Pituitary adenomas comprise a heterogeneous subset of pathologies causing serious comorbidities, which would benefit from identification of novel, common molecular/cellular biomarkers and therapeutic targets. The ghrelin system has been linked to development of certain endocrine-related cancers. Systematic analysis of the presence and functional implications of some components of the ghrelin system, including native ghrelin, receptors and the recently discovered splicing variant In1-ghrelin, in human normal pituitaries (n = 11) and pituitary adenomas (n = 169) revealed that expression pattern of ghrelin system suffers a clear alteration in pituitary adenomasas compared with normal pituitary, where In1-ghrelin is markedly overexpressed. Interestingly, in cultured pituitary adenoma cells In1-ghrelin treatment (acylated peptides at 100 nM; 24-72 h) increased GH and ACTH secretion, Ca(2+) and ERK1/2 signaling and cell viability, whereas In1-ghrelin silencing (using a specific siRNA; 100 nM) reduced cell viability. These results indicate that an alteration of the ghrelin system, specially its In1-ghrelin variant, could contribute to pathogenesis of different pituitary adenomas types, and suggest that this variant and its related ghrelin system could provide new tools to identify novel, more general diagnostic, prognostic and potential therapeutic targets in pituitary tumors.

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

                  Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!

For carcinoma of unknown primary site (CUP), determining the primary tumor site may be uninformative and often does not improve outcome.
To discover opportunities for targeted therapies in patients with CUP not currently searched for in routine practice.
Comprehensive genomic profiling on 200 CUP formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens (mean, 756× coverage) using the hybrid-capture-based FoundationOne assay at academic and community oncology clinics.
Presence of targetable genomic alterations (GAs) in CUP and responses to targeted therapies.
There were 125 adenocarcinomas of unknown primary site (ACUPs) and 75 carcinomas of unknown primary site without features of adenocarcinoma (non-ACUPs). At least 1 GA was found in 192 (96%) of CUP specimens, with a mean (SD) of 4.2 (2.8) GAs per tumor. The most frequent GAs were in TP53 (110 [55%]), KRAS (40 [20%]), CDKN2A (37 [19%]), MYC (23 [12%]), ARID1A (21 [11%]), MCL1 (19 [10%]), PIK3CA (17 [9%]), ERBB2 (16 [8%]), PTEN (14 [7%]), EGFR (12 [6%]), SMAD4 (13 [7%]), STK11 (13 [7%]), SMARCA4 (12 [6%]), RB1 (12 [6%]), RICTOR (12 [6%]), MLL2 (12 [6%]), BRAF (11 [6%]), and BRCA2 (11 [6%]). One or more potentially targetable GAs were identified in 169 of 200 (85%) CUP specimens. Mutations or amplifications of ERBB2 were more frequent in ACUPs (13 [10%]) than in non-ACUPs (3 [4%]). Alterations of EGFR (10 [8%] vs 2 [3%]) and BRAF (8 [6%] vs 3 [4%]) were more common in ACUPs than in non-ACUPs. Strikingly, clinically relevant alterations in the receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK)/Ras signaling pathway including alterations in ALK, ARAF, BRAF, EGFR, FGFR1, FGFR2, KIT, KRAS, MAP2K1, MET, NF1, NF2, NRAS, RAF1, RET, and ROS1 were found in 90 (72%) ACUPs but in only 29 (39%) non-ACUPs (P < .001).
Almost all CUP samples harbored at least 1 clinically relevant GA with potential to influence and personalize therapy. The ACUP tumors were more frequently driven by GAs in the highly druggable RTK/Ras/mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway than the non-ACUP tumors. Comprehensive genomic profiling can identify novel treatment paradigms to address the limited options and poor prognoses of patients with CUP.

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

                  Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!

The objective of this study was to assess differences in efficacy outcomes between luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist plus antiandrogen (AA) flare protection and monotherapy with the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist degarelix in patients with prostate cancer.
Data from 1455 patients were pooled from two prospective, phase III randomized 1-year clinical trials of degarelix versus LHRH agonist with or without AA. The AA bicalutamide was administered at the investigator’s discretion. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model and a conditional logistic regression model was used for a case-control analysis of odds ratios (ORs).
Patients received degarelix monotherapy (n = 972) or LHRH agonist (n = 483) of whom 57 also received AA. Overall, prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival (PSA PFS) was improved with degarelix versus LHRH agonist + AA (Cox proportional hazards regression model-adjusted HR for PSA PFS failure was 0.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33-0.97, p = 0.038]). To compensate for a higher proportion of patients with metastases, Gleason score 7-10, and PSA >20 ng/ml in the LHRH agonist + AA group, a case-control analysis using a conditional logistic regression model was utilized. This resulted in an OR for PSA PFS of 0.42 (95% CI 0.20-0.89; p = 0.023) in the overall population, and 0.35 (95% CI 0.13-0.96; p = 0.042) in patients with PSA >50 ng/ml at baseline, when treated with degarelix versus LHRH agonists + AA. There were a small number of deaths, 1.9% with degarelix and 7% with LHRH agonists + AA (case-control analysis OR = 0.37; p = 0.085).
Degarelix monotherapy produced a more favorable effect on PSA PFS outcomes than a LHRH agonist + AA flare protection therapy in patients with prostate cancer when a case-control analysis was used to compensate for differences between treatment groups.

