METHODS: 3c-induced inhibition of proliferation was measured in the absence and presence NAC using MTT in HT-29 and SW620 cells and xCELLigence RTCA DP instrument. 3c-induced apoptotic studies were performed using flow cytometry. 3c-induced redox alterations were measured by ROS production using fluorescence plate reader and flow cytometry and mitochondrial membrane potential by flow cytometry; NADPH and GSH levels were determined by colorimetric assays. Bcl2 family protein expression and cytochrome c release and PARP activation was done by western blotting. Caspase activation was measured by ELISA. Cell migration assay was done using the real time xCELLigence RTCA DP system in SW620 cells and wound healing assay in HT-29.
RESULTS: Many anticancer therapeutics exert their effects by inducing reactive oxygen species (ROS). In this study, we demonstrate that 3c-induced inhibition of cell proliferation is reversed by the antioxidant, N-acetylcysteine, suggesting that 3c acts via increased production of ROS in HT-29 cells. This was confirmed by the direct measurement of ROS in 3c-treated colorectal cancer cells. Additionally, treatment with 3c resulted in decreased NADPH and glutathione levels in HT-29 cells. Further, investigation of the apoptotic pathway showed increased release of cytochrome c resulting in the activation of caspase-9, which in turn activated caspase-3 and -6. 3c also (i) increased p53 and Bax expression, (ii) decreased Bcl2 and BclxL expression and (iii) induced PARP cleavage in human colorectal cancer cells. Confirming our observations, NAC significantly inhibited induction of apoptosis, ROS production, cytochrome c release and PARP cleavage. The results further demonstrate that 3c inhibits cell migration by modulating EMT markers and inhibiting TGFβ-induced phosphorylation of Smad2 and Samd3.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings thus demonstrate that 3c disrupts redox balance in colorectal cancer cells and support the notion that this agent may be effective for the treatment of colorectal cancer.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared a prospectively collected group of 48 patients undergoing oxaliplatin/irinotecan-based perioperative systemic chemotherapy (s-CT) with targeted agents, and cytoreductive surgery (CRS) (no-HIPEC group) with 48 controls undergoing the same perioperative s-CT and CRS/HIPEC (HIPEC group). Patients were matched (1:1) according to the Peritoneal Surface Disease Severity Score, completeness of cytoreduction, history of extraperitoneal disease (EPD), and Peritoneal Cancer Index.
RESULTS: The groups were comparable, except for a higher number of patients in the HIPEC group with World Health Organization performance status 0, pN2 stage primary tumor, and treated with preoperative s-CT. Forty-one patients in the no-HIPEC group and 43 patients in the HIPEC group had optimal comprehensive treatment (P = 0.759), defined as complete cytoreduction of PM and margin-negative EPD resection. Median follow-up was 31.6 months in the no-HIPEC group and 39.9 months in the HIPEC group. Median overall survival was 39.3 months in the no-HIPEC group and 34.8 months in the HIPEC group (P = 0.702). In the two groups, severe morbidity occurred in 14 (29.2%) and 13 (27.1%) patients, respectively (P = 1.000), with no operative deaths. On multivariate analysis, left-sided primary and curative treatment independently correlated with better survival while HIPEC did not (hazard ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.47-1.15; P = 0.178).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirmed that, in selected patients, perioperative s-CT and surgical treatment of CRC-PM resulted in unexpectedly high survival rates. Mitomycin C-based HIPEC did not increase morbidity but did not impact prognosis.
METHODS: We applied a multiplex serology assay to simultaneously measure antibody responses to 11 F. nucleatum antigens in prediagnostic serum samples from 485 colorectal cancer cases and 485 matched controls. Conditional logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: We observed neither a statistically significant colorectal cancer risk association for antibodies to individual F. nucleatum proteins nor for combined positivity to any of the 11 proteins (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.62-1.06).
CONCLUSIONS: Antibody responses to F. nucleatum proteins in prediagnostic serum samples from a subset of colorectal cancer cases and matched controls within the EPIC study were not associated with colorectal cancer risk.
IMPACT: Our findings in prospectively ascertained serum samples contradict the existing literature on the association of F. nucleatum with colorectal cancer risk. Future prospective studies, specifically detecting F. nucleatum in stool or tissue biopsies, are needed to complement our findings.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: APEC was a nonrandomized phase 2 trial conducted in the Asia-Pacific region. Patients (n = 289) received once-every-2-weeks cetuximab with investigator's choice of chemotherapy (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI). The primary end point was best confirmed overall response rate (BORR); progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were secondary end points. Early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR) were also evaluated.
RESULTS: In the KRAS wt population, BORR was 58.8%, median PFS 11.1 months, and median OS 26.8 months. Expanded RAS mutational analysis revealed that patients with RAS wt mCRC had better outcomes (BORR = 64.7%; median PFS = 13.0 months; median OS = 28.4 months). The data suggest that ETS and DpR may be associated with survival outcomes in the RAS wt population. Although this study was not designed to formally assess differences in outcome between treatment subgroups, efficacy results appeared similar for patients treated with FOLFOX and FOLFIRI. There were no new safety findings; in particular, grade 3/4 skin reactions were within clinical expectations.
CONCLUSION: The observed activity and safety profile is similar to that reported in prior first-line pivotal studies involving weekly cetuximab, suggesting once-every-2-weeks cetuximab is effective and tolerable as first-line therapy and may represent an alternative to weekly administration.
CONCLUSIONS: HMGB1 plays multiple roles in promoting the pathogenesis of colorectal cancer, despite a few contradicting studies. HMGB1 may differentially regulate disease-related processes, depending on the redox status of the protein in colorectal cancer. Binding of HMGB1 to various protein partners may alter the impact of HMGB1 on disease progression. As HMGB1 is heavily implicated in the pathogenesis of colorectal cancer, it is crucial to further improve our understanding of the functional roles of HMGB1 not only in colorectal cancer, but ultimately in all types of cancers.
METHODS: ASCO convened a multidisciplinary, multinational Expert Panel that reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus process with additional experts for one round of formal ratings.
RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from 12 guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations from six guidelines form the evidence base and provide evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more on all recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS: For nonmaximal settings, the recommended treatments for colon cancer stages nonobstructing, I-IIA: in basic and limited, open resection; in enhanced, adequately trained surgeons and laparoscopic or minimally invasive surgery, unless contraindicated. Treatments for IIB-IIC: in basic and limited, open en bloc resection following standard oncologic principles, if not possible, transfer to higher-level facility; in emergency, limit to life-saving procedures; in enhanced, laparoscopic en bloc resection, if not possible, then open. Treatments for obstructing, IIB-IIC: in basic, resection and/or diversion; in limited or enhanced, emergency surgical resection. Treatment for IIB-IIC with left-sided: in enhanced, may place colonic stent. Treatment for T4N0/T3N0 high-risk features or stage II high-risk obstructing: in enhanced, may offer adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment for rectal cancer cT1N0 and cT2n0: in basic, limited, or enhanced, total mesorectal excision principles. Treatment for cT3n0: in basic and limited, total mesorectal excision, if not, diversion. Treatment for high-risk patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy: in basic, limited, or enhanced, may offer adjuvant therapy. Treatment for resectable cT3N0 rectal cancer: in enhanced, base neoadjuvant chemotherapy on preoperative factors. For post-treatment surveillance, a combination of medical history, physical examination, carcinoembryonic antigen testing, imaging, and endoscopy is performed. Frequency depends on setting. Maximal setting recommendations are in the guideline. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines .
NOTICE: It is the view of the American Society of Clinical Oncology that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guidelines are intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.