Investigation of the interaction between non-small cell lung cancer cells and immortalised normal bronchial epithelial cells

Non-small cell lung cancer consists of a diverse range of molecular and pathological features. This may be due in part to the critical interaction between normal and lung cancer cells. Consequently resulting in ‘normal’ cells acting in a malignant fashion. This project aims to identify pathways responsible for this altered ‘normal’ behaviour.

Examination of EXOSC4 as a new prognostic marker and a novel therapeutic avenue in lung adenocarcinoma

Although prevention and early detection of the disease greatly improved over the past few years, lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer deaths. In order to be able to treat a larger population, we are in urgent need for novel treatments. While it is known that DNA repair genes play a major role in the oncogenic transformation, they also represent a weakness of cancers that constitute a therapeutic opportunity. To identify novel DNA repair genes implicated in Lung cancers, we conducted an in silico investigation to identify genes co-regulated with two DNA repair factors, BRCA2 and hSSB1. This approach allowed for the identification of EXOSC4, a component of the RNA Exosome machinery, as a potential factor involved in the maintenance of genome stability and that is deregulated in lung cancer.

CDCA3 regulates the cell cycle and modulates cisplatin sensitivity in non-small cell lung cancer

Cisplatin-based regimens are currently the most effective chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Cisplatin forms DNA crosslinks to stall DNA replication and induce apoptosis. However, intrinsic and acquired chemoresistance is a major therapeutic problem. We have identified ‘cell division cycle associated protein 3’ (CDCA3) as a novel protein that may prove useful in delaying or preventing cisplatin resistance in NSCLC. CDCA3 functions as part of an ubiquitin ligase complex to degrade the endogenous cell cycle inhibitors. While a role for CDCA3 in disease is emerging with elevated expression noted in oral squamous cell carcinoma, little else is known about CDCA3 or whether this protein may prove useful clinically.

Inflammatory meditated mechanisms of cisplatin resistance in non-small cell lung cancer

The majority of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients present with advanced stage disease, where chemotherapy is usually the most common treatment option. While somewhat effective, patients treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy will eventually develop resistance. Multiple pathways have been implicated in chemo-resistance, however the critical underlying mechanisms have yet to be elucidated. The aim of this project is to determine the role of inflammatory mediators in cisplatin resistance.

The overexpression of SASH1 stimulates cell death in lung cancer cells

SASH1 (SAM and SH3 domain-containing protein 1) is a recently identified gene with tumour suppressor properties with a role in the induction of apoptosis. Previous work has shown that 90% of lung cell lines have a decrease in SASH1 mRNA levels, however little characterisation of SASH1 function in lung cancer has been undertaken.

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.

First-Line afatinib versus chemotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and common epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations and brain metastases

Introduction Metastatic spread to the brain is common in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but these patients are generally excluded from prospective clinical trials. The studies, phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations (LUX-Lung 3) and a randomized, open-label, phase III study of BIBW 2992 versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with stage IIIB or IV adenocarcinoma of the lung harbouring an EGFR activating mutation (LUX-Lung 6) investigated first-line afatinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutation-positive patients with NSCLC and included patients with brain metastases; prespecified subgroup analyses are assessed in this article. Methods For both LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6, prespecified subgroup analyses of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and objective response rate were undertaken in patients with asymptomatic brain metastases at baseline (n = 35 and n = 46, respectively). Post hoc analyses of clinical outcomes was undertaken in the combined data set (n = 81). Results In both studies, there was a trend toward improved PFS with afatinib versus chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases (LUX-Lung 3: 11.1 versus 5.4 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.54, p = 0.1378; LUX-Lung 6: 8.2 versus 4.7 months, HR = 0.47, p = 0.1060). The magnitude of PFS improvement with afatinib was similar to that observed in patients without brain metastases. In combined analysis, PFS was significantly improved with afatinib versus with chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases (8.2 versus 5.4 months; HR, 0.50; p = 0.0297). Afatinib significantly improved the objective response rate versus chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases. Safety findings were consistent with previous reports. Conclusions These findings lend support to the clinical activity of afatinib in EGFR mutation–positive patients with NSCLC and asymptomatic brain metastases.

The emerging role of microRNAs in resistance to lung cancer treatments

One of the major challenges in the treatment of lung cancer is the development of drug resistance. This represents a major obstacle in the treatment of patients, limiting the efficacy of both conventional chemotherapy and biological therapies. Deciphering the mechanisms of resistance is critical to further understanding the multifactorial pathways involved, and in developing more specific targeted treatments. To date, numerous studies have reported the potential role of microRNAs (miRNAs) in resistance to various cancer treatments. MicroRNAs are a family of small non-coding RNAs that regulate gene expression by sequence-specific targeting of mRNAs causing translational repression or mRNA degradation. More than 1200 validated human miRNAs have been identified to date. While as little as one miRNA can regulate hundreds of targets, a single target can also be affected by multiple miRNAs. Evidence suggests that dysregulation of specific miRNAs may be involved in the acquisition of resistance to a number of cancer treatments, thereby modulating the sensitivity of cancer cells to such therapies. Therefore, targeting miRNAs may be an attractive strategy for developing novel and more effective individualized therapies, improving drug efficiency, and for predicting patient response to different treatments. In this review, we provide an overview on the role of miRNAs in resistance to current lung cancer therapies and novel biological agents.

