Missiaglia E.,Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics |
Missiaglia E.,Molecular Therapeutics |
Williamson D.,Northern Institute for Cancer Research |
Chisholm J.,Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust |
And 11 more authors.
Journal of Clinical Oncology | Year: 2012
Purpose: To improve the risk stratification of patients with rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) through the use of clinical and molecular biologic data. Patients and Methods: Two independent data sets of gene-expression profiling for 124 and 101 patients with RMS were used to derive prognostic gene signatures by using a meta-analysis. These and a previously published metagene signature were evaluated by using cross validation analyses. A combined clinical and molecular risk-stratification scheme that incorporated the PAX3/FOXO1 fusion gene status was derived from 287 patients with RMS and evaluated. Results: We showed that our prognostic gene-expression signature and the one previously published performed well with reproducible and significant effects. However, their effect was reduced when cross validated or tested in independent data and did not add new prognostic information over the fusion gene status, which is simpler to assay. Among nonmetastatic patients, patients who were PAX3/FOXO1 positive had a significantly poorer outcome compared with both alveolar-negative and PAX7/FOXO1-positive patients. Furthermore, a new clinicomolecular risk score that incorporated fusion gene status (negative and PAX3/FOXO1 and PAX7/FOXO1 positive), Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study TNM stage, and age showed a significant increase in performance over the current risk-stratification scheme. Conclusion: Gene signatures can improve current stratification of patients with RMS but will require complex assays to be developed and extensive validation before clinical application. A significant majority of their prognostic value was encapsulated by the fusion gene status. A continuous risk score derived from the combination of clinical parameters with the presence or absence of PAX3/FOXO1 represents a robust approach to improving current risk-adapted therapy for RMS. © 2012 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Knipe D.W.,University of Bristol |
Evans D.M.,University of Bristol |
Kemp J.P.,University of Bristol |
Eeles R.,Institute of Cancer Research |
And 12 more authors.
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention | Year: 2014
Background: Only a minority of the genetic components of prostate cancer risk have been explained. Some observed associations of SNPs with prostate cancer might arise from associations of these SNPs with circulating prostate-specific antigen (PSA) because PSA values are used to select controls. Methods: We undertook a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of screen-detected prostate cancer (ProtecT: 1,146 cases and 1,804 controls); meta-analyzed the results with those from the previously published UK Genetic Prostate Cancer Study (1,854 cases and 1,437 controls); investigated associations of SNPs with prostate cancer using either -low- (PSA < 0.5 ng/mL) or -high- (PSA≥3 ng/mL, biopsy negative) PSA controls; and investigated associations of SNPs with PSA. Results: The ProtecT GWAS confirmed previously reported associations of prostate cancer at three loci: 10q11.23, 17q24.3, and 19q13.33. The meta-analysis confirmed associations of prostate cancer with SNPs near four previously identified loci (8q24.21,10q11.23, 17q24.3, and 19q13.33). When comparing prostate cancer cases with lowPSAcontrols, alleles at genetic markers rs1512268, rs445114, rs10788160, rs11199874, rs17632542, rs266849, and rs2735839 were associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer, but the effect-estimates were attenuated to the null when using high PSA controls (Pheterogeneity in effect-estimates < 0.04). We found a novel inverse association of rs9311171-T with circulating PSA. Conclusions: Differences in effect-estimates for prostate cancer observed when comparing low versus high PSA controls may be explained by associations of these SNPs with PSA. Impact: These findings highlight the need for inferences from genetic studies of prostate cancer risk to carefully consider the influence of control selection criteria. © 2014 American Association for Cancer Research.
Juneja P.,Institute of Cancer Research |
Harris E.J.,Institute of Cancer Research |
Kirby A.M.,Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust |
Evans P.M.,Institute of Cancer Research
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | Year: 2012
Purpose: To validate and compare the accuracy of breast tissue segmentation methods applied to computed tomography (CT) scans used for radiation therapy planning and to study the effect of tissue distribution on the segmentation accuracy for the purpose of developing models for use in adaptive breast radiation therapy. Methods and Materials: Twenty-four patients receiving postlumpectomy radiation therapy for breast cancer underwent CT imaging in prone and supine positions. The whole-breast clinical target volume was outlined. Clinical target volumes were segmented into fibroglandular and fatty tissue using the following algorithms: physical density thresholding; interactive thresholding; fuzzy c-means with 3 classes (FCM3) and 4 classes (FCM4); and k-means. The segmentation algorithms were evaluated in 2 stages: first, an approach based on the assumption that the breast composition should be the same in both prone and supine position; and second, comparison of segmentation with tissue outlines from 3 experts using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). Breast datasets were grouped into nonsparse and sparse fibroglandular tissue distributions according to expert assessment and used to assess the accuracy of the segmentation methods and the agreement between experts. Results: Prone and supine breast composition analysis showed differences between the methods. Validation against expert outlines found significant differences (P<.001) between FCM3 and FCM4. Fuzzy c-means with 3 classes generated segmentation results (mean DSC = 0.70) closest to the experts' outlines. There was good agreement (mean DSC = 0.85) among experts for breast tissue outlining. Segmentation accuracy and expert agreement was significantly higher (P<.005) in the nonsparse group than in the sparse group. Conclusions: The FCM3 gave the most accurate segmentation of breast tissues on CT data and could therefore be used in adaptive radiation therapy-based on tissue modeling. Breast tissue segmentation methods should be used with caution in patients with sparse fibroglandular tissue distribution. © 2012 Elsevier Inc.
