Centro di Riferimento Oncologico

autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.

Nanoscience breakthroughs in almost every field of science and nanotechnologies make life easier in this era. Nanoscience and nanotechnology represent an expanding research area, which involves structures, devices, and systems with novel properties and functions due to the arrangement of their atoms on the 1-100 nm scale. The field was subject to a growing public awareness and controversy in the early 2000s, and in turn, the beginnings of commercial applications of nanotechnology. Nanotechnologies contribute to almost every field of science, including physics, materials science, chemistry, biology, computer science, and engineering. Notably, in recent years nanotechnologies have been applied to human health with promising results, especially in the field of cancer treatment. To understand the nature of nanotechnology, it is helpful to review the timeline of discoveries that brought us to the current understanding of this science. This review illustrates the progress and main principles of nanoscience and nanotechnology and represents the pre-modern as well as modern timeline era of discoveries and milestones in these fields.

BACKGROUND: The magnitude of risk conferred by the interaction between tobacco and alcohol use on the risk of head and neck cancers is not clear because studies have used various methods to quantify the excess head and neck cancer burden. METHODS: We analyzed individual-level pooled data from 17 European and American case-control studies (11,221 cases and 16,168 controls) participating in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology consortium. We estimated the multiplicative interaction parameter (psi) and population attributable risks (PAR). RESULTS: A greater than multiplicative joint effect between ever tobacco and alcohol use was observed for head and neck cancer risk (psi = 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.53-3.04). The PAR for tobacco or alcohol was 72% (95% confidence interval, 61-79%) for head and neck cancer, of which 4% was due to alcohol alone, 33% was due to tobacco alone, and 35% was due to tobacco and alcohol combined. The total PAR differed by subsite (64% for oral cavity cancer, 72% for pharyngeal cancer, 89% for laryngeal cancer), by sex (74% for men, 57% for women), by age (33% for cases <45 years, 73% for cases >60 years), and by region (84% in Europe, 51% in North America, 83% in Latin America). CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that the joint effect between tobacco and alcohol use is greater than multiplicative on head and neck cancer risk. However, a substantial proportion of head and neck cancers cannot be attributed to tobacco or alcohol use, particularly for oral cavity cancer and for head and neck cancer among women and among young-onset cases.

Dramatic increases have been seen over recent decades in the reported incidence of thyroid cancer, but owing to new modes of screening, hundreds of thousands of cases may be overdiagnoses — diagnosis of tumors that would not, if left alone, result in symptoms or death.

BACKGROUND: At least 75% of head and neck cancers are attributable to a combination of cigarette smoking and alcohol drinking. A precise understanding of the independent association of each of these factors in the absence of the other with the risk of head and neck cancer is needed to elucidate mechanisms of head and neck carcinogenesis and to assess the efficacy of interventions aimed at controlling either risk factor. METHODS: We examined the extent to which head and neck cancer is associated with cigarette smoking among never drinkers and with alcohol drinking among never users of tobacco. We pooled individual-level data from 15 case-control studies that included 10,244 head and neck cancer case subjects and 15,227 control subjects, of whom 1072 case subjects and 5775 control subjects were never users of tobacco and 1598 case subjects and 4051 control subjects were never drinkers of alcohol. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using unconditional logistic regression models. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Among never drinkers, cigarette smoking was associated with an increased risk of head and neck cancer (OR for ever versus never smoking = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.52 to 2.98), and there were clear dose-response relationships for the frequency, duration, and number of pack-years of cigarette smoking. Approximately 24% (95% CI = 16% to 31%) of head and neck cancer cases among nondrinkers in this study would have been prevented if these individuals had not smoked cigarettes. Among never users of tobacco, alcohol consumption was associated with an increased risk of head and neck cancer only when alcohol was consumed at high frequency (OR for three or more drinks per day versus never drinking = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.29 to 3.21). The association with high-frequency alcohol intake was limited to cancers of the oropharynx/hypopharynx and larynx. CONCLUSIONS: Our results represent the most precise estimates available of the independent association of each of the two main risk factors of head and neck cancer, and they exemplify the strengths of large-scale consortia in cancer epidemiology.

BACKGROUND: A fluoropyrimidine plus irinotecan or oxaliplatin, combined with bevacizumab (a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor), is standard first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Before the introduction of bevacizumab, chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) showed superior efficacy as compared with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI). In a phase 2 study, FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab showed promising activity and an acceptable rate of adverse effects. METHODS: We randomly assigned 508 patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer to receive either FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (control group) or FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab (experimental group). Up to 12 cycles of treatment were administered, followed by fluorouracil plus bevacizumab until disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 12.1 months in the experimental group, as compared with 9.7 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.90; P=0.003). The objective response rate was 65% in the experimental group and 53% in the control group (P=0.006). Overall survival was longer, but not significantly so, in the experimental group (31.0 vs. 25.8 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.00; P=0.054). The incidences of grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity, stomatitis, diarrhea, and neutropenia were significantly higher in the experimental group. CONCLUSIONS: FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab, as compared with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab, improved the outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and increased the incidence of some adverse events. (Funded by the Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00719797.).