Lung cancer stem cells: The root of resistance

In the absence of specific treatable mutations, platinum-based chemotherapy remains the gold standard of treatment for lung cancer patients. However, 5-year survival rates remain poor due to the development of resistance and eventual relapse. Resistance to conventional cytotoxic therapies presents a significant clinical challenge in the treatment of this disease. The cancer stem cell (CSC) hypothesis suggests that tumors are arranged in a hierarchical structure, with the presence of a small subset of stem-like cells that are responsible for tumor initiation and growth. This CSC population has a number of key properties such as the ability to asymmetrically divide, differentiate and self-renew, in addition to having increased intrinsic resistance to therapy. While cytotoxic chemotherapy kills the bulk of tumor cells, CSCs are spared and have the ability to recapitulate the heterogenic tumor mass. The identification of lung CSCs and their role in tumor biology and treatment resistance may lead to innovative targeted therapies that may ultimately improve clinical outcomes in lung cancer patients. This review will focus on lung CSC markers, their role in resistance and their relevance as targets for future therapies.

Clinician perspective on molecular profiling of non-small-cell lung cancer

The article by Meric-Bernstam et al1 that was recently published in Journal of Clinical Oncology raises important questions about the clinical application of large-scale genomic testing. We congratulate the authors for this ambitious study, which successfully profiled 2,000 consecutive patients with advanced cancer. The next-generation sequencing (NGS) platform was used for 1,749 of 2,000 patients (87.5%). Of 789 patients with potentially actionable mutations, 83 (11%, or 4% of screened population) were enrolled in a genomically matched clinical study. As the editorial2 accompanying the article by Meric-Bernstam et al1 pointed out, the 4% figure, albeit disappointing, may be an underestimate because cancers such as lung adenocarcinoma and melanoma, for which ≥ 50% of patients have actionable mutations, were under-represented. ...

Cilengitide combined with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients: Results of an open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study (CERTO)

Background: This multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study evaluated cilengitide in combination with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy, compared with cetuximab and chemotherapy alone, as first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy alone (control), or combined with cilengitide 2000 mg 1×/week i.v. (CIL-once) or 2×/week i.v. (CIL-twice). A protocol amendment limited enrolment to patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) histoscore ≥200 and closed the CIL-twice arm for practical feasibility issues. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; independent read); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), safety, and biomarker analyses. A comparison between the CIL-once and control arms is reported, both for the total cohorts, as well as for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200. Results: There were 85 patients in the CIL-once group and 84 in the control group. The PFS (independent read) was 6.2 versus 5.0 months for CIL-once versus control [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; P = 0.085]; for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200, PFS was 6.8 versus 5.6 months, respectively (HR 0.57; P = 0.0446). Median OS was 13.6 for CIL-once versus 9.7 months for control (HR 0.81; P = 0.265). In patients with EGFR ≥200, OS was 13.2 versus 11.8 months, respectively (HR 0.95; P = 0.855). No major differences in adverse events between CIL-once and control were reported; nausea (59% versus 56%, respectively) and neutropenia (54% versus 46%, respectively) were the most frequent. There was no increased incidence of thromboembolic events or haemorrhage in cilengitide-treated patients. αvβ3 and αvβ5 expression was neither a predictive nor a prognostic indicator. Conclusions: The addition of cilengitide to cetuximab/chemotherapy indicated potential clinical activity, with a trend for PFS difference in the independent-read analysis. However, the observed inconsistencies across end points suggest additional investigations are required to substantiate a potential role of other integrin inhibitors in NSCLC treatment.

Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials

Background We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, randomised, phase 3 trials. Methods Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 3] or gemcitabine-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 6]), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion [del19], Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393. Findings Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35–44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31–37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28·2 months (95% CI 24·6–33·6) in the afatinib group and 28·2 months (20·7–33·2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·66–1·17, p=0·39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 20·4–27·3) in the afatinib group and 23·5 months (18·0–25·6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·72–1·22, p=0·61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33·3 months (95% CI 26·8–41·5) in the afatinib group versus 21·1 months (16·3–30·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·36–0·79, p=0·0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31·4 months (95% CI 24·2–35·3) versus 18·4 months (14·6–25·6), respectively (HR 0·64, 95% CI 0·44–0·94, p=0·023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27·6 months (19·8–41·7) in the afatinib group versus 40·3 months (24·3–not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1·30, 95% CI 0·80–2·11, p=0·29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19·6 months (95% CI 17·0–22·1) versus 24·3 months (19·0–27·0), respectively (HR 1·22, 95% CI 0·81–1·83, p=0·34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3–4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 [16%] of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 [15%] of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 [14%] and 13 [5%]), paronychia (26 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 [18%] of 111 patients), fatigue (14 [13%]) and leucopenia (nine [8%]) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 [27%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19%]), and leucopenia (17 [15%]). Interpretation Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials.

Epigenetics Underpinning DNA Damage Repair

Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression that are not the result of genetic alterations. These changes include DNA methylation, histone modifications, or indeed microRNA expression. Chromatin is a tightly compacted DNA–protein complex that allows approximately two meters of DNA to be packaged inside a cell, only a few micrometers across. Although the resulting DNA structure is very stable, it is not very amiable to DNA-dependent processes, so mechanisms have to exist to allow processes such as transcription, replication, and DNA repair to occur. This chapter will look at how a cell responds to and deals with genomic instability at the epigenetic level and highlight how critical chromatin remodeling is for correct DNA repair and cell survival following DNA damage. This chapter will initially look at the DNA repair pathways that function in human cells and then at how the repair of DNA damage is controlled by epigenetics.