation from human tissue is well accepted to be compromised by the process of dedifferentiation. This phenomenon reduces many unique hepatocyte functions, limiting their use in drug disposition and toxicity assessment. The aetiology of dedifferentiation has not been well defined, and further understanding of the process would allow the development of novel strategies for sustaining the hepatocyte phenotype in culture or for improving protocols for maturation of hepatocytes generated from stem cells. We have therefore carried out the first proteomic comparison of primary human hepatocyte differentiation. Cells were cultured for 0, 24, 72 and 168 h as a monolayer in order to permit unrestricted hepatocyte dedifferentiation, so as to reveal the causative signalling pathways and factors in this process, by pathway analysis. A total of 3430 proteins were identified with a false detection rate of <1 %, of which 1117 were quantified at every time point. Increasing numbers of significantly differentially expressed proteins compared with the freshly isolated cells were observed at 24 h (40 proteins), 72 h (118 proteins) and 168 h (272 proteins) (p < 0.05). In particular, cytochromes P450 and mitochondrial proteins underwent major changes, confirmed by functional studies and investigated by pathway analysis. We report the key factors and pathways which underlie the loss of hepatic phenotype in vitro, particularly those driving the large-scale and selective remodelling of the mitochondrial and metabolic proteomes. In summary, these findings expand the current understanding of dedifferentiation should facilitate further development of simple and complex hepatic culture systems.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00204-016-1694-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Jellyfish (primarily scyphomedusae) fisheries have a long history in Asia, where jellyfish have been caught and processed as food for centuries. More recently, jellyfish fisheries have expanded to the Western Hemisphere, often driven by demand from Asian buyers and collapses of more traditional local fish stocks. Jellyfish fisheries have been attempted in numerous countries in North, Central, and South America, with varying degrees of success. Here, we chronicle the arrival of jellyfish fisheries in the Americas and summarize relevant information on jellyfish fishing, processing, and management. Processing technology for edible jellyfish has not advanced, and presents major concerns for environmental and human health. The development of alternative processing technologies would help to eliminate these concerns and may open up new opportunities for markets and species. We also examine the biodiversity of jellyfish species that are targeted for fisheries in the Americas. Establishment of new jellyfish fisheries appears possible, but requires a specific combination of factors including high 123Rev Fish Biol Fisheries DOI 10.1007/s11160-016-9445-y abundances of particular species, processing knowledge dictated by the target market, and either inexpensive labor or industrialized processing facilities. More often than not, these factors are not altogether evaluated prior to attempting a new jellyfish fishery. As such, jellyfish fisheries are currently expanding much more rapidly than research on the subject, thereby putting ecosystems and stakeholders' livelihoods at risk.

Assessing the potential of a new drug to cause drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a challenge for the pharmaceutical industry. We therefore determined whether cell models currently used in safety assessment (HepG2, HepaRG, Upcyte and primary human hepatocytes in conjunction with basic but commonly used endpoints) are actually able to distinguish between novel chemical entities (NCEs) with respect to their potential to cause DILI. A panel of thirteen compounds (nine DILI implicated and four non-DILI implicated in man) were selected for our study, which was conducted, for the first time, across multiple laboratories. None of the cell models could distinguish faithfully between DILI and non-DILI compounds. Only when nominal in vitro concentrations were adjusted for in vivo exposure levels were primary human hepatocytes (PHH) found to be the most accurate cell model, closely followed by HepG2. From a practical perspective, this study revealed significant inter-laboratory variation in the response of PHH, HepG2 and Upcyte cells, but not HepaRG cells. This variation was also observed to be compound dependent. Interestingly, differences between donors (hepatocytes), clones (HepG2) and the effect of cryopreservation (HepaRG and hepatocytes) were less important than differences between the cell models per se. In summary, these results demonstrate that basic cell health endpoints will not predict hepatotoxic risk in simple hepatic cells in the absence of pharmacokinetic data and that a multicenter assessment of more sophisticated signals of molecular initiating events is required to determine whether these cells can be incorporated in early safety assessment.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00204-016-1745-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.