Neoptolemos J.P.,University of Liverpool |
Stocken D.D.,University of Birmingham |
Bassi C.,University of Verona |
Ghaneh P.,University of Liverpool |
And 24 more authors.
JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association | Year: 2010
Context: Adjuvant fluorouracil has been shown to be of benefit for patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Gemcitabine is known to be the most effective agent in advanced disease as well as an effective agent in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Objective: To determine whether fluorouracil or gemcitabine is superior in terms of overall survival as adjuvant treatment following resection of pancreatic cancer. Design, Setting, and Patients: The European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC)-3 trial, an open-label, phase 3, randomized controlled trial conducted in 159 pancreatic cancer centers in Europe, Australasia, Japan, and Canada. Included in ESPAC-3 version 2 were 1088 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who had undergone cancer resection; patients were randomized between July 2000 and January 2007 and underwent at least 2 years of follow-up. Interventions: Patients received either fluorouracil plus folinic acid (folinic acid, 20 mg/m2, intravenous bolus injection, followed by fluorouracil, 425 mg/m2 intravenous bolus injection given 1-5 days every 28 days) (n=551) or gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 intravenous infusion once a week for 3 of every 4 weeks) (n=537) for 6 months. Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome measure was overall survival; secondary measures were toxicity, progression-free survival, and quality of life. Results: Final analysis was carried out on an intention-to-treat basis after a median of 34.2 (interquartile range, 27.1-43.4) months' follow-up after 753 deaths (69%). Median survival was 23.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.1-25.0) months for patients treated with fluorouracil plus folinic acid and 23.6 (95% CI, 21.4-26.4) months for those treated with gemcitabine (χ1 2=0.7; P=.39; hazard ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.81-1.08]). Seventy-seven patients (14%) receiving fluorouracil plus folinic acid had 97 treatment-related serious adverse events, compared with 40 patients (7.5%) receiving gemcitabine, who had 52 events (P<.001). There were no significant differences in either progression-free survival or global quality-of-life scores between the treatment groups. Conclusion: Compared with the use of fluorouracil plus folinic acid, gemcitabine did not result in improved overall survival in patients with completely resected pancreatic cancer. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00058201. ©2010 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Douillard J.-Y.,Institute Of Cancerologie Of Louest Ico Rene Gauducheau |
Oliner K.S.,Amgen Inc. |
Siena S.,Ospedale Niguarda Ca Granda |
Tabernero J.,Autonomous University of Barcelona |
And 18 more authors.
New England Journal of Medicine | Year: 2013
BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer that harbors KRAS mutations in exon 2 do not benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy. Other activating RAS mutations may also be negative predictive biomarkers for anti-EGFR therapy. METHODS: In this prospective-retrospective analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX4) as compared with FOLFOX4 alone, according to RAS (KRAS or NRAS) or BRAF mutation status. A total of 639 patients who had metastatic colorectal cancer without KRAS mutations in exon 2 had results for at least one of the following: KRAS exon 3 or 4; NRAS exon 2, 3, or 4; or BRAF exon 15. The overall rate of ascertainment of RAS status was 90%. RESULTS: Among 512 patients without RAS mutations, progression-free survival was 10.1 months with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus 7.9 months with FOLFOX4 alone (hazard ratio for progression or death with combination therapy, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.90; P = 0.004). Overall survival was 26.0 months in the panitumumab-FOLFOX4 group versus 20.2 months in the FOLFOX4-alone group (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.99; P = 0.04). A total of 108 patients (17%) with non-mutated KRAS exon 2 had other RAS mutations. These mutations were associated with inferior progression-free survival and overall survival with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment, which was consistent with the findings in patients with KRAS mutations in exon 2. BRAF mutations were a negative prognostic factor. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Additional RAS mutations predicted a lack of response in patients who received panitumumab-FOLFOX4. In patients who had metastatic colorectal cancer without RAS mutations, improvements in overall survival were observed with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 therapy. Copyright © 2013 Massachusetts Medical Society.