Acquired resistance to irradiation or docetaxel is not associated with cross-resistance to cisplatin in prostate cancer cell lines

Purpose Platinum chemotherapy can be considered to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with features of neuroendocrine differentiation. However, platinum compounds are generally only applied after the failure of multiple prior-line treatment options. This study investigated whether acquired resistance against ionizing radiation or docetaxel chemotherapy—two commonly applied treatment modalities in prostate cancer—influences the cisplatin (CDDP) tolerance in mCRPC cell line models. Methods Age-matched parental as well as radio- or docetaxel-resistant DU145 and PC-3 cell lines were treated with CDDP and their sensitivity was assessed by measurements of growth rates, viability, apoptosis, metabolic activity and colony formation ability. Results The data suggest that docetaxel resistance does not influence CDDP tolerance in all tested docetaxel-resistant cell lines. Radio-resistance was associated with sensitization to CDDP in PC-3, but not in DU145 cells. In general, DU145 cells tolerated higher CDDP concentrations than PC-3 cells regardless of acquired resistances. Furthermore, non-age-matched treatment-naïve PC-3 cells exhibited significantly different CDDP tolerances. Conclusion Like patients, different mCRPC cell lines exhibit significant variability regarding CDDP tolerance. The presented in vitro data suggest that previous radiation treatment may be associated with a moderate sensitization to CDDP in an isogenic and age-matched setting. Therefore, previous radiotherapy or docetaxel chemotherapy might be no contraindication against initiation of platinum chemotherapy in selected mCRPC patients.

Primary systemic therapy for patients with brain metastases from lung cancer ineligible for targeted agents

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate overall survival after systemic therapy, largely chemotherapy, in patients with small cell or non-small cell lung cancer and brain metastases. After completion of systemic therapy, some patients received planned brain irradiation, while others were followed. Methods Retrospective cohort study. Results Thirty-eight patients were included (28 small cell, 20 followed with imaging). Six of these 20 patients (30%) received delayed radiotherapy during follow-up. Planned radiotherapy (n = 18, intention-to-treat) was associated with longer survival from diagnosis of brain metastases, median 10.8 versus 6.1 months, p = 0.025. Delayed radiotherapy still resulted in numerically better survival than no radiotherapy at all (median 8.8 versus 5.3 months, not significant). If calculated from the start of delayed radiotherapy, median survival was only 2.7 months. In a multivariable analysis, both Karnofsky performance status ≥ 70 (p = 0.03) and planned radiotherapy (p = 0.05) were associated with better survival. Conclusion In patients ineligible for targeted agents, planned radiotherapy in a modern treatment setting was associated with longer survival compared to no radiotherapy. Timing and type of radiotherapy in such patients should be evaluated in prospective trials to identify patients who might not need planned radiotherapy.

Frequent FGFR1 hotspot alterations in driver-unknown low-grade glioma and mixed neuronal-glial tumors

Purpose Low-grade gliomas (LGG) and mixed neuronal-glial tumors (MNGT) show frequent MAPK pathway alterations. Oncogenic fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1) tyrosinase kinase domain has been reported in brain tumors of various histologies. We sought to determine the frequency of FGFR1 hotspot mutations N546 and K656 in driver-unknown LGG/MNGT and examined FGFR1 immunohistochemistry as a potential tool to detect those alterations. Methods We analyzed 476 LGG/MNGT tumors for KIAA-1549-BRAF fusion, IDH1/2, TERT promotor, NF1, H3F3A and the remaining cases for FGFR1 mutation frequency and correlated FGFR1 immunohistochemistry in 106 cases. Results 368 of 476 LGG/MNGT tumors contained non-FGFR1 alterations. We identified 9 FGFR1 p.N546K and 4 FGFR1 p.K656E mutations among the 108 remaining driver-unknown samples. Five tumors were classified as dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor (DNT), 4 as pilocytic astrocytoma (PA) and 3 as rosette-forming glioneuronal tumor (RGNT). FGFR1 mutations were associated with oligodendroglia-like cells, but not with age or tumor location. FGFR1 immunohistochemical expression was observed in 92 cases. FGFR1 immunoreactivity score was higher in PA and DNT compared to diffuse astrocytoma, but no correlation between FGFR1 mutation in tumors and FGFR1 expression level was observed. Conclusion FGFR1 hotspot mutations are the fifth most prevailing alteration in LGG/MNGT. Performing FGFR1 sequencing analysis in driver-unknown low-grade brain tumors could yield up to 12% FGFR1 N546/K656 mutant cases.

The pan-immune-inflammation value and systemic immune-inflammation index in advanced melanoma patients under immunotherapy

Purpose To evaluate the pan-immune-inflammation value (PIV) and systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) in patients with cutaneous melanoma (CM) under immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. Methods PIV and SII were calculated before the start of ICI therapy and at time of progression/death in patients with metastatic CM (stage III/IV). Sex–age-matched CM patients in stage I/II and healthy subjects (HC) served as controls. Results The median PIV of stage III/IV patients was significantly (P = 0.0011) higher than in stage I/II patients and HC. SII was significantly (P = 0.00044) lower in HC than in CM patients. At baseline, PIV and SII did significantly correlate with lactate dehydrogenase (P = 0.045/0.017). However, ROC curve statistics revealed that SII and PIV were not significantly associated with clinical parameters, including best response to ICI treatment (P = 0.87/0.64), progression-free survival (P = 0.73/0.91), and melanoma-specific survival (P = 0.13/0.17). Moreover, there were no significant changes of PIV and SII from baseline to progression/death (P = 0.38/0.52). Conclusions Even though both immune-inflammation biomarkers showed some power to differentiate between CM stages and HC, respectively, PIV and SII seem not to be significant predictors for clinical outcome measures of CM patients under ICI therapy.