| 1. |
- Gebre-Medhin, Maria, et al.
(author)
-
ARTSCAN III : A randomized phase III study comparing chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin versus cetuximab in patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancer
- 2021
-
In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - : American Society of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 39:1, s. 38-47
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- PURPOSE We performed an open-label randomized controlled phase III study comparing treatment outcome and toxicity between radiotherapy (RT) with concomitant cisplatin versus concomitant cetuximab in patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC; stage III-IV according to the Union for International Cancer Control TNM classification, 7th edition). MATERIALS AND METHODS Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either intravenous cetuximab 400 mg/m2 1 week before start of RT followed by 250 mg/m2/wk, or weekly intravenous cisplatin 40 mg/m2, during RT. RT was conventionally fractionated. Patients with T3-T4 tumors underwent a second random assignment 1:1 between standard RT dose 68.0 Gy to the primary tumor or dose escalation to 73.1 Gy. Primary end point was overall survival (OS) evaluated using adjusted Cox regression analysis. Secondary end points were locoregional control, local control with dose-escalated RT, pattern of failure, and adverse effects. RESULTS Study inclusion was prematurely closed after an unplanned interim analysis when 298 patients had been randomly assigned. At 3 years, OS was 88% (95% CI, 83% to 94%) and 78% (95% CI, 71% to 85%) in the cisplatin and cetuximab groups, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.93 to 2.86; P 5 .086). The cumulative incidence of locoregional failures at 3 years was 23% (95% CI, 16% to 31%) compared with 9% (95% CI, 4% to 14%) in the cetuximab versus the cisplatin group (Gray’s test P 5 .0036). The cumulative incidence of distant failures did not differ between the treatment groups. Dose escalation in T3-T4 tumors did not increase local control. CONCLUSION Cetuximab is inferior to cisplatin regarding locoregional control for concomitant treatment with RT in patients with locoregionally advanced HNSCC. Additional studies are needed to identify possible subgroups that still may benefit from concomitant cetuximab treatment.
|
|
| 2. |
- Ljungberg, Börje, Professor, 1949-, et al.
(author)
-
Survival advantage of upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy in patients with primary metastatic renal cell carcinoma compared with systemic and palliative treatments in a real-world setting
- 2020
-
In: Scandinavian Journal of Urology. - : Medical Journals Sweden AB. - 2168-1805 .- 2168-1813. ; 54:6, s. 487-492
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Recently, the CARMENA and SURTIME studies, suggested that upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) should be abandoned for patients with intermediate and high-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, CN remains an indication in low-risk and when immediate systemic treatment is not required. The aim was to evaluate the long-term overall survival (OS) in patients with primary mRCC, based on the first line treatment. Methods There were 1483 patients with primary mRCC in the National Kidney Cancer Registry from 2005 to 2013. Data on primary treatment, TNM stage, RCC type, tumor size, patient age and sex were extracted. Survival time was calculated from time of diagnosis to time of death or until July 2019. Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square tests, the Kaplan-Meyer method and Cox regression analyses were used. Results Patients primary treated with CN had a significantly longer OS (p < .001) than patients primary treated with systemic therapy or palliation. In a Cox regression multivariate analysis, the hazard ratio for CN compared with no CN was 1.600, 95%Ci (1.492 - 1.691),p < .001. Also occurrence of lymph node metastases, T-stage, patients age and year of diagnosis, remained as independent predictors of OS. Conclusion Patients primary treated with CN survived significantly longer than patients primary treated with systemic therapy or palliation, in all age groups. CN was an important first-line treatment option in mRCC patients.
|
|
| 3. |
- Ljuslinder, Ingrid, 1968-, et al.
(author)
-
Increased copy number at 3p14 in breast cancer
- 2005
-
In: Breast Cancer Research. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1465-5411 .- 1465-542X. ; 7:5, s. R719-R727
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Thomasson, Marcus, 1973-
(author)
-
Expression and prognostic value of LRIG1 and the EGF-receptor family in renal cell and prostate cancer
- 2009
-
Doctoral thesis (other academic/artistic)abstract
- The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) family consists of four (EGFR, ErbB2, Erbb3, and ErbB4) receptor tyrosine kinases (RTK) whose signalling is important for physiological and malignant cellular functions such as proliferation, survival, migration, and differentiation. EGFR and ErbB2 in particular are established oncogenes in many solid tumours and are targets for anti-cancer treatment. LRIG1 (leucine-rich repeats and immunoglobulin-like domains-1) is a protein that negatively regulates the EGFR-family, and other RTKs and is a proposed tumour suppressor. This thesis examines the expression of the EGFR-family members and LRIG1 in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and in prostate cancer (PC). In RCC, up-regulation of EGFR was shown for all RCC types analysed: clear cell (ccRCC), papillary (pRCC), and chromophobe (chRCC). ErbB2 was down-regulated in ccRCC. ErbB3 expression was low in non-neoplastic kidney and not significantly altered in RCC. ErbB4 was strongly down-regulated in the vast majority of RCCs of all types. LRIG1 was down-regulated in ccRCC. No prognostic value was found for any of these factors in RCC. In prostate cancer cells, LRIG1 was shown to be up-regulated by androgen stimulation and suppressed the growth of prostate cancer cells. In prostate cancer, the expression and prognostic value of LRIG1 was investigated in two patient series, one with untreated patients and one with patients who had undergone prostatectomy. In the untreated patient series, LRIG1 correlated with malignancy grade (Gleason score) and poor outcome for patients (both cancer specific and overall survival), being an independent prognostic factor. In contrast, in the series of patients who had undergone prostatectomy, LRIG1 expression correlated with a good outcome (overall survival). Thus in RCC, there were alterations in gene-expression of the EGFR-family members and LRIG1 between kidney cortex and RCC and between the RCC types. Despite few associations with clinical factors, these alterations are likely to be of biological importance. In prostate cancer LRIG1 was up-regulated by androgen stimulation and inhibited cell proliferation. LRIG1 expression had prognostic value in prostate cancer, maybe as a secondary marker of androgen receptor activation or because of growth inhibition of prostate cancer cells. Contradicting findings in untreated patients and patients treated with prostatectomy poses the question of whether the prognostic value of LRIG1 and other markers vary depending on the specific biological and clinical circumstances in the materials studied.
|
|
| 7. |
- Thomasson, Marcus, et al.