BACKGROUND: Brigatinib, a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, has robust efficacy in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that is refractory to crizotinib. The efficacy of brigatinib, as compared with crizotinib, in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who have not previously received an ALK inhibitor is unclear. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who had not previously received ALK inhibitors to receive brigatinib at a dose of 180 mg once daily (with a 7-day lead-in period at 90 mg) or crizotinib at a dose of 250 mg twice daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included the objective response rate and intracranial response. The first interim analysis was planned when approximately 50% of 198 expected events of disease progression or death had occurred. RESULTS: A total of 275 patients underwent randomization; 137 were assigned to brigatinib and 138 to crizotinib. At the first interim analysis (99 events), the median follow-up was 11.0 months in the brigatinib group and 9.3 months in the crizotinib group. The rate of progression-free survival was higher with brigatinib than with crizotinib (estimated 12-month progression-free survival, 67% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 56 to 75] vs. 43% [95% CI, 32 to 53]; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74]; P<0.001 by the log-rank test). The confirmed objective response rate was 71% (95% CI, 62 to 78) with brigatinib and 60% (95% CI, 51 to 68) with crizotinib; the confirmed rate of intracranial response among patients with measurable lesions was 78% (95% CI, 52 to 94) and 29% (95% CI, 11 to 52), respectively. No new safety concerns were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who had not previously received an ALK inhibitor, progression-free survival was significantly longer among patients who received brigatinib than among those who received crizotinib. (Funded by Ariad Pharmaceuticals; ALTA-1L ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02737501 .).

BACKGROUND: Metastatic melanoma is an untreatable cancer lacking reliable and non-invasive markers of disease progression. Exosomes are small vesicles secreted by normal as well as tumor cells. Human tumor-derived exosomes are involved in malignant progression and we evaluated the presence of exosomes in plasma of melanoma patients as a potential tool for cancer screening and follow-up. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We designed an in-house sandwich ELISA (Exotest) to capture and quantify exosomes in plasma based on expression of housekeeping proteins (CD63 and Rab-5b) and a tumor-associated marker (caveolin-1). Western blot and flow cytometry analysis of exosomes were used to confirm the Exotest-based findings. The Exotest allowed sensitive detection and quantification of exosomes purified from human tumor cell culture supernatants and plasma from SCID mice engrafted with human melanoma. Plasma levels of exosomes in melanoma-engrafted SCID mice correlated to tumor size. We evaluated the levels of plasma exosomes expressing CD63 and caveolin-1 in melanoma patients (n = 90) and healthy donors (n = 58). Consistently, plasma exosomes expressing CD63 (504+/-315) or caveolin-1 (619+/-310) were significantly increased in melanoma patients as compared to healthy donors (223+/-125 and 228+/-102, respectively). While the Exotest for CD63+ plasma exosomes had limited sensitivity (43%) the Exotest for detection of caveolin-1+ plasma exosomes showed a higher sensitivity (68%). Moreover, caveolin-1+ plasma exosomes were significantly increased with respect to CD63+ exosomes in the patients group. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: We describe a new non-invasive assay allowing detection and quantification of human exosomes in plasma of melanoma patients. Our results suggest that the Exotest for detection of plasma exosomes carrying tumor-associated antigens may represent a novel tool for clinical management of cancer patients.

Pulse wave velocity (PWV) was measured by means of transcutaneous Doppler techniques in the aorta, right arm, and right leg of 480 normal subjects of both sexes in urban Beijing, China (age range 3 to 89 years, mean age 41 +/- 20.8 SD); supine blood pressure was recorded in the brachial artery of each subject with standard sphygmomanometric procedures. Serum cholesterol was determined in a subgroup of 79 subjects (age 17 to 85 years, mean 47 +/- 26 SD). PWV (y in cm/sec) was found to vary with age (x, years) at each of the three locations according to the following regression equations: aorta, y = 9.2x + 615, r = .673 (p less than .001); right arm, y = 4.8x + 998, r = .453 (p less than .001); right leg, y = 5.6x + 791, r = .630 (p less than .001). Systolic, diastolic, mean, and pulse pressures were found to increase with age. PWV also increased with mean supine blood pressure but was not related to serum cholesterol (average 4.49 +/- 0.11 [SEM], mmol/l). Compared with that of Western populations, serum cholesterol tended to be lower at all age groups, systolic pressure higher at ages over 35 years, and PWV higher at all ages. Because change in PWV is directly related to change in arterial compliance, these results indicate that aging and not concomitant atherosclerosis (known to be rare in Asian populations) is the dominant factor associated with reduced arterial compliance and increased left ventricular load in these subjects.

