METHODS: Human adipose-derived MSCs (Ad-MSCs) and A549 cells are co-cultured together in indirect co-culture system using Transwell insert. Following co-culture, both cells were analysed in terms of growth rate, migration ability, apoptosis and gene expression for genes involved in migration and stemness characteristics.
RESULTS: The result shows that Ad-MSCs promoted the growth of A549 cells when indirectly co-cultured for 48 and 72 h. Furthermore, Ad-MSCs significantly enhanced the migration rate of A549 cells. The increased in migration rate was in parallel with the significant increase of MMP9. There are no significant changes observed in the expression of TWIST2, CDH2 and CDH1, genes involved in the epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT). Ad-MSCs also protect A549 cancer cells from undergoing apoptosis and increase the survival of cancer cells.
CONCLUSION: Secretion of soluble factors from Ad-MSCs has been shown to promote the growth and metastatic characteristics of A549 cancer cells. Therefore, the use of Ad-MSCs in cancer therapy needs to be carefully evaluated in the long-term aspect.
METHODS: We examined associations of body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), and waist-hip ratio (WHR) with lung cancer risk among 1.6 million Americans, Europeans, and Asians. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with adjustment for potential confounders. Analyses for WC/WHR were further adjusted for BMI. The joint effect of BMI and WC/WHR was also evaluated.
RESULTS: During an average 12-year follow-up, 23 732 incident lung cancer cases were identified. While BMI was generally associated with a decreased risk, WC and WHR were associated with increased risk after controlling for BMI. These associations were seen 10 years before diagnosis in smokers and never smokers, were strongest among blacks, and varied by histological type. After excluding the first five years of follow-up, hazard ratios per 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI were 0.95 (95% CI = 0.90 to 1.00), 0.92 (95% CI = 0.89 to 0.95), and 0.89 (95% CI = 0.86 to 0.91) in never, former, and current smokers, and 0.86 (95% CI = 0.84 to 0.89), 0.94 (95% CI = 0.90 to 0.99), and 1.09 (95% CI = 1.03 to 1.15) for adenocarcinoma, squamous cell, and small cell carcinoma, respectively. Hazard ratios per 10 cm increase in WC were 1.09 (95% CI = 1.00 to 1.18), 1.12 (95% CI = 1.07 to 1.17), and 1.11 (95% CI = 1.07 to 1.16) in never, former, and current smokers, and 1.06 (95% CI = 1.01 to 1.12), 1.20 (95% CI = 1.12 to 1.29), and 1.13 (95% CI = 1.04 to 1.23) for adenocarcinoma, squamous cell, and small cell carcinoma, respectively. Participants with BMIs of less than 25 kg/m2 but high WC had a 40% higher risk (HR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.26 to 1.56) than those with BMIs of 25 kg/m2 or greater but normal/moderate WC.
CONCLUSIONS: The inverse BMI-lung cancer association is not entirely due to smoking and reverse causation. Central obesity, particularly concurrent with low BMI, may help identify high-risk populations for lung cancer.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old with histologically/cytologically confirmed stage IIIB/IV EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 were randomized 1:1 to receive erlotinib (oral; 150 mg once daily until progression/unacceptable toxicity) or GP [G 1250 mg/m(2) i.v. days 1 and 8 (3-weekly cycle); P 75 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1, (3-weekly cycle) for up to four cycles]. Primary end point: investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points include objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety.
RESULTS: A total of 217 patients were randomized: 110 to erlotinib and 107 to GP. Investigator-assessed median PFS was 11.0 months versus 5.5 months, erlotinib versus GP, respectively [hazard ratio (HR), 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22-0.51; log-rank P < 0.0001]. Independent Review Committee-assessed median PFS was consistent (HR, 0.42). Median OS was 26.3 versus 25.5 months, erlotinib versus GP, respectively (HR, 0.91, 95% CI 0.63-1.31; log-rank P = .607). ORR was 62.7% for erlotinib and 33.6% for GP. Treatment-related serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 2.7% versus 10.6% of erlotinib and GP patients, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 AEs were rash (6.4%) with erlotinib, and neutropenia (25.0%), leukopenia (14.4%), and anemia (12.5%) with GP.
CONCLUSION: These analyses demonstrate that first-line erlotinib provides a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus GP in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC (NCT01342965).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two EGFR mutation tests, a tissue-based assay (cobas® v1) and a tissue- and blood-based assay (cobas® v2) were used to analyze matched biopsy and blood samples (897 paired samples) from three Asian studies of first-line erlotinib with similar intent-to-treat populations. ENSURE was a phase III comparison of erlotinib and gemcitabine/platinum, FASTACT-2 was a phase III study of gemcitabine/platinum plus erlotinib or placebo, and ASPIRATION was a single-arm phase II study of erlotinib. Agreement statistics were evaluated, based on sensitivity and specificity between the two assays in subgroups of patients with increasing tumor burden.
RESULTS: Patients with discordant EGFR (tissue+/plasma-) mutation status achieved longer progression-free and overall survival than those with concordant (tissue+/plasma+) mutation status. Tumor burden was significantly greater in patients with concordant versus discordant mutations. Pooled analyses of data from the three studies showed a sensitivity of 72.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 67.8-76.1) and a specificity of 97.9% (95% CI 96.0-99.0) for blood-based testing; sensitivity was greatest in patients with larger baseline tumors.
CONCLUSIONS: Blood-based EGFR mutation testing demonstrated high specificity and good sensitivity, and offers a convenient and easily accessible diagnostic method to complement tissue-based tests. Patients with a discordant mutation status in plasma and tissue, had improved survival outcomes compared with those with a concordant mutation status, which may be due to their lower tumor burden. These data help to inform the clinical utility of this blood-based assay for the detection of EGFR mutations.
METHODS: In this open-label phase III study (PROFILE 1029), patients were randomized 1:1 to receive orally administered crizotinib 250 mg twice daily continuously (3-week cycles) or intravenously administered chemotherapy (pemetrexed 500 mg/m2, plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2, or carboplatin [at a dose to produce area under the concentration-time curve of 5-6 mg·min/mL]) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. PFS confirmed by independent radiology review was the primary end point.
RESULTS: Crizotinib significantly prolonged PFS (hazard ratio, 0.402; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.286-0.565; p < 0.001). The median PFS was 11.1 months with crizotinib and 6.8 months with chemotherapy. The objective response rate was 87.5% (95% CI: 79.6-93.2%) with crizotinib versus 45.6% (95% CI: 35.8-55.7%) with chemotherapy (p < 0.001). The most common adverse events were increased transaminase levels, diarrhea, and vision disorders with crizotinib and leukopenia, neutropenia, and anemia with chemotherapy. Significantly greater improvements from baseline in patient-reported outcomes were seen in crizotinib-treated versus chemotherapy-treated patients.
CONCLUSIONS: First-line crizotinib significantly improved PFS, objective response rate, and patient-reported outcomes compared with standard platinum-based chemotherapy in East Asian patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC, which is similar to the results from PROFILE 1014. The safety profiles of crizotinib and chemotherapy were consistent with those previously published.