Mesenchymal neoplasms with NTRK and other kinase gene alterations

Kinase alterations are increasingly recognised as oncogenic drivers in mesenchymal tumours. Infantile fibrosarcoma and the related renal tumour, congenital mesoblastic nephroma, were among the first solid tumours shown to harbour recurrent tyrosine kinase fusions, with the canonical ETV6::NTRK3 fusion identified more than 20 years ago. Although targeted testing has long been used in diagnosis, the advent of more robust sequencing techniques has driven the discovery of kinase alterations in an array of mesenchymal tumours. As our ability to identify these genetic alterations has improved, as has our recognition and understanding of the tumours that harbour these alterations. Specifically, this study will focus upon mesenchymal tumours harbouring NTRK or other kinase alterations, including tumours with an infantile fibrosarcoma-like appearance, spindle cell tumours resembling lipofibromatosis or peripheral nerve sheath tumours and those occurring in adults with a fibrosarcoma-like appearance. As publications describing the histology of these tumours increase so, too, do the variety kinase alterations reported, now including NTRK1/2/3, RET, MET, RAF1, BRAF, ALK, EGFR and ABL1 fusions or alterations. To date, these tumours appear locally aggressive and rarely metastatic, without a clear link between traditional features used in histological grading (e.g. mitotic activity, necrosis) and outcome. However, most of these tumours are amenable to new targeted therapies, making their recognition of both diagnostic and therapeutic import. The goal of this study is to review the clinicopathological features of tumours with NTRK and other tyrosine kinase alterations, discuss the most common differential diagnoses and provide recommendations for molecular confirmation with associated treatment implications.     

Intensive Care Unit-Acquired Weakness – diagnostischer Stellenwert des neuromuskulären Ultraschalls

Die Anaesthesiologie - Die Intensive Care Unit-Acquired Weakness (ICUAW) stellt eine der häufigsten neuromuskulären Komplikationen in der Intensivmedizin dar. Besonders bei...     

Recent advances with cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors: therapeutic agents for breast cancer and their role in immuno-oncology

Introduction: Collaborative interactions between several diverse biological processes govern the onset and progression of breast cancer. These processes include alterations in cellular metabolism, anti-tumor immune responses, DNA damage repair, proliferation, anti-apoptotic signals, autophagy, epithelial-mesenchymal transition, components of the non-coding genome or onco-mIRs, cancer stem cells and cellular invasiveness. The last two decades have revealed that each of these processes are also directly regulated by a component of the cell cycle apparatus, cyclin D1.

Area covered: The current review is provided to update recent developments in the clinical application of cyclin/CDK inhibitors to breast cancer with a focus on the anti-tumor immune response.

Expert opinion: The cyclin D1 gene encodes the regulatory subunit of a proline-directed serine-threonine kinase that phosphorylates several substrates. CDKs possess phosphorylation site selectivity, with the phosphate-acceptor residue preceding a proline. Several important proteins are substrates including all three retinoblastoma proteins, NRF1, GCN5, and FOXM1. Over 280 cyclin D3/CDK6 substrates have b\een identified. Given the diversity of substrates for cyclin/CDKs, and the altered thresholds for substrate phosphorylation that occurs during the cell cycle, it is exciting that small molecular inhibitors targeting cyclin D/CDK activity have encouraging results in specific tumors.     

Differential diagnosis of diarrhoea in patients with neuroendocrine tumours:A systematic review

