Circulating tumor cells: Isolation, expansion, characterization and translation to clinic

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are the seeds for cancer metastases development, which is responsible for >90% of cancer-related deaths. Accurate quantification of CTCs in human fluids could be an invaluable tool for understanding cancer prognosis, delivering personalized medicine to prevent metastasis and finding cancer therapy effectiveness. Although CTCs were first discovered more than 200 years ago, until now it has been a nightmare for clinical practitioners to capture and diagnose CTCs in clinical settings. Our society needs rapid, sensitive, and reliable assays to identify the CTCs from blood in order to help save millions of lives. Due to the phenotypic EMT transition, CTCs are undetected for more than one-third of metastatic breast cancer patients in clinics. To tackle the above challenges, the first volume in “Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs): Detection Methods, Health Impact and Emerging Clinical Challenges discusses recent developments of different technologies, which have the capability to target and elucidate the phenotype heterogenity of CTCS. It contains seven chapters written by world leaders in this area, covering basic science to possible device design which can have beneficial applications in society. This book is unique in its design and content, providing an in-depth analysis to elucidate biological mechanisms of cancer disease progression, CTC detection challenges, possible health effects and the latest research on evolving technologies which have the capability to tackle the above challenges. It describes the broad range of coverage on understanding CTCs biology from early predictors of the metastatic spread of cancer, new promising technology for CTC separation and detection in clinical environment and monitoring therapy efficacy via finding the heterogeneous nature of CTCs. (Imprint: Nova Biomedical)

Deregulation of miR-126 expression in colorectal cancer pathogenesis and its clinical significance

In this study, we investigated the expression profiles and clinicopathological significance of miR-126 in large cohort of patients with colorectal cancers as well the cellular repercussions of miR-126 in colon cancer cells along with its targets in-vitro. Down regulation of miR-126 expression was associated with histological subtypes, peri-neural tumour infiltration, microsatellite instability and pathological staging of colorectal cancers (p<0.05). Low miR-126 expression was also associated with poorer survival in patients with colorectal cancer. Analysis of matched tissues from the same patient revealed that approximately 70% of the tested patients had similar levels of expression of miR-126 in primary cancer and cancer metastases in both lymph node and distant metastases. In addition, induced overexpression of miR-126 showed reduced cell proliferation, increased apoptosis and decreased accumulation of cells in the G0-G1 phase of the colon cancer cells. Furthermore, SW480(+miR-126) cells showed reduced BCL-2 and increased P53 protein expression. To conclude, deregulation of miR-126 in colorectal cancer at the tissue and cellular levels as well as its correlation with various clinicopathological parameters confirm the cancer suppressive role of miR-126 in colorectal cancer.

Elevated CDCP1 predicts poor patient outcome and mediates ovarian clear cell carcinoma by promoting tumor spheroid formation, cell migration and chemoresistance

Hematogenous metastases are rarely present at diagnosis of ovarian clear cell carcinoma (OCC). Instead dissemination of these tumors is characteristically via direct extension of the primary tumor into nearby organs and the spread of exfoliated tumor cells throughout the peritoneum, initially via the peritoneal fluid, and later via ascites that accumulates as a result of disruption of the lymphatic system. The molecular mechanisms orchestrating these processes are uncertain. In particular, the signaling pathways used by malignant cells to survive the stresses of anchorage-free growth in peritoneal fluid and ascites, and to colonize remote sites, are poorly defined. We demonstrate that the transmembrane glycoprotein CUB-domain-containing protein 1 (CDCP1) has important and inhibitable roles in these processes. In vitro assays indicate that CDCP1 mediates formation and survival of OCC spheroids, as well as cell migration and chemoresistance. Disruption of CDCP1 via silencing and antibody-mediated inhibition markedly reduce the ability of TOV21G OCC cells to form intraperitoneal tumors and induce accumulation of ascites in mice. Mechanistically our data suggest that CDCP1 effects are mediated via a novel mechanism of protein kinase B (Akt) activation. Immunohistochemical analysis also suggested that CDCP1 is functionally important in OCC, with its expression elevated in 90% of 198 OCC tumors and increased CDCP1 expression correlating with poor patient disease-free and overall survival. This analysis also showed that CDCP1 is largely restricted to the surface of malignant cells where it is accessible to therapeutic antibodies. Importantly, antibody-mediated blockade of CDCP1 in vivo significantly increased the anti-tumor efficacy of carboplatin, the chemotherapy most commonly used to treat OCC. In summary, our data indicate that CDCP1 is important in the progression of OCC and that targeting pathways mediated by this protein may be useful for the management of OCC, potentially in combination with chemotherapies and agents targeting the Akt pathway.

Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660. Findings Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3–33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6–12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1–11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57–0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9–15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1–13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58–0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. Interpretation Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population.