The treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: where are we now and where do we go?

Prognosis signature for predicting the survival and immunotherapy response in esophageal carcinoma based on cellular senescence-related genes

Background

Cellular senescence occurs throughout life and can play beneficial roles in a variety of physiological processes, including embryonic development, tissue repair, and tumor suppression. However, the relationship between cellular senescence-related genes (CSRGs) and immunotherapy in esophageal carcinoma (ECa) remains poorly defined.

Methods

The data set used in the analysis was retrieved from TCGA (Research Resource Identifier (RRID): SCR_003193), GEO (RRID: SCR_005012), and CellAge databases. Data processing, statistical analysis, and diagram formation were conducted in R software (RRID: SCR_001905) and GraphPad Prism (RRID: SCR_002798). Based on CSRGs, we used the TCGA database to construct a prognostic signature for ECa and then validated it in the GEO database. The predictive efficiency of the signature was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, Cox regression analysis, nomogram, and calibration curves. According to the median risk score derived from CSRGs, patients with ECa were divided into high- and low-risk groups. Immune infiltration and immunotherapy were also analyzed between the two risk groups. Finally, the hub genes of the differences between the two risk groups were identified by the STRING (RRID: SCR_005223) database and Cytoscape (RRID: SCR_003032) software.

Results

A six-gene risk signature (DEK, RUNX1, SMARCA4, SREBF1, TERT, and TOP1) was constructed in the TCGA database. Patients in the high-risk group had a worse overall survival (OS) was disclosed by survival analysis. As expected, the signature presented equally prognostic significance in the GSE53624 cohort. Next, the Area Under ROC Curve (AUC=0.854) and multivariate Cox regression analysis (HR=3.381, 2.073-5.514, P<0.001) also proved that the risk signature has a high predictive ability. Furthermore, we can more accurately predict the prognosis of patients with ECa by nomogram constructed by risk score. The result of the TIDE algorithm showed that ECa patients in the high-risk group had a greater possibility of immune escape. At last, a total of ten hub genes (APOA1, MUC5AC, GC, APOA4, AMBP, FABP1, APOA2, SOX2, MUC8, MUC17) between two risk groups with the highest interaction degrees were identified. By further analysis, four hub genes (APOA4, AMBP, FABP1, and APOA2) were related to the survival differences of ECa.

Conclusions

Our study reveals comprehensive clues that a novel signature based on CSRGs may provide reliable prognosis prediction and insight into new therapy for patients with ECa.

TDP1 and TOP1 as targets in anticancer treatment of NSCLC: Activity and protein level in normal and tumor tissue from 150 NSCLC patients correlated to clinical data

OBJECTIVES

Topoisomerase 1 (TOP1) is a drug target used in anticancer treatment of various cancer types. The effect of the TOP1 drugs can be counteracted by the enzymatic activity of tyrosyl-DNA phosphodiesterase 1 (TDP1). Thus, to elucidate the relevance of combining TDP1 and TOP1 as drug targets for anticancer treatment in NSCLC, TDP1 and TOP1 was for the first time quantified in a large cohort of paired normal and tumor tissue from NSCLC patients, and data were correlated between the two enzymes and to clinical data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

TDP1 and TOP1 activity and protein concentration were measured in paired normal and tumor tissue from 150 NSCLC patients using TDP1 and TOP1 specific biosensors and ELISA. TDP1 and TOP1 activity and protein concentration were correlated to clinical data.

RESULTS

TDP1 and TOP1 activity and protein concentration were significantly upregulated from normal to tumor tissue for the individual patients, but did not correlate to any of the clinical data. TDP1 and TOP1 activity were upregulated in 89.3% and 82.7% of the patients, respectively, and correlated in both normal and tumor tissue. The same tendency was observed for protein concentration with an upregulation of TDP1 and TOP1 in 73.0% and 84.4% of the patients, respectively. The activity and protein concentration correlated in normal and tumor tissue for both TDP1 and TOP1.