BACKGROUND: Persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have an increased risk for several cancers, but the influences of behavioral risk factors, such as smoking and intravenous drug use, and highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) on cancer risk are not clear. METHODS: Patient records were linked between the Swiss HIV Cohort Study and Swiss cantonal cancer registries. Observed and expected numbers of incident cancers were assessed in 7304 persons infected with HIV followed for 28,836 person-years. Relative risks for cancer compared with those for the general population were determined by estimating cancer registry-, sex-, age-, and period-standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). RESULTS: Highly elevated SIRs were confirmed in persons infected with HIV for Kaposi sarcoma (KS) (SIR = 192, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 170 to 217) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR = 76.4, 95% CI = 66.5 to 87.4). Statistically significantly elevated SIRs were also observed for anal cancer (SIR = 33.4, 95% CI = 10.5 to 78.6); Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR = 17.3, 95% CI = 10.2 to 27.4); cancers of the cervix (SIR = 8.0, 95% CI = 2.9 to 17.4); liver (SIR = 7.0, 95% CI = 2.2 to 16.5); lip, mouth, and pharynx (SIR = 4.1, 95% CI = 2.1 to 7.4); trachea, lung, and bronchus (SIR = 3.2, 95% CI = 1.7 to 5.4); and skin, nonmelanomatous (SIR = 3.2, 95% CI = 2.2 to 4.5). In HAART users, SIRs for KS (SIR = 25.3, 95% CI = 10.8 to 50.1) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR = 24.2, 95% CI = 15.0 to 37.1) were lower than those for nonusers (KS SIR = 239, 95% CI = 211 to 270; non-Hodgkin lymphoma SIR = 99.3, 95% CI = 85.8 to 114). Among HAART users, however, the SIR (although not absolute numbers) for Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR = 36.2, 95% CI = 16.4 to 68.9) was comparable to that for KS and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. No clear impact of HAART on SIRs emerged for cervical cancer or non-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-defining cancers. Cancers of the lung, lip, mouth, or pharynx were not observed among nonsmokers. CONCLUSION: In persons infected with HIV, HAART use may prevent most excess risk of KS and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but not that of Hodgkin lymphoma and other non-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-defining cancers. No cancers of the lip, mouth, pharynx, or lung were observed in nonsmokers.

Arterial pulse wave velocity, an established index of arterial distensibility, was measured together with arterial pressure in a group of 524 normal subjects of both sexes 2 months to 94 years old (mean age 45.6 +/- 15.3 years [SD]) in rural Guangzhou, China, an area with known low prevalence of hypertension. Fasting serum lipid levels and overnight Na+ and K+ urinary excretion levels were determined in a subgroup of 104 subjects (ages 8 to 88 years). Comparisons were made with data obtained similarly from normal subjects in urban Beijing, an area with known high prevalence of hypertension. Serum cholesterol levels were similar and low in each group (Guangzhou, 4.34 +/- 0.12 mmol/liter [SE]; BEijing, 4.49 +/- 0.11 mmol/liter). Prevalence of hypertension (WHO criteria) was 4.9% (Guangzhou) and 15.6% (Beijing). In Guangzhou subjects pulse wave velocity was consistently lower in the aorta, arm, and leg, and increased to a lesser degree with age compared with Beijing subjects. Regression equations (x = pulse wave velocity [cm/sec], y = age [years]) were as follows: (1) aorta, Guangzhou: y = 5.1x + 533, r = .552, p less than .05; Beijing: y = 9.2x + 615, r = .673, p less than .001; (2) arm, Guangzhou: y = 0.61x + 817, r = .121, p less than .05; Beijing: y = 4.8x + 998, r = .453, p less than .001; (3) leg, Guangzhou: y = 4.43x + 718, r = .512, p less than .05; Beijing: y = 5.6x + 791, r = .630, p less than .001.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

