Despite the fact that the role of endoglin on endothelial cells has been extensively described, its expression and biological role on (epithelial) cancer cells is still debatable. Especially its... Show moreDespite the fact that the role of endoglin on endothelial cells has been extensively described, its expression and biological role on (epithelial) cancer cells is still debatable. Especially its function on squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) cells is largely unknown. Therefore, we investigated SCC endoglin expression and function in three types of SCCs; head and neck (HNSCC), esophageal (ESCC) and vulvar (VSCC) cancers. Endoglin expression was evaluated in tumor specimens and 14 patient-derived cell lines. Next to being expressed on angiogenic endothelial cells, endoglin is selectively expressed by individual SCC cells in tumor nests. Patient derived HNSCC, ESCC and VSCC cell lines express varying levels of endoglin with high interpatient variation. To assess the function of endoglin in signaling of TGF-beta ligands, endoglin was overexpressed or knocked out or the signaling was blocked using TRC105, an endoglin neutralizing antibody. The endoglin ligand BMP-9 induced strong phosphorylation of SMAD1 independent of expression of the type-I receptor ALK1. Interestingly, we observed that endoglin overexpression leads to strongly increased soluble endoglin levels, which in turn decreases BMP-9 signaling. On the functional level, endoglin, both in a ligand dependent and independent manner, did not influence proliferation or migration of the SCC cells. In conclusion, these data show endoglin expression on individual cells in the tumor nests in SCCs and a role for (soluble) endoglin in paracrine signaling, without directly affecting proliferation or migration in an autocrine manner. Show less
Mehra, N.; Kloots, I.; Vlaming, M.; Aluwini, S.; Dewulf, E.; Oprea-Lager, D.E.; ... ; Ausems, M. 2023
Background: Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are... Show moreBackground: Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are not yet well defined.Objective: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the indication and application of germline and tumour genetic testing in PCa.Design, setting, and participants: The panel consisted of 39 specialists involved in PCa management. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a virtual consensus meeting.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was reached if >75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.Results and limitations: Of the multiple-choice questions, 44% reached consensus. For men without PCa having a relevant family history (familial PCa/BRCA-related hered-itary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveil-lance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germ -line pathogenic variant carrier. Germline and tumour genetic testing should not be done for nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive PCa in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer. Tumour genetic testing was deemed most appropriate for the identification of actionable variants, with uncertainty for germline testing. For tumour genetic testing in metastatic castration-resistant PCa, consensus was not reached for the timing and panel composition. The principal limitations are as fol-lows: (1) a number of topics discussed lack scientific evidence, and therefore the recommendations are partly opinion based, and (2) there was a small number of experts per discipline.Conclusions: The outcomes of this Dutch consensus meeting may provide further guidance on genetic counselling and molecular testing related to PCa.Patient summary: A group of Dutch specialists discussed the use of germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, indication of these tests (which patients and when), and impact of these tests on the management and treatment of PCa.(c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Eikenboom, E.L.; Moen, S.; Leeuwen, L. van; Geurts-Giele, W.R.R.; Tops, C.M.J.; Ham, T.J. van; ... ; Wagner, A. 2022
To identify Lynch syndrome (LS) carriers, DNA mismatch repair (MMR) immunohistochemistry (IHC) is performed on colorectal cancers (CRCs). Upon subsequent LS diagnostics, MMR deficiency (MMRd)... Show moreTo identify Lynch syndrome (LS) carriers, DNA mismatch repair (MMR) immunohistochemistry (IHC) is performed on colorectal cancers (CRCs). Upon subsequent LS diagnostics, MMR deficiency (MMRd) sometimes remains unexplained (UMMRd). Recently, the importance of complete LS diagnostics to explain UMMRd, involving MMR methylation, germline, and somatic analyses, was stressed. To explore why some MMRd CRCs remain unsolved, we performed a systematic review of the literature and mapped patients with UMMRd diagnosed in our center. A systematic literature search was performed in Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar for articles on UMMRd CRCs after complete LS diagnostics published until December 15, 2021. Additionally, UMMRd CRCs diagnosed in our center since 1993 were mapped. Of 754 identified articles, 17 were included, covering 74 patients with UMMRd. Five CRCs were microsatellite stable. Upon complete diagnostics, 39 patients had single somatic MMR hits, and six an MMR germline variant of unknown significance (VUS). Ten had somatic pathogenic variants (PVs) in POLD1, MLH3, MSH3, and APC. The remaining 14 patients were the only identifiable cases in the literature without a plausible identified cause of the UMMRd. Of those, nine were suspected to have LS. In our center, complete LS diagnostics in approximately 5,000 CRCs left seven MMRd CRCs unexplained. All had a somatic MMR hit or MMR germline VUS, indicative of a missed second MMR hit. In vitually all patients with UMMRd, complete LS diagnostics suggest MMR gene involvement. Optimizing detection of currently undetectable PVs and VUS interpretation might explain all UMMRd CRCs, considering UMMRd a case closed. Show less