CONCLUSION

The upregulations of TDP1 and TOP1 from normal to tumor tissue combined with the observation that TDP1 and TOP1 did not correlate to any of the clinical data indicate that both proteins are important for development or maintenance of the tumor cells in NSCLC. Correlations between TDP1 and TOP1 indicate a biological dependency and potential co-regulation of the enzymes. These observations is encouraging in relation to using TOP1 and TDP1 as targets in anticancer treatment of NSCLC.

A Dual-Sensor-Based Screening System for In Vitro Selection of TDP1 Inhibitors

DNA sensors can be used as robust tools for high-throughput drug screening of small molecules with the potential to inhibit specific enzymes. As enzymes work in complex biological pathways, it is important to screen for both desired and undesired inhibitory effects. We here report a screening system utilizing specific sensors for tyrosyl-DNA phosphodiesterase 1 (TDP1) and topoisomerase 1 (TOP1) activity to screen in vitro for drugs inhibiting TDP1 without affecting TOP1. As the main function of TDP1 is repair of TOP1 cleavage-induced DNA damage, inhibition of TOP1 cleavage could thus reduce the biological effect of the TDP1 drugs. We identified three new drug candidates of the 1,5-naphthyridine and 1,2,3,4-tetrahydroquinolinylphosphine sulfide families. All three TDP1 inhibitors had no effect on TOP1 activity and acted synergistically with the TOP1 poison SN-38 to increase the amount of TOP1 cleavage-induced DNA damage. Further, they promoted cell death even with low dose SN-38, thereby establishing two new classes of TDP1 inhibitors with clinical potential. Thus, we here report a dual-sensor screening approach for in vitro selection of TDP1 drugs and three new TDP1 drug candidates that act synergistically with TOP1 poisons.

Metformin reduces c-Fos and ATF3 expression in the dorsal root ganglia and protects against oxaliplatin-induced peripheral sensory neuropathy in mice

Oxaliplatin is a third-generation platinum drug commonly used as the first line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Oxaliplatin-based anticancer regimens course with dose-limiting neurotoxicity. The pharmacological strategies used to manage such side effect are not totally effective. Metformin is an anti-diabetic drug that is described to negatively modulate painful diabetic neuropathy. Then, this study aimed to assess the effect of metformin in the oxaliplatin-induced peripheral sensory neuropathy in mice. For that purpose, Swiss male mice were injected with oxaliplatin (1, 2 or 4 mg/kg, i.v., twice a week with a total of nine injections) alone or in combination with daily administration of metformin (250 mg/kg, p.o.). Thermal and mechanical nociceptive tests were performed once a week for five weeks. Then, the animals were euthanized on day 35 post-first injection of oxaliplatin and the dorsal root ganglia were harvested for the assessment of c-Fos and ATF3 expressions. Oxaliplatin caused a nociceptive response accompanied by the increased expression of c-Fos and ATF3 in the dorsal root ganglia and spinal cord. In addition, the oxaliplatin-associated nociception was significantly attenuated by metformin (P < 0.05), which also reduced the expression of c-Fos and ATF3 (P < 0.05). Therefore, metformin protected from the peripheral sensory neuropathy induced by oxaliplatin, which was confirmed by the reduction of c-Fos and ATF3 expression, two known neuronal activation and damage markers, respectively.

Neurotoxic effect of oxaliplatin: Comparison with its oxalate-free analogue cis-[PtII(1R,2R-DACH)(3-acetoxy-1,1-cyclobutanedicarboxylato)] (LLC-1402) in mice