BACKGROUND: The TARGIT-A trial compared risk-adapted radiotherapy using single-dose targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT) versus fractionated external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for breast cancer. We report 5-year results for local recurrence and the first analysis of overall survival. METHODS: TARGIT-A was a randomised, non-inferiority trial. Women aged 45 years and older with invasive ductal carcinoma were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive TARGIT or whole-breast EBRT, with blocks stratified by centre and by timing of delivery of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy: randomisation occurred either before lumpectomy (prepathology stratum, TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy) or after lumpectomy (postpathology stratum, TARGIT given subsequently by reopening the wound). Patients in the TARGIT group received supplemental EBRT (excluding a boost) if unforeseen adverse features were detected on final pathology, thus radiotherapy was risk-adapted. The primary outcome was absolute difference in local recurrence in the conserved breast, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 2·5% at 5 years; prespecified analyses included outcomes as per timing of randomisation in relation to lumpectomy. Secondary outcomes included complications and mortality. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00983684. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled at 33 centres in 11 countries, between March 24, 2000, and June 25, 2012. 1721 patients were randomised to TARGIT and 1730 to EBRT. Supplemental EBRT after TARGIT was necessary in 15·2% [239 of 1571] of patients who received TARGIT (21·6% prepathology, 3·6% postpathology). 3451 patients had a median follow-up of 2 years and 5 months (IQR 12-52 months), 2020 of 4 years, and 1222 of 5 years. The 5-year risk for local recurrence in the conserved breast was 3·3% (95% CI 2·1-5·1) for TARGIT versus 1·3% (0·7-2·5) for EBRT (p=0·042). TARGIT concurrently with lumpectomy (prepathology, n=2298) had much the same results as EBRT: 2·1% (1·1-4·2) versus 1·1% (0·5-2·5; p=0·31). With delayed TARGIT (postpathology, n=1153) the between-group difference was larger than 2·5% (TARGIT 5·4% [3·0-9·7] vs EBRT 1·7% [0·6-4·9]; p=0·069). Overall, breast cancer mortality was much the same between groups (2·6% [1·5-4·3] for TARGIT vs 1·9% [1·1-3·2] for EBRT; p=0·56) but there were significantly fewer non-breast-cancer deaths with TARGIT (1·4% [0·8-2·5] vs 3·5% [2·3-5·2]; p=0·0086), attributable to fewer deaths from cardiovascular causes and other cancers. Overall mortality was 3·9% (2·7-5·8) for TARGIT versus 5·3% (3·9-7·3) for EBRT (p=0·099). Wound-related complications were much the same between groups but grade 3 or 4 skin complications were significantly reduced with TARGIT (four of 1720 vs 13 of 1731, p=0·029). INTERPRETATION: TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy within a risk-adapted approach should be considered as an option for eligible patients with breast cancer carefully selected as per the TARGIT-A trial protocol, as an alternative to postoperative EBRT. FUNDING: University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/UCL Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council, and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) are rare tumours, with an estimated unadjusted incidence of around 1/100 000/year [1.Nilsson B. Bümming P. Meis-Kindblom J.M. et al.Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: the incidence, prevalence, clinical course, and prognostication in the preimatinib mesylate era–a population-based study in western Sweden.Cancer. 2005; 103: 821-829Crossref PubMed Scopus (1027) Google Scholar]. This only covers clinically relevant GISTs, since, if investigated, a much higher number of lesions ≤ 1 cm in diameter (microGISTs) can be found at histopathological examination of stomach tissue in middle-aged and elderly individuals. There is a slight prevalence in males. The median age is around 60–65 years, with a wide range. Occurrence in children is very rare. Paediatric GIST represents a clinically and molecularly distinct subset, marked by female predominance, absence of KIT/platelet-derived growth factor alpha (PDGFRA) mutations, frequent mutations or silencing of the four genes that encode the subunits of the succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) enzyme complex, gastric multicentric location and possible lymph node metastases [2.Pappo A.S. Janeway K.A. Pediatric gastrointestinal stromal tumors.Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2009; 23 (vii): 15-34Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (90) Google Scholar]. Some syndromes are linked to GISTs: •The Carney triad syndrome, marked by gastric GISTs, paraganglioma and pulmonary chondromas (these may occur at different ages) [3.Zhang L. Smyrk T.C. Young Jr, W.F. et al.Gastric stromal tumors in Carney triad are different clinically, pathologically, and behaviorally from sporadic gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: findings in 104 cases.Am J Surg Pathol. 2010; 34: 53-64Crossref PubMed Scopus (167) Google Scholar];•Carney–Stratakis syndrome, marked by a dyad of GIST and paraganglioma [4.Gaal J. Stratakis C.A. Carney J.A. et al.SDHB immunohistochemistry: a useful tool in the diagnosis of Carney–Stratakis and Carney triad gastrointestinal stromal tumors.Mod Pathol. 2011; 24: 147-151Crossref PubMed Scopus (162) Google Scholar, 5.Pasini B. McWhinney S.R. Bei T. et al.Clinical and molecular genetics of patients with the Carney–Stratakis syndrome and germline mutations of the genes coding for the succinate dehydrogenase subunits SDHB, SDHC, and SDHD.Eur J Hum Genet. 2008; 16: 79-88Crossref PubMed Scopus (363) Google Scholar]; and•Neurofibromatosis type 1(NF1), possibly leading to wild-type (WT), often multicentric GIST, predominantly located in the small bowel [6.Miettinen M. Fetsch J.F. Sobin L.H. Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors in patients with neurofibromatosis 1: a clinicopathologic and molecular genetic study of 45 cases.Am J Surg Pathol. 2006; 30: 90-96Crossref PubMed Scopus (377) Google Scholar]. Families with germline autosomal dominant mutations of KIT are an extremely rare finding, presenting with multiple GISTs at an early age, possibly along with other associated features such as pigmented skin macules, urticaria pigmentosa and diffuse hyperplasia of the interstitial cells of Cajal in the gut wall. When small oesophagogastric or duodenal nodules < 2 cm in size are detected, endoscopic biopsy may be difficult and laparoscopic/laparotomic excision may be the only way to make a histological diagnosis. Many of these small nodules, if diagnosed as GISTs, will be either low-risk or entities whose clinical significance remains unclear. Therefore, the standard approach to patients with oesophagogastric or duodenal nodules < 2 cm is endoscopic ultrasound assessment and then follow-up, reserving excision for patients whose tumour increases in size or becomes symptomatic [IV, C]. As an option, the patient can choose to undergo a histological assessment, also depending on age, life expectancy and comorbidities. If follow-up is the choice, an evidence-based, optimal surveillance policy is lacking. A logical approach may be to have a short-term first control (e.g. at 3 months) and then, in the case of no evidence of growth, a more relaxed follow-up schedule may be selected. In a histologically proven small GIST, standard treatment is excision, unless major morbidity is expected. Alternatively, in the case of a likely low-risk GIST on biopsy, the decision can be made with the patient to follow up the lesion. However, an exception is the standard approach to rectal nodules represented by biopsy or excision after endorectal ultrasound assessment and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), regardless of the tumour size and mitotic rate. In fact, the progression risk of a clinically significant GIST at this site is higher, its prognosis is significantly worse compared with most gastric GISTs and the local implications for surgery are more critical. A follow-up policy may be an option, to be discussed with the patient, in the case of small lesions and whenever the surgical risk is particularly high (comorbidities, age, etc.). The standard approach to tumours ≥2 cm in size is biopsy/excision, because they are associated with a higher risk of progression if confirmed as GIST [IV, C]. If there is an abdominal nodule not amenable to endoscopic assessment, laparoscopic/laparotomic excision is the standard approach. If there is a mass, especially if surgery is likely to be a multivisceral resection, multiple core needle biopsies are the standard approach. They should be obtained through endoscopic ultrasound guidance, or through an ultrasound/computed tomography (CT)-guided percutaneous approach. This may allow the surgeon to plan the best approach according to the histological diagnosis and avoid surgery for diseases which might not benefit (e.g. lymphomas, mesenteric fibromatosis and germ cell tumours). The risk of peritoneal contamination is negligible if the procedure is properly carried out. Moreover, lesions at risk in this regard (e.g. cystic masses) should be biopsied only in specialised centres. Immediate laparoscopic/laparotomic excision is an option on an individualised basis, especially if surgery is limited. If a patient presents with obvious metastatic disease, a biopsy of the metastatic focus is sufficient and the patient usually does not require a laparotomy for diagnostic purposes. The tumour sample should be fixed in 4% buffered formalin (Bouin fixative should not be used, since it prevents molecular analysis). Pathologically, the diagnosis of GIST relies on morphology and immunohistochemistry, the latter being positive for CD117 (KIT) and/or DOG1 (see Table 1) [7.Rubin B.P. Blanke C.D. Demetri G.D. et al.Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor.Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010; 134: 165-170Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 8.Novelli M. Rossi S. Rodriguez-Justo M. et al.DOG1 and CD117 are the antibodies of choice in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumours.Histopathology. 2010; 57: 259-270Crossref PubMed Scopus (147) Google Scholar]. A proportion of GISTs (in the range of 5%) are CD117-negative. The mitotic count has a prognostic value and should be expressed as the number of mitoses on a total area of 5 mm2 [which replaces the former 50 high-power field (HPF) area]. Mutational analysis for known mutations involving KIT and PDGFRA can confirm the diagnosis of GIST, if doubtful (particularly in rare CD117/DOG1-negative suspect GIST). Mutational analysis has a predictive value for sensitivity to molecular-targeted therapy and to prognostic value. Its inclusion in the diagnostic work-up of all GISTs should be considered standard practice [II, A] (with the possible exclusion of < 2 cm non-rectal GISTs, which are very unlikely ever to be candidates for medical treatment). Centralisation of mutational analysis in a laboratory enrolled in an external quality assurance programme and with expertise in the may be diagnosis is more for GIST, to confirm the diagnosis of GIST with an at a In GIST, for is to In GIST an syndrome should be Rossi S. M. et GIST is a for neurofibromatosis type 1 PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. The of tissue is to allow molecular to be made at a for tumour to local and should be and for medical treatment or for medical treatment for medical treatment of of growth factor succinate in a of of growth factor succinate treatment is involving medical as as as should be carried in for and GISTs and/or expertise and a high number of patients The for node and of tumours the prognostic in GIST (see Table of for GIST from of of of to of KIT site in KIT or PDGFRA of and gastrointestinal stromal neurofibromatosis type growth factor tumour for from of with from in a GIST, gastrointestinal stromal neurofibromatosis type growth factor tumour for from of with from are the mitotic tumour size and tumour site GISTs have a prognosis small bowel or rectal is an prognostic factor and should be regardless of it or Mutational has not in risk at have a distinct GISTs have clinical and GIST with are associated with a prognosis and to risk have A risk by the of which the mitotic tumour size and tumour the prognostic in GISTs M. Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: on molecular and Pathol Lab Med. 2006; PubMed Google Scholar, M. Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: and prognosis at different Pathol. 2006; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. A all has on M. et and of a prognostic for after surgical of gastrointestinal stromal a 2009; Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. When these it is to that the mitotic and tumour size are that are through a of of GIST patients not with which the mitotic and tumour size as tumour is considered in to tumour site J. et of of gastrointestinal stromal tumour after an analysis of population-based Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. They have a that most the and the abdominal and pelvic is the of choice for and may be an rectal GISTs, and laboratory the work-up of the The of an tomography or is useful early of the tumour to molecular-targeted therapy is of The standard treatment of GISTs is surgical excision of the with no of clinically lymph If excision is the to follow the of surgery A] et of and surgery for gastric gastrointestinal stromal Google Scholar]. A approach is in patients have tumours, because of the risk of tumour which is associated with a very high risk of excision is the an excision whose are of tumour When surgery major and medical treatment is not the decision can be made with the patient to possible [IV, This is more for low-risk the of that surgery is associated with a worse If excision carried may be an option, the site of can be and major are not The risk of can be as by risk treatment with for 3 associated with a and in with 1 of therapy in patients in a M. et for stromal analysis of a Clin 34: PubMed Scopus (147) Google Scholar]. a that for a of 1 can in GISTs a diameter 3 cm with a et mesylate after of gastrointestinal stromal a 2009; Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. Therefore, therapy with for 3 is the standard treatment for patients with a significant risk of A is the risk is T. et treatment of GIST with or A on of the and the the the on GIST, the and the J 2009; Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. clinical are to of therapy in The benefit associated of may according to the type of being in patients with KIT mutations et of KIT and PDGFRA mutations on in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors with an analysis of a clinical PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, et and molecular features with after therapy of stromal the Clin PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. Mutational analysis is to make a clinical decision There is a that PDGFRA GISTs should not be with the of sensitivity of this in and in [IV, the the of a higher of in the case of an KIT in GIST, to this in the for this [II, M. et mutations and for in patients with gastrointestinal stromal J 2006; Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, et of and clinical in the North of mesylate for treatment of gastrointestinal stromal by and and Clin 2008; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, Demetri G.D. et mutations and in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal Clin PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. may this which is not in the by regard to GIST, there is a on treatment in and GISTs [IV, This of sensitivity to and other in the as as which is often more of to sufficient and be to best in the rare In case of tumour at the of there is of tumour cells the peritoneal peritoneal can be to This the patient at a very high risk of peritoneal P. et of in patients with gastrointestinal stromal J 2010; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. Therefore, these patients should be considered for therapy [IV, The optimal of treatment in these is the these cells should be considered as If surgery is not or it be through surgery in the case of total and all other major with is standard A] J. Blanke C.D. et of mesylate for and gastrointestinal stromal early of Surg 2009; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, P. P. et in gastrointestinal stromal tumors the Surg PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. This may also be the case if the surgeon that the surgical is after (e.g. the risk of and tumour is A may be the of mitotic for risk for A biopsy with histological and mutational is to confirm the histological to to therapy with (e.g. PDGFRA and to the for KIT tumour after surgery is carried out. tumour assessment is to avoid surgery in the case of imaging it possible to the tumour very a particularly in the absence of mutational There are to the on to treatment it can be a or surgery and can be the patient from is the standard treatment for and metastatic A] C.D. Demetri G.D. M. et from a of mesylate for patients with or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors Clin 2008; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, C.D. Demetri G.D. et mesylate at in patients with or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors the Clin 2008; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, J. J. et in gastrointestinal stromal tumours with Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, J. et of patients with stromal tumours to a of after progression on J 2005; Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google as as for patients with not is also the standard treatment for patients with metastatic have all lesions surgery is not as a approach in the metastatic The standard of is However, have that patients with tumours the KIT have significantly on a higher which is as standard treatment in this of of for the treatment of or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a of Clin 2010; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. with a PDGFRA are to S. et al.Clinical and treatment in a of PDGFRA gastrointestinal stromal tumour J Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google and other and candidates for clinical on this is doubtful patients with GIST benefit from there are of of K.A. et treatment in patients with GIST of 2009; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. In the metastatic treatment with should be since treatment is by tumour lesions have A] et of in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours after 3 of an 3 2010; Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. When treatment is the patient should be to the of with as as with and and the best to should be by of and a