Publications

UNLABELLED

There is a wide choice of fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) for colorectal cancer screening.

GOAL

To highlight the issues applicable when choosing a FOBT, in particular which FOBT is best suited to the range of screening scenarios. Four scenarios characterize the constraints and expectations of screening programs: (1) limited colonoscopy resource with a need to constrain test positivity rate; (2) a priority for maximum colorectal neoplasia detection with little need to constrain colonoscopy workload; (3) an "adequate" endoscopy resource that allows balancing the benefits of detection with the burden of service provision; and (4) a need to maximize participation in screening. Guaiac-based FOBTs (gFOBTs) have significant deficiencies, and fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for hemoglobin have emerged as better tests. gFOBTs are not sensitive to small bleeds, specificity can be affected by diet or drugs, participant acceptance can be low, laboratory quality control opportunities are limited, and they have a fixed hemoglobin concentration cutoff determining positivity. FITs are analytically more specific, capable of quantitation and hence provide flexibility to adjust cutoff concentration for positivity and the balance between sensitivity and specificity. FITs are clinically more sensitive for cancers and advanced adenomas, and because they are easier to use, acceptance rates are high.

CONCLUSIONS

FOBT must be chosen carefully to meet the needs of the applicable screening scenario. Quantitative FIT can be adjusted to suit Scenarios 1, 2 and 3, and for each, they are the test of choice. FITs are superior to gFOBT for Scenario 4 and gFOBT is only suitable for Scenario 1.

PURPOSE

Current classification of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC) based on anatomic site and stage fails to capture biologic heterogeneity or adequately inform treatment.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Here, we use gene expression-based consensus clustering, copy number profiling, and human papillomavirus (HPV) status on a clinically homogenous cohort of 134 locoregionally advanced HNSCCs with 44% HPV(+) tumors together with additional cohorts, which in total comprise 938 tumors, to identify HNSCC subtypes and discover several subtype-specific, translationally relevant characteristics.

RESULTS

We identified five subtypes of HNSCC, including two biologically distinct HPV subtypes. One HPV(+) and one HPV(-) subtype show a prominent immune and mesenchymal phenotype. Prominent tumor infiltration with CD8(+) lymphocytes characterizes this inflamed/mesenchymal subtype, independent of HPV status. Compared with other subtypes, the two HPV subtypes show low expression and no copy number events for EGFR/HER ligands. In contrast, the basal subtype is uniquely characterized by a prominent EGFR/HER signaling phenotype, negative HPV-status, as well as strong hypoxic differentiation not seen in other subtypes.

CONCLUSION

Our five-subtype classification provides a comprehensive overview of HPV(+) as well as HPV(-) HNSCC biology with significant translational implications for biomarker development and personalized care for patients with HNSCC.

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), an agent that previously demonstrated antitumor activity, was evaluated within an intermittent chemotherapy framework of docetaxel with prednisone (D+P) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

mCRPC patients with ≥ 50% prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline after 6 cycles of D+P were randomized to either GM-CSF or observation (Obs). At disease progression (PD), D+P was reinitiated for 6 cycles followed by the same "off chemotherapy" regimen in patients eligible for chemotherapy interruption. The sequence was repeated until PD during chemotherapy, lack of PSA response to chemotherapy, or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was time to chemotherapy resistance (TTCR).

RESULTS

Of 125 patients enrolled, 52 (42%) experienced ≥ 50% PSA decline on induction D+P and were randomized to GM-CSF (n = 27) or Obs (n = 25). The median time to PD was 3.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4-3.5) and 1.5 months (95% CI, 1.5-2.4) during the initial course of GM-CSF and Obs, respectively. Twelve of 26 (46%) patients responded to a second course of D+P. Eleven randomized patients (21%) experienced PD during chemotherapy, precluding accurate assessment of TTCR. The remaining 41 randomized patients discontinued study for lack of PSA response to chemotherapy (n = 8), patient choice to not restart chemotherapy with PSA PD (n = 13), toxicity (n = 7), or study withdrawal (n = 13).

CONCLUSION

Conducting a prospective study in mCRPC with maintenance immunotherapy within the framework of intermittent chemotherapy was feasible. The use of PSA instead of radiographic end points limited the number of evaluable patients. This study provides important insight into designing contemporary intermittent chemotherapy trials with maintenance immunotherapy in patients with advanced prostate cancer.