Studies suggest that oxalate is involved in the development oxaliplatin-induced peripheral sensory neuropathy (OPSN). This study aimed to compare the neurotoxic effects of oxaliplatin with its oxalate-free cytotoxic analogue cis-[Pt^II(1R,2R-DACH)(3-acetoxy-1,1-cyclobutanedicarboxylato)] (LLC-1402) in mice. Oxaliplatin and LLC-1402 were intravenously injected in male Swiss mice with a total of nine injections. Oxalate was intraperitoneally injected in other animals. The development of OPSN was evaluated using mechanical and thermal sensitivity tests. Dorsal root ganglia of the mice were removed to evaluate c-Fos, ATF3 and iNOS expression and a sample of blood was collected for leukocyte count and hepatic and renal biochemical function tests. Oxaliplatin and LLC-1402 decreased the mechanical and thermal nociceptive threshold, whilst oxalate lead to a partial and later increase in the mechanical sensitivity (P<0.05). c-Fos, ATF3 and iNOS expressions were increased in neuronal cells during and after the end of the injections in animals treated with oxaliplatin and LLC-1402 (P<0.05), even though oxaliplatin lead to an earlier increase. Only c-Fos expression was elevated during the period of injections in the oxalate group (P<0.05), but this expression reduced after the end of the treatment. c-Fos expression was also shown in glial satellite cells only in the oxaliplatin-treated animals. Oxaliplatin and LLC-1402 reduced leukocyte count (P<0.05), but did not change renal and liver functions. In conclusion, oxalate may contribute to an earlier development of peripheral sensory neuropathy. However, the antitumor cytotoxic mechanism of oxaliplatin seems to be the main responsible by its neurotoxic effect.

The antioxidant effects of the flavonoids rutin and quercetin inhibit oxaliplatin-induced chronic painful peripheral neuropathy

BACKGROUND

Oxaliplatin, the third-generation platinum compound, has evolved as one of the most important therapeutic agents in colorectal cancer chemotherapy. The main limiting factor in oxaliplatin treatment is painful neuropathy that is difficult to treat. This side effect has been studied for several years, but its full mechanism is still inconclusive, and effective treatment does not exist. Data suggest that oxaliplatin's initial neurotoxic effect is peripheral and oxidative stress-dependent. A spinal target is also suggested in its mechanism of action. The flavonoids rutin and quercetin have been described as cell-protecting agents because of their antioxidant, antinociceptive, and anti-inflammatory actions. We proposed a preventive effect of these agents on oxaliplatin-induced painful peripheral neuropathy based on their antioxidant properties.

METHODS

Oxaliplatin (1 mg/kg, i.v.) was injected in male Swiss mice, twice a week (total of nine injections). The development of sensory alterations, such as thermal and mechanical allodynia, was evaluated using the tail immersion test in cold water (10°C) and the von Frey test. Rutin and quercetin (25-100 mg/kg, i.p.) were injected 30 min before each oxaliplatin injection. The animals' spinal cords were removed for histopathological and immunohistochemical evaluation and malondialdehyde assay.

RESULTS

Oxaliplatin significantly increased thermal and mechanical nociceptive response, effects prevented by quercetin and rutin at all doses. Fos immunostaining in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord confirmed these results. The oxidative stress assays mainly showed that oxaliplatin induced peroxidation in the spinal cord and that rutin and quercetin decreased this effect. The flavonoids also decreased inducible nitric oxide synthase and nitrotyrosine immunostaining in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord. These results suggest that nitric oxide and peroxynitrite are also involved in the neurotoxic effect of oxaliplatin and that rutin and quercetin can inhibit their effect in the spinal cord. We also observed the preservation of dorsal horn structure using histopathological analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Oxaliplatin induced painful peripheral neuropathy in mice, an effect that was prevented by rutin and quercetin. The mechanism of action of oxaliplatin appears to be, at least, partially oxidative stress-induced damage in dorsal horn neurons, with the involvement of lipid peroxidation and protein nitrosylation.