policy of and should be in the case of that of are associated with a worse a with the has G.D. et are with clinical benefit in patients with gastrointestinal stromal Clin 2009; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. from its to the assessment of may be useful in the case patients that at a risk of major or patients with surgical to and progression on to the to the to of the tumour should be carried in the early of should be the since the risk of progression excision of metastatic has to be associated with a the patient is to it has this is to surgery or to patient J. et surgery in is it in all 2010; Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, M. J. et of gastrointestinal stromal tumors after treatment with therapy Clin 2006; 24: PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, Blanke C.D. et of mesylate for and gastrointestinal stromal tumors: follow-up of Surg PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, S. P. P. et follow-up of patients with GIST in the of analysis of prognostic J Surg Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. not early because of for a small positive in which all patients peritoneal et there a of surgery in patients with or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours to a in J Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. the surgical option should be individualised after the decision with the patient in the case of C]. excision of has not in surgery of such as the a has associated with a in the range as for treatment with Therefore, this may be a option for an patient with [IV, C]. (e.g. local such as or may be selected. In the case of tumour progression on an option may be to the to with the exception of mutations with the C.D. Demetri G.D. M. et from a of mesylate for patients with or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors Clin 2008; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, C.D. Demetri G.D. et mesylate at in patients with or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors the Clin 2008; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, J. J. et in gastrointestinal stromal tumours with Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar, J. et of patients with stromal tumours to a of after progression on J 2005; Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. is particularly useful in the case of a KIT GIST a higher not from the possibly in the case of in or in the case of molecular progression on imaging should be to the (see patient should be as a possible of tumour as as with In the case of confirmed progression or rare on to through and possibly standard treatment is A] G.D. et and of in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumour after of a 2006; Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. The in of a have that a with a is and no has carried a clinical S. et al.Clinical of of in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumour after J 2009; Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. This schedule be considered an option on an individualised C]. confirmed progression on a that at the of for 3 of can significantly This as it becomes is standard therapy for patients on or to to and A] G.D. P. et and of for gastrointestinal stromal tumours after of and an 3 Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. with a metastatic GIST should be considered for in clinical of or There is evidence that patients have on may benefit with the et of to control metastatic or gastrointestinal stromal tumours after of and a 3 Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. there is evidence that a treatment with a in the case of disease, may progression as to it no other option is at the at in a proportion of patients with a Therefore, or of treatment progression with to which the patient has is an option [II, the other the of of of clinical should be because of the for have in in with of in only a of total is complex, and early in should be confirmed by an tumour in most patients may only in tumour on or these may tumour in tumour should be considered as the tumour an in the tumour size may be of the tumour if the tumour on is et of tomography and tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal at a with of tomography Clin PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. The of lesions also be to the of Therefore, tumour size and tumour on or in or should be considered as for tumour has proven to be in early assessment of tumour and may be useful in there is or early of the is particularly useful (e.g. S. et of in gastrointestinal stromal patients with Med. PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. However, a small proportion of GISTs have no The absence of tumour progression after of treatment is also considered as tumour M. J. et of progression as by in tumors in stromal tumors with the Clin 2009; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. the other tumour progression may not be by in the tumour In fact, in the tumour tumour lesions may be of tumour A progression is the the by which a of a becomes S. J. et al.Gastrointestinal stromal of after to 2005; PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. There are no to the optimal follow-up policy of patients with occur more often to the and/or of lesions and other may be rare along the of metastatic with of The mitotic likely the at which assessment on the mitotic tumour size and tumour site may be useful in the follow-up patients have a from the of patients may have a this is much follow-up The optimal follow-up are not As an in patients undergo a follow-up with an abdominal or for 3 therapy (with a clinical follow-up to the to the of unless then on of therapy 3 for 2 years, then 5 from and for an 5 low-risk tumours, the of a follow-up is not if this may be carried with abdominal or for 5 low-risk GISTs not require follow-up, the risk is not is a factor to especially in low-risk GIST, with abdominal being an L. P. et of a follow-up in patients by gastrointestinal stromal J Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. have by in with the for rare in with the standard for They are to the standard approach to treatment and on and are to to the according to the of are represented by the of the and by all to the of considered to be are as may be to the patient as for a decision in of as as evidence not is the the of disease, and are to the the The relevant has by the A of is in Table of evidence and of have the in Table considered standard clinical practice by the of and ultrasound assessment and then follow-up is the standard approach for patients with oesophagogastric or duodenal nodules < 2 cm [IV, is the standard approach to tumours 2 cm in size [IV, analysis inclusion in the diagnostic work-up of all GISTs should be considered standard practice [II, A] (with the possible exclusion of < 2 cm non-rectal of standard treatment of GISTs is surgical excision of the with no of clinically lymph excision is the to follow the of surgery surgery major and medical treatment is not the decision can be made with the patient to possible [IV, therapy with for 3 is the standard treatment of patients with a significant risk of GISTs should not be with [IV, treatment should be in and GISTs [IV, at a very high risk of peritoneal (in case of tumour at the of should be considered for therapy [IV, surgery with no major is not with is standard of is the standard treatment of and metastatic is also the standard treatment for patients with metastatic have all lesions surgery is not as a approach in the metastatic The standard of is treatment of patients with KIT is of the metastatic treatment with should be unless or patient to of metastatic should be individualised after the decision with the patient in the case of excision of should be considered for an patient with [IV, the case of tumour progression on of the can be to (with the exception of the case of confirmed progression or rare on standard treatment is at the of for 3 of is the standard therapy for patients on or to to and or of treatment progression with to which the patient has is an option [II, gastrointestinal stromal neurofibromatosis type growth factor no succinate in a Table of evidence and of from the of of the of of from at of quality for or of or with a of or of such or of with or control case of evidence for with a clinical or evidence for with a clinical evidence for or benefit does not the risk or the evidence or for not evidence or for of the of C.A. of the for cell PubMed Scopus Google Scholar]. in a GIST, gastrointestinal stromal neurofibromatosis type growth factor no succinate has for from and by has from has or from and has for and and by and has and from and and from has from and has for and has from and and and from and has for and being a of the for and from and is a of the for and has for and has by has in for and has by has and from and has from and has from and has for from and from and and from and from and has from and has with in with and has from and to clinical has by and and has and from and has with and in and is a for and has from for has being a for for the of a tumour has from and and for has from and has from and has on for and and has from has on for and and has from and has for from and has as a of for has from has or for is a of of has from and has from has from and from and from and has for and has from has and/or from and has and from and has from and for or and have no of and have not of to stromal for treatment and of Oncol PDF