(author)
-
Gene expression pattern of the epidermal growth factor receptor family and LRIG1 in renal cell carcinoma
- 2012
-
In: BMC Research Notes. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1756-0500. ; 5:216, s. 1-5
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Previous studies have revealed altered expression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-family members and their endogenous inhibitor leucine-rich and immunoglobulin-like domains 1 (LRIG1) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). In this study, we analyzed the gene expression levels of EGFR-family members and LRIG1, and their possible associations with clinical parameters in various types of RCC, individually.METHODS: Gene expression levels of EGFR-family members and LRIG1 were analyzed in 104 RCC samples, including 81 clear cell RCC (ccRCC), 15 papillary RCC (pRCC), and 7 chromophobe RCC (chRCC) by quantitative real-time RT-PCR. Associations between gene expression levels and clinical data, including tumor grade, stage, and patient survival were statistically assessed.RESULTS: Compared to kidney cortex, EGFR was up-regulated in ccRCC and pRCC, LRIG1 and ERBB2 were down-regulated in ccRCC, and ERBB4 was strongly down-regulated in all RCC types. ERBB3 expression did not differ between RCC types or between RCC and the kidney cortex. The expression of the analyzed genes did not correlate with patient outcome.CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that the previously described up-regulation of EGFR and down-regulation of ERBB4 occurred in all analyzed RCC types, whereas down-regulation of ERBB2 and LRIG1 was only present in ccRCC. These observations illustrate the need to evaluate the different RCC types individually when analyzing molecules of interest and potential biological markers.
|
|
| 8. |
- Thomasson, Marcus, 1973-, et al.
(author)
-
LRIG1 and epidermal growth factor receptor in renal cell carcinoma : a quantitative RT-PCR and immunohistochemical analysis
- 2003
-
In: British Journal of Cancer. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0007-0920 .- 1532-1827. ; 89:7, s. 1285-1289
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In all, 31 renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) were examined for expression of the potential tumour suppressor LRIG1 (formerly Lig-1) and the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Eight matched samples of uninvolved kidney cortex were also evaluated. Gene expression was examined by quantitative real-time RT-PCR. In the eight matched sample pairs (uninvolved kidney cortex and tumour), protein expression was examined by immunohistochemistry. Conventional (clear cell) tumours showed an expected upregulation of EGFR. LRIG1 expression was generally downregulated in conventional and papillary RCC but not in chromophobic RCC. The ratio between EGFR and LRIG1 was more than 2.5-fold higher in the eight tumours compared with matched uninvolved kidney cortex and was at least two-fold higher than the mean normal ratio in 21 of 31 samples analysed. The observed downregulation of LRIG1 and increased EGFR/LRIG1 ratios are consistent with LRIG1 being a suppressor of oncogenesis in RCC by counteracting the tumour-promoting properties of EGFR. Further studies are justified to elucidate the explicit role of LRIG1 in the oncogenesis of RCC.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Thomasson, Marcus, et al.
(author)
-
LRIG1 and the liar paradox in prostate cancer: a study of the expression and clinical significance of LRIG1 in prostate cancer
- 2011
-
In: International Journal of Cancer. - : Wiley. - 0020-7136 .- 1097-0215. ; 128:12, s. 2843-2852
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The course of prostate cancer varies greatly, and additional prognostic markers are needed. Leucine-rich repeats and immunoglobulin-like domains protein 1 (LRIG1) is an endogenous inhibitor of growth factor signaling and a proposed tumor suppressor. Publicly available gene expression datasets indicate that LRIG1 may be overexpressed in prostate cancer. In our study, the expression of LRIG1 protein in prostate cancer was evaluated for the first time. Immunohistochemistry was performed on tissue microarrays from two different patient series: 355 Swedish patients diagnosed by transurethral resection and 293 American patients who underwent radical prostatectomy. In the Swedish series, high expression of LRIG1 correlated with Gleason score, T-stage, tumor cell proliferation, vascular density and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) phosphorylation. Among the 256 Swedish patients, followed by watchful waiting, high LRIG1 expression was significantly associated with short overall and prostate cancer-specific survival. In contrast, in the US series, high LRIG1 expression was significantly associated with long overall survival. In vitro cell experiments showed that LRIG1 was induced by androgen stimulation, and its expression inhibited prostate cancer cell proliferation. Thus, LRIG1 expression was an independent marker for poor survival in the untreated patient series, perhaps as a secondary marker of androgen receptor and/or EGFR activation. On the contrary, LRIG1 was a marker for good prognosis after prostatectomy, which might be due to its growth inhibiting properties. We propose that LRIG1 is an important determinant of prostate cancer growth, and the implications of its expression on patient outcome depend on the clinical and biological circumstances.
|
|