Biomarkers in precision therapy in colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Europe. Because CRC is also a major cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, a lot of research has been focused on the discovery and development of biomarkers to improve the diagnostic process and to predict treatment outcomes. Up till now only a few biomarkers are recommended by expert panels. Current TNM criteria, however, cause substantial under- and overtreatment of CRC patients. Consequently, there is a growing need for new and efficient biomarkers to ensure optimal treatment allocation. An ideal biomarker should be easily translated into clinical practice, to identify patients who can be spared from treatment or benefit from therapy, ultimately resulting in precision medicine in the future. In this review we aim to provide an overview of a number of frequently studied biomarkers in CRC and, at the same time, we will emphasize the challenges and controversies that withhold the clinical introduction of these biomarkers. We will discuss both prognostic and predictive markers of chemotherapy, aspirin therapy as well as overall therapy toxicity. Currently, only mutant KRAS, mutant BRAF, MSI and the Oncotype DX® Colon Cancer Assay are used in clinical practice. Other biomarker studies showed insufficient evidence to be introduced into clinical practice. Divergent patient selection criteria, absence of validation studies and a large number of single biomarker studies are possibly responsible. We therefore recommend that future studies focus on combining key markers, rather than analysing single markers, standardizing study protocols, and validate the results in independent study cohorts, followed by prospective clinical trials.

Can UGT1A1 genotyping reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan? An evidence-based review

This evidence-based review addresses the question of whether testing for UGT1A1 mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan leads to improvement in outcomes (e.g., irinotecan toxicity, response to treatment, morbidity, and mortality), when compared with no testing. No studies were identified that addressed this question directly. The quality of evidence on the analytic validity of current UGT1A1 genetic testing methods is adequate (scale: convincing, adequate, inadequate), with available data indicating that both analytic sensitivity and specificity for the common genotypes are high. For clinical validity, the quality of evidence is adequate for studies reporting concentration of the active form of irinotecan (SN-38), presence of severe diarrhea, and presence of severe neutropenia stratified by UGT1A1 common genotypes. The strongest association for a clinical endpoint is for severe neutropenia. Patients homozygous for the *28 allele are 3.5 times more likely to develop severe neutropenia compared with individuals with the wild genotype (risk ratio 3.51; 95% confidence interval 2.03-6.07). The proposed clinical utility of UGT1A1 genotyping would be derived from a reduction in drug-related adverse reactions (benefits) while at the same time avoiding declines in tumor response rate and increases in morbidity/mortality (harms). At least three treatment options for reducing this increased risk have been suggested: modification of the irinotecan regime (e.g., reduce initial dose), use of other drugs, and/or pretreatment with colony-stimulating factors. However, we found no prospective studies that examined these options, particularly whether a reduced dose of irinotecan results in a reduced rate of adverse drug events. This is a major gap in knowledge. Although the quality of evidence on clinical utility is inadequate, two of three reviewed studies (and one published since our initial selection of studies for review) found that individuals homozygous for the *28 allele had improved survival. Three reviewed studies found statistically significant higher tumor response rates among individuals homozygous for the *28 allele. We found little or no direct evidence to assess the benefits and harms of modifying irinotecan regimens for patients with colorectal cancer based on their UGT1A1 genotype; however, results of our preliminary modeling of prevalence, acceptance, and effectiveness indicate that reducing the dose would need to be highly effective to have benefits outweigh harms. An alternative is to increase irinotecan dose among wild-type individuals to improve tumor response with minimal increases in adverse drug events. Given the large number of colorectal cancer cases diagnosed each year, a randomized controlled trial of the effects of irinotecan dose modifications in patients with colorectal cancer based on their UGT1A1 genotype is feasible and could clarify the tradeoffs between possible reductions in severe neutropenia and improved tumor response and/or survival in patients with various UGT1A1 genotypes.

Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can UGT1A1 genotyping reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan?

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group found that the evidence is currently insufficient to recommend for or against the routine use of UGT1A1 genotyping in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who are to be treated with irinotecan, with the intent of modifying the dose as a way to avoid adverse drug reactions (severe neutropenia).

RATIONALE

The EGAPP Working Group (EWG) found no intervention trials showing that targeted dosing of irinotecan based on UGT1A1 genotyping could reduce the rates of two specific adverse drug events, severe (Grade 3-4) neutropenia or diarrhea. Observational studies indicate a significant association between UGT1A1 genotypes, particularly *28/*28 and *1/*28, and the occurrence of severe neutropenia. Observational studies also indicate a possible association between severe diarrhea and these UGT1A1 genotypes, but the association is not statistically significant. An additional finding was the suggestion that reducing irinotecan dose may result in patient harms due to diminished effectiveness of treatment in highest risk individuals (*28/*28 homozygotes), and that a higher dose might be warranted among individuals at lower risk of adverse drug events (*1/*1 and *1/*28 genotypes). This review did not consider higher risk patients (e.g., having previous adverse reactions to irinotecan or additional risk factors for neutropenia).