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

                  Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!

The poor prognosis of pancreatic cancer has been well established. For many patients, active treatments can improve patient outcomes, such as overall survival and symptom control. Nevertheless, there is evidence that pancreatic cancer is undertreated, even in patients with resectable disease. In addition, although participation in a clinical trial is recommended by current pancreatic cancer treatment guidelines, recent data suggest that patient participation in ongoing trials is below overall target accrual.
A survey was prepared and distributed to patients with pancreatic cancer and caregivers of patients with pancreatic cancer by the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (funding for the survey was provided by Celgene Corporation). The 70-question survey was completed between July 30, 2013, and September 18, 2013, by respondents in the United States. The goal of this analysis was to evaluate patient and caregiver interactions with physicians about pancreatic cancer treatments and participation in clinical trials.
The survey was completed by 184 patients and 213 caregivers (not necessarily paired). Quality of life, extension of survival, and symptom management were identified as the most important concerns among both patients and caregivers. A large majority of respondents (94.9%) reported that the patient followed the physician’s treatment recommendation. Approximately 30% of respondents indicated that the diagnosing physician offered treatment options at the time of diagnosis. Among the respondents who indicated that the physician did not offer treatment options at diagnosis, 20.4% stated that no doctor had ever spoken to them about treatment options. Most respondents (83.1%) reported that the patient received chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer. Approximately half of respondents (49.1%) indicated that they had never discussed clinical trials with a physician. Twelve percent of respondents reported that the patient participated in a clinical trial. In those cases, physicians were listed as the primary source of trial information 80.4% of the time. Familiarity with Patient Central (known as "Patient and Liaison Services" at the time of the study), a support service offered by the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, was associated with higher rates of receiving treatment (P<0.05), searching the Internet for information on clinical trials (P<0.05), and participating in clinical trials (not statistically significant).
The results of this study suggest that large numbers of patients and caregivers had never had discussions with physicians about pancreatic cancer treatments or clinical trials. The point about trials takes on even greater importance, considering that patients who participate in clinical trials report better outcomes than those receiving the same treatment outside of clinical trials. Increased discussions with patients could potentially increase treatment and trial participation, possibly improving patient- and caregiver-stated priorities of quality of life, extension of survival, and symptom management.

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

                  Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!

The main goal of this research was to study the interactions of a fully characterized set of silver nanomaterials (Ag ENMs) with cells in vitro, according to the standards of Good Laboratory Practices (GLP), to assure the quality of nanotoxicology research. We were interested in whether Ag ENMs synthesized by the same method, with the same size distribution, shape and specific surface area, but with different charges and surface compositions could give different biological responses.
A range of methods and toxicity endpoints were applied to study the impacts of interaction of the Ag ENMs with TK6 cells. As tests of viability, relative growth activity and trypan blue exclusion were applied. Genotoxicity was evaluated by the alkaline comet assay for detection of strand breaks and oxidized purines. The mutagenic potential of Ag ENMs was investigated with the in vitro HPRT gene mutation test on V79-4 cells according to the OECD protocol. Ag ENM agglomeration, dissolution as well as uptake and distribution within the cells were investigated as crucial aspects of Ag ENM toxicity. Ag ENM stabilizers were included in addition to positive and negative controls.
Different cytotoxic effects were observed including membrane damage, cell cycle arrest and cell death. Ag ENMs also induced various kinds of DNA damage including strand breaks and DNA oxidation, and caused gene mutation. We found that positive Ag ENMs had greater impact on cyto- and genotoxicity than did Ag ENMs with neutral or negative charge, assumed to be related to their greater uptake into cells and to their presence in the nucleus and mitochondria, implying that Ag ENMs might induce toxicity by both direct and indirect mechanisms.
We showed that Ag ENMs could be cytotoxic, genotoxic and mutagenic. Our experiments with the HPRT gene mutation assay demonstrated that surface chemical composition plays a significant role in Ag ENM toxicity.

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

                  Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!