BACKGROUND Approximately 20% of patients with neuroendocrine tumours(NETs) develop carcinoid syndrome(CS),characterised by flushing and diarrhoea.Somatostatin analogues or telotristat can be used to control symptoms of CS through inhibition of serotonin secretion.Although CS is often the cause of diarrhoea among patients with gastroenteropancreatic NETs(GEP-NETs),other causes to consider include pancreatic enzyme insufficiency(PEI),bile acid malabsorption and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth.If other causes of diarrhoea unrelated to serotonin secretion are mistaken for CS diarrhoea,these treatments may be ineffective against the diarrhoea,risking detrimental effects to patient quality of life.AIM To identify and synthesise qualitative and quantitative evidence relating to the differential diagnosis of diarrhoea in patients with GEP-NETs.METHODS Electronic databases(MEDLINE,Embase and the Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to September 12,2018 using terms for NETs and diarrhoea.Congresses,systematic literature review bibliographies and included articles were also hand-searched.Any study designs and publication types were eligible for inclusion if relevant data on a cause(s) of diarrhoea in patients with GEP-NETs were reported.Studies were screened by two independent reviewers at abstract and full-text stages.Framework synthesis was adapted to synthesise quantitative and qualitative data.The definition of qualitative data was expanded to include all textual data in any section of relevant publications.RESULTS Forty-seven publications(44 studies) were included,comprising a variety of publication types,including observational studies,reviews,guidelines,case reports,interventional studies,and opinion pieces.Most reported on PEI on/after treatment with somatostatin analogs;9.5%-84% of patients with GEP-NETs had experienced steatorrhoea or confirmed PEI.Where reported,14.3%–50.7% of patients received pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy.Other causes of diarrhoea reported in patients with GEP-NETs included bile acid malabsorption(80%),small intestinal bacterial overgrowth(23.6%-62%),colitis(20%) and infection(7.1%).Diagnostic approaches included faecal elastase,breath tests,tauroselcholic(selenium-75) acid(Se HCAT) scan and stool culture,although evidence on the effectiveness or diagnostic accuracy of these approaches was limited.Assessment of patient history or diarrhoea characteristics was also reported as initial approaches for investigation.From the identified evidence,if diarrhoea is assumed to be CS diarrhoea,consequences include uncontrolled diarrhoea,malnutrition,and perceived ineffectiveness of CS treatment.Approaches for facilitating differential diagnosis of diarrhoea include improving patient and clinician awareness of non-CS causes and involvement of a multidisciplinary clinical team,including gastroenterologists.CONCLUSION Diarrhoea in GEP-NETs can be multifactorial with misdiagnosis leading to delayed patient recovery and inefficient resource use.This systematic literature review highlights gaps for further research on prevalence of non-CS diarrhoea and suitability of diagnostic approaches,to determine an effective algorithm for differential diagnosis of GEP-NET diarrhoea.     

Lifitegrast clinical efficacy for treatment of signs and symptoms of dry eye disease across three randomized controlled trials

Objective: Report efficacy findings from three clinical trials (one phase 2 and two phase 3 [OPUS-1, OPUS-2]) of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% for treatment of dry eye disease (DED).

Research design and methods: Three 84-day, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trials. Adults (≥18 years) with DED were randomized (1:1) to lifitegrast 5.0% or matching placebo. Changes from baseline to day 84 in signs and symptoms of DED were analyzed.

Main outcome measures: Phase 2, pre-specified endpoint: inferior corneal staining score (ICSS; 0–4); OPUS-1, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and visual-related function subscale (0–4 scale); OPUS-2, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and eye dryness score (EDS, VAS; 0–100).

Results: Fifty-eight participants were randomized to lifitegrast 5.0% and 58 to placebo in the phase 2 trial; 293 to lifitegrast and 295 to placebo in OPUS-1; 358 to lifitegrast and 360 to placebo in OPUS-2. In participants with mild-to-moderate baseline DED symptomatology, lifitegrast improved ICSS versus placebo in the phase 2 study (treatment effect, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.05–0.65; p?=?0.0209) and OPUS-1 (effect, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10–0.38; p?=?0.0007). Among more symptomatic participants (baseline EDS ≥40, recent artificial tear use), lifitegrast improved EDS versus placebo in a post hoc analysis of OPUS-1 (effect, 13.34; 95% CI, 2.35–24.33; nominal p?=?0.0178) and in OPUS-2 (effect, 12.61; 95% CI, 8.51–16.70; p?<?0.0001).

Limitations: Trials were conducted over 12 weeks; efficacy beyond this period was not assessed.

Conclusions: Across three trials, lifitegrast improved ICSS in participants with mild-to-moderate baseline symptomatology in two studies, and EDS in participants with moderate-to-severe baseline symptomatology in two studies. Based on the overall findings from these trials, lifitegrast shows promise as a new treatment option for signs and symptoms of DED.