| Literature DB >> 27154293 |
Filippo Pietrantonio1, Rosa Berenato2, Claudia Maggi2, Marta Caporale2, Massimo Milione3, Federica Perrone3, Elena Tamborini3, Dario Baratti4, Shigeki Kusamura4, Luigi Mariani5, Monica Niger2, Alessia Mennitto2, Annunziata Gloghini3, Ilaria Bossi2, Giulio Settanni3, Adele Busico3, Pietro Francesco Bagnoli6, Maria Di Bartolomeo2, Marcello Deraco4, Filippo de Braud2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is lack of evidence about systemic treatment of pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) relapsing after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. There is also lack of biomarkers able to predict outcomes beyond known clinical and pathological prognostic features.Entities:
Keywords: Appendiceal cancer; Bevacizumab; GNAS; Metronomic capecitabine; Next-generation sequencing; Peritoneal pseudomyxoma
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27154293 PMCID: PMC4859944 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-016-0877-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Patients and disease characteristics
| Main characteristics (N = 15) | N° (%) |
|---|---|
| Age, years | |
| Median (range) | 52 (42–68) |
| Sex | |
| Male | 9 (60) |
| Female | 6 (40) |
| ECOG performance status | |
| 0 | 12 (80) |
| 1 | 3 (20) |
| Histological grade | |
| High | 5 (33) |
| Low | 10 (67) |
| Time from CRS + HIPEC to relapse | |
| Median (range, months) | 13 (5–36) |
| ≤12 months | 7 (47) |
| >12 months | 8 (53) |
| PCI at the time of CRS + HIPEC | |
| Median (range) | 27 (8–39) |
| Completeness of cytoreduction | |
| CC-0 | 8 (53) |
| CC-1 | 7 (47) |
CRS cytoreductive surgery; HIPEC hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy; PCI peritoneal carcinomatosis index; CC completeness of cytoreduction score
Fig. 1Kaplan–Meier curve for progression-free survival
Fig. 2Kaplan–Meier curve for overall survival
Treatment-related toxicity
| Adverse events | N° of patients (%) grade according NCI-CTC vers. 4.03 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | G2 | G3 | G4 | |
| Hypertension | – | 1 (6 %) | 1 (6 %) | – |
| Thromboembolic event | – | 1 (6 %) | 1 (6 %) | – |
| Diarrhea | 2 (13 %) | 1 (6 %) | – | – |
| Neutropenia | – | 1 (6 %) | – | – |
| Hand Foot Syndrome | – | 1 (6 %) | 1 (6 %) | – |
| Epistaxis | 1 (6 %) | – | – | – |
| Fatigue | 2 (13 %) | – | – | – |
NCI-CTC, National Cancer Institute—Common Toxicity Criteria
Genomic alterations detected in the 15 samples
| ID | Mutations detected by NGS | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor content (%) |
| Mutant alleles (%) | Mutant alleles normalized for tumor content (%) | HS | GNAS mutation | Mutant alleles (%) | Mutant alleles normalized for tumor content (%) | HS | Other mutations (mutant alleles; normalized for tumor content; HS) | MGMT methylationa | MET Expressionb | MET amplificationc | |
| 1 | 45 | G12C | 12 | 27 | 54 | R201H | 16 | 36 | 72 | No | 300 | No | |
| 2 | 40 | G12D | 26 | 65 | 130 | R201H | 24 | 60 | 120 | Yes | 100 | No | |
| 3 | 30 | WT | – | – | – | WT | – | – | – | No | 60 | No | |
| 4 | 40 | G12D | 12 | 30 | 60 | R201H | 11 | 28 | 56 | No | 80 | 2 % small clusters | |
| 5 | 20 | G13D | 7 | 35 | 70 | WT | – | – | – | TP53 R248 W (20 %;100 %; 200) | No | 250 | >5 signals in < 50 % cells |
| 6 | 10 | G13D | 4 | 40 | 80 | WT | – | – | – | Yes | 180 | No | |
| 7 | 20 | G12D | 9 | 45 | 90 | WT | – | – | – | FGFR3 A257 V (9 %; 45 %; 90) LKB1 P319S (8 %; 40 %; 80) | No | 90 | No |
| 8 | 50 | G12D | 13 | 26 | 52 | R201C | 14 | 28 | 56 | TP53 R273H(23 %; 46 %; 92) HNF1A R278 W (5 %; 10 %; 20) | No | 10 | No |
| 9 | 50 | G12D | 30 | 60 | 120 | R201H | 15 | 30 | 60 | Yes | 140 | No | |
| 10 | 30 | G12 V | 8 | 27 | 54 | R201H | 3 | 10 | 20 | No | 160 | 1 % small clusters | |
| 11 | 20 | G12 V | 18 | 90 | 180 | WT | – | – | – | TP53 C238F (19 %; 95 %; 190) | No | 60 | NO |
| 12 | 10 | G12D | 1 | 10 | 20 | R201H | 6 | 60 | 120 | No | 90 | No | |
| 13 | 35 | G12V | 5 | 14 | 28 | R201H | 10 | 29 | 58 | No | 90 | No | |
| 14 | 80 | G12D | 23 | 29 | 58 | R201H | 24 | 30 | 60 | No | 60 | No | |
| 15 | 30 | G12D | 4 | 13 | 26 | WT | – | – | – | No | 140 | No | |
a MGMT methylation status is assessed by methylation-specific Polymerase chain reaction
b MET expression is assessed by immunohistochemistry and is reported as H-score
c MET amplification status is assessed by in situ hybridization
Fig. 3Comparison of Kaplan-Meier curves for progression-free survival according to GNAS mutational status in the prospective cohort (metronomic capecitabine and bevacizumab)