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor improves outcomes, as compared with tamoxifen, in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. METHODS: In two phase 3 trials, we randomly assigned premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer to the aromatase inhibitor exemestane plus ovarian suppression or tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression for a period of 5 years. Suppression of ovarian estrogen production was achieved with the use of the gonadotropin-releasing-hormone agonist triptorelin, oophorectomy, or ovarian irradiation. The primary analysis combined data from 4690 patients in the two trials. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 68 months, disease-free survival at 5 years was 91.1% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group and 87.3% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence, second invasive cancer, or death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.85; P<0.001). The rate of freedom from breast cancer at 5 years was 92.8% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group, as compared with 88.8% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.80; P<0.001). With 194 deaths (4.1% of the patients), overall survival did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio for death in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.51; P=0.37). Selected adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported for 30.6% of the patients in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group and 29.4% of those in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group, with profiles similar to those for postmenopausal women. CONCLUSIONS: In premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer, adjuvant treatment with exemestane plus ovarian suppression, as compared with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, significantly reduced recurrence. (Funded by Pfizer and others; TEXT and SOFT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00066703 and NCT00066690, respectively.).

This study evaluated prevalence, intensity, and timing of an altered sense of smell or taste in patients with SARS- CoV-2 infections.

The efficacy of computed tomography (CT) screening for early lung cancer detection in heavy smokers is currently being tested by a number of randomized trials. Critical issues remain the frequency of unnecessary treatments and impact on mortality, indicating the need for biomarkers of aggressive disease. We explored microRNA (miRNA) expression profiles of lung tumors, normal lung tissues and plasma samples from cases with variable prognosis identified in a completed spiral-CT screening trial with extensive follow-up. miRNA expression patterns significantly distinguished: (i) tumors from normal lung tissues, (ii) tumor histology and growth rate, (iii) clinical outcome, and (iv) year of lung cancer CT detection. Interestingly, miRNA profiles in normal lung tissues also displayed remarkable associations with clinical features, suggesting the influence of a permissive microenvironment for tumor development. miRNA expression analyses in plasma samples collected 1-2 y before the onset of disease, at the time of CT detection and in disease-free smokers enrolled in the screening trial, resulted in the generation of miRNA signatures with strong predictive, diagnostic, and prognostic potential (area under the ROC curve ≥ 0.85). These signatures were validated in an independent cohort from a second randomized spiral-CT trial. These results indicate a role for miRNAs in lung tissues and plasma as molecular predictors of lung cancer development and aggressiveness and have theoretical and clinical implication for lung cancer management.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant chemotherapy for soft tissue sarcoma is controversial because previous trials reported conflicting results. The present study was designed with restricted selection criteria and high dose-intensities of the two most active chemotherapeutic agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients between 18 and 65 years of age with grade 3 to 4 spindle-cell sarcomas (primary diameter > or = 5 cm or any size recurrent tumor) in extremities or girdles were eligible. Stratification was by primary versus recurrent tumors and by tumor diameter greater than or equal to 10 cm versus less than 10 cm. One hundred four patients were randomized, 51 to the control group and 53 to the treatment group (five cycles of 4'-epidoxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) days 1 and 2 and ifosfamide 1.8 g/m(2) days 1 through 5, with hydration, mesna, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor). RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 59 months, 60 patients had relapsed and 48 died (28 and 20 in the treatment arm and 32 and 28 in the control arm, respectively). The median disease-free survival (DFS) was 48 months in the treatment group and 16 months in the control group (P =.04); and the median overall survival (OS) was 75 months for treated and 46 months for untreated patients (P =.03). For OS, the absolute benefit deriving from chemotherapy was 13% at 2 years and increased to 19% at 4 years (P =.04). CONCLUSION: Intensified adjuvant chemotherapy had a positive impact on the DFS and OS of patients with high-risk extremity soft tissue sarcomas at a median follow-up of 59 months. Therefore, our data favor an intensified treatment in similar cases. Although cure is still difficult to achieve, a significant delay in death is worthwhile, also considering the short duration of treatment and the absence of toxic deaths.