ANALYTIC VALIDITY

The EWG found adequate evidence to conclude that analytic sensitivity and specificity were high for the commonly tested alleles, but evidence was inadequate for rarer alleles.

CLINICAL VALIDITY

The EWG found adequate evidence of a significant association between UGT1A1 genotype and the incidence of severe neutropenia at standard doses of irinotecan. The EWG found adequate evidence of a possible association between genotype and severe diarrhea, but the effect was smaller and not statistically significant. The EWG found adequate evidence of a significantly higher rate of tumor response to standard irinotecan dosing among individuals with the genotype at highest risk of adverse drug events (*28/*28).

CLINICAL UTILITY

The EWG found no evidence to support clinical utility in the proposed clinical scenario. Preliminary modeling suggests that, even if targeted dosing were to be highly effective, it is not clear that benefits (reduced adverse drug events) outweigh harms (unresponsive tumors).

CONTEXTUAL ISSUES

Addressing patient preferences regarding risk of side effects and quality of life, versus aggressive treatment to potentially improve effectiveness, is expected practice. In addition, a recent study reported that risk for neutropenia was lower at lower irinotecan doses. For treatment regimens utilizing lower irinotecan doses, UGT1A1 genotype may not be a useful indicator of risk for adverse drug events. Further rigorous evaluation of UGT1A1 genotyping using current and promising irinotecan treatment protocols is warranted.

Colorectal cancer follow-up: Useful or useless?

Follow-up of surgically treated colorectal cancer patients is not supported by objectively certain data. Despite the thousands of investigations reported in the scientific literature, only six randomized prospective studies and two meta-analysis of randomized studies provide data suggesting clear conclusions. Our review of the literature revealed that intensive colorectal follow-up should be performed even if the long-term survival benefit is small. The timing and investigations conducted in follow-ups diverge. The inconsistency of follow-ups is revealed by the fact that the leading USA and European societies propose different guidelines. One datum that the literature agrees on is that pancolonoscopy performed at 3-5 year intervals in colorectal cancer surgery patients supports diagnosis of adenomatous polyps and metachronous cancers. Cost analysis have shown that intensive follow-up would certainly exceed the cut-off point level set for every additional year of good quality of life.

Irinotecan (CPT-11) combined with bolus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (Saltz regimen) as first-line chemotherapy of patients with advanced colorectal cancer

Concerns about the safety of irinotecan (CPT-11) plus bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV) (the so-called Saltz regimen) have been previously reported. This prospective, multicenter, non-randomized study evaluated the anti-tumoral effect and toxicity of the Saltz regimen as first-line chemotherapy of 130 patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). The median numbers of treatment cycles and infusions received per patient were 3 and 12, respectively. Eight (6.1) and 37 patients (28.5%) showed complete and partial responses, respectively [overall response rate=34.6% (95% confidence interval=20.7-48.5%)]. After a median follow up period of 9 months, 70 patients had died. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 6.78 (0.3-33.8) and 8.26 months (range 0.3-33.8), respectively. The combined CPT-11/5-FU/LV treatment was well tolerated and no toxic deaths were reported. The most common grade 3/4 hematological toxicity was neutropenia (28% of patients and 3% of infusions), but no febrile neutropenia was reported. Delayed diarrhea was the most reported grade 3/4 non-hematological toxicity (21% of patients and 2% of infusions). Other non-hematological toxicities showed very low incidences. During the study five patients died due to factors not associated with disease progression. We conclude that the Saltz regimen administered on an outpatient basis was safe and well tolerated in patients with advanced CRC. Close monitoring of external patients together with an early treatment of toxicity was found to be essential to prevent severe and potentially fatal gastrointestinal or thromboembolic events previously reported with this CPT-11 combined regimen.