Lassman, A.B.; Hoang-Xuan, K.; Polley, M.Y.C.; Brandes, A.A.; Cairncross, J.G.; Kros, J.M.; ... ; Bent, M.J. van den 2022
Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the basis of the primary end point, may be published when key planned... Show moreClinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the basis of the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. Anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors (AOTs) are chemotherapy-sensitive brain tumors. We report the final very long-term survival results from European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer 26951 and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9402 phase III trials initiated in 1990s, which both studied radiotherapy with/without neo/adjuvant procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) for newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors. The median follow-up duration in both was 18-19 years. For European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer 26951, median, 14-year, and probable 20-year overall survival rates without versus with PCV were 2.6 years, 13.4%, and 10.1% versus 3.5 years, 25.1%, and 16.8% (N = 368 overall; hazard ratio [HR] 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.98; P = .033), with 1p19q codeletion 9.3 years, 26.2%, and 13.6% versus 14.2 years, 51.0%, and 37.1% (n = 80; HR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.03; P = .063), respectively. For Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9402, analogous results were 4.8 years, 16.5%, and 11.2% versus 4.8 years, 29.1%, and 24.6% (N = 289 overall; HR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.03; P = .08), with codeletion 7.3 years, 25.0%, and 14.9% versus 13.2 years, 46.1%, and 37% (n = 125; HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.94; P = .02), respectively. With that, the studies show similar long-term survival even without tumor recurrence in a significant proportion of patients after first-line treatment with radiotherapy/PCV. Show less
Eikenboom, E.L.; Werf-'t Lam, A.S. van der; Rodriguez-Girondo, M.; Asperen, C.J. van; Dinjens, W.N.M.; Hofstra, R.M.W.; ... ; Nielsen, M. 2022
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Lynch syndrome is a form of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) caused by pathogenic germline variants (PV) in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes. Currently, many Western... Show moreBACKGROUND & AIMS: Lynch syndrome is a form of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) caused by pathogenic germline variants (PV) in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes. Currently, many Western countries perform universal immunohistochemistry testing on CRC to increase the identification of Lynch syndrome patients and their relatives. For a clear understanding of health benefits and costs, data on its outcomes are required: proportions of Lynch syndrome, sporadic MMR-deficient (MMRd) cases, and unexplained MMRd cases.METHODS: Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for studies reporting on universal MMR immunohistochemistry, followed by MMR germline analysis, until March 20, 2020. Proportions were calculated, subgroup analyses were performed based on age and diagnostics used, and random effects meta-analyses were conducted. Quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Tool for Prevalence Studies.RESULTS: Of 2723 identified articles, 56 studies covering 58,580 CRCs were included. In 6.22% (95% CI, 5.08%-7.61%; I-2 = 96%) MMRd was identified. MMR germline PV was present in 2.00% (95% CI, 1.59%-2.50%; I-2 = 92%), ranging from 1.80% to 7.27% based on completeness of diagnostics and age restriction. Immunohistochemistry outcomes were missing in 11.81%, and germline testing was performed in 76.30% of eligible patients. In 7 studies, including 6848 CRCs completing all diagnostic stages, germline PV and biallelic somatic MMR inactivation were found in 3.01% and 1.75%, respectively; 0.61% remained unexplained MMRd.CONCLUSIONS: Age, completeness, and type of diagnostics affect the percentage of MMR PV and unexplained MMRd percentages. Complete diagnostics explain almost all MMRd CRCs, reducing the amount of subsequent multigene panel testing. This contributes to optimizing testing and surveillance in MMRd CRC patients and relatives. Show less
Simple SummaryFemale Lynch syndrome (LS) carriers have an increased risk to develop endometrial and ovarian cancer. In the Netherlands, carriers are therefore advised annual gynecological... Show moreSimple SummaryFemale Lynch syndrome (LS) carriers have an increased risk to develop endometrial and ovarian cancer. In the Netherlands, carriers are therefore advised annual gynecological surveillance and eventually, risk-reducing surgery. Global gynecological LS surveillance guidelines are scarce and based on limited evidence. These are, however, warranted to offer accurate surveillance. To provide more insight into surveillance outcomes, this study assessed outcomes of gynecological surveillance and risk-reducing surgery in 164 LS carriers diagnosed in our center, with a median follow-up of 5.6 years per carrier. Although most surveillance visits happened within an advised timeframe, we observed large variability in how gynecological surveillance visits were performed. This finding stresses the need for development of clear and evidence-based guidelines. Endometrial cancers identified at surveillance were all found in early stage, mostly symptomatic, questioning surveillance benefit. Large, prospective studies should assess to what extent current LS surveillance programs contribute to early detection of gynecological tumors.Lynch syndrome (LS) is caused by pathogenic germline variants in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes, predisposing female carriers for endometrial cancer (EC) and ovarian cancer (OC). Since gynecological LS surveillance guidelines are based on little evidence, we assessed its outcomes. Data regarding gynecological tumors, surveillance, and (risk-reducing) surgery were collected from female LS carriers diagnosed in our center since 1993. Of 505 female carriers, 104 had a gynecological malignancy prior to genetic LS diagnosis. Of 264 carriers eligible for gynecological management, 164 carriers gave informed consent and had available surveillance data: 38 MLH1, 25 MSH2, 82 MSH6, and 19 PMS2 carriers (median follow-up 5.6 years). Surveillance intervals were within advised time in >80%. Transvaginal ultrasound, endometrial sampling, and CA125 measurements were performed in 76.8%, 35.9%, and 40.6%, respectively. Four symptomatic ECs, one symptomatic OC, and one asymptomatic EC were diagnosed. Endometrial hyperplasia was found in eight carriers, of whom three were symptomatic. Risk-reducing surgery was performed in 73 (45.5%) carriers (median age 51 years), revealing two asymptomatic ECs. All ECs were diagnosed in FIGO I. Gynecological management in LS carriers varied largely, stressing the need for uniform, evidence-based guidelines. Most ECs presented early and symptomatically, questioning the surveillance benefit in its current form. Show less
Background Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) provide rational, genomics-driven, patient-tailored treatment recommendations. Worldwide, MTBs differ in terms of scope, composition, methods, and... Show moreBackground Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) provide rational, genomics-driven, patient-tailored treatment recommendations. Worldwide, MTBs differ in terms of scope, composition, methods, and recommendations. This study aimed to assess differences in methods and agreement in treatment recommendations among MTBs from tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands.Materials and Methods MTBs from all tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands were invited to participate. A survey assessing scope, value, logistics, composition, decision-making method, reporting, and registration of the MTBs was completed through on-site interviews with members from each MTB. Targeted therapy recommendations were compared using 10 anonymized cases. Participating MTBs were asked to provide a treatment recommendation in accordance with their own methods. Agreement was based on which molecular alteration(s) was considered actionable with the next line of targeted therapy.Results Interviews with 24 members of eight MTBs revealed that all participating MTBs focused on rare or complex mutational cancer profiles, operated independently of cancer type-specific multidisciplinary teams, and consisted of at least (thoracic and/or medical) oncologists, pathologists, and clinical scientists in molecular pathology. Differences were the types of cancer discussed and the methods used to achieve a recommendation. Nevertheless, agreement among MTB recommendations, based on identified actionable molecular alteration(s), was high for the 10 evaluated cases (86%).Conclusion MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational cancer profiles. We propose a "Dutch MTB model" for an optimal, collaborative, and nationally aligned MTB workflow.Implications for Practice Interpretation of genomic analyses for optimal choice of target therapy for patients with cancer is becoming increasingly complex. A molecular tumor board (MTB) supports oncologists in rationalizing therapy options. However, there is no consensus on the most optimal setup for an MTB, which can affect the quality of recommendations. This study reveals that the eight MTBs associated with tertiary cancer referral centers in The Netherlands are similar in setup and reach a high agreement in recommendations for rare or complex mutational profiles. The Dutch MTB model is based on a collaborative and nationally aligned workflow with interinstitutional collaboration and data sharing. Show less
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel analysis on DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue is increasingly used to also identify actionable copy number gains (gene amplifications)... Show moreNext-generation sequencing (NGS) panel analysis on DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue is increasingly used to also identify actionable copy number gains (gene amplifications) in addition to sequence variants. While guidelines for the reporting of sequence variants are available, guidance with respect to reporting copy number gains from gene-panel NGS data is limited. Here, we report on Dutch consensus recommendations obtained in the context of the national Predictive Analysis for THerapy (PATH) project, which aims to optimize and harmonize routine diagnostics in molecular pathology. We briefly discuss two common approaches to detect gene copy number gains from NGS data, i.e., the relative coverage and B-allele frequencies. In addition, we provide recommendations for reporting gene copy gains for clinical purposes. In addition to general QC metrics associated with NGS in routine diagnostics, it is recommended to include clinically relevant quantitative parameters of copy number gains in the clinical report, such as (i) relative coverage and estimated copy numbers in neoplastic cells, (ii) statistical scores to show significance (e.g., z-scores), and (iii) the sensitivity of the assay and restrictions of NGS-based detection of copy number gains. Collectively, this information can guide clinical and analytical decisions such as the reliable detection of high-level gene amplifications and the requirement for additional in situ assays in case of borderline results or limited sensitivity. Show less
Crobach, S.; Jansen, A.M.L.; Ligtenberg, M.J.L.; Koopmans, M.; Nielsen, M.; Hes, F.J.; ... ; Morreau, H. 2018