p53 has a key role in the negative regulation of cell proliferation, in the maintenance of genomic stability, and in the suppression of transformation and tumorigenesis. To identify novel regulators of p53, we undertook two functional screens to isolate genes which bypassed either p53-mediated growth arrest or apoptosis. In both screens, we isolated cDNAs encoding macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF), a cytokine that was shown previously to exert both local and systemic proinflammatory activities. Treatment with MIF overcame p53 activity in three different biological assays, and suppressed its activity as a transcriptional activator. The observation that a proinflammatory cytokine, MIF, is capable of functionally inactivating a tumor suppressor, p53, may provide a link between inflammation and tumorigenesis.

sponsorship: PGC has reported advisory roles for Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Nektar Therapeutics, speaker's honoraria from Eisai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, PharmaMar, and conducted studies sponsored by Amgen Dompe, AROG Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo Pharma, Epizyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar; SBi has reported advisory/consultant roles for Lilly, Bayer, Pfizer, Novartis, Isolfol and Clinigen and conducted studies sponsored by Janssen-Cilag, Eisai and Loxo Oncology; SBa has reported research support from Novartis, Incyte, Blueprint Medicines, has received honoraria or consultation fees from Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, PharmaMar and Bayer; SBi has reported advisory/consultant roles for Lilly, Bayer, Pfizer, Novartis, Isolfol and Clinigen and conducted studies sponsored by Janssen-Cilag, Eisai and Loxo Oncology; SBo has reported honoraria and travel grants from Nanobiotix and Lilly and received travel grants from PharmaMar; IB has reported research funds from MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, Regeneron, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Genesis and advisory boards, honorarium and travel expenses from MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, LEO Pharma, Galenica, Genesis and Sanofi; JVMGB has received a research grant from Servier and honoraria from Nanobiotix for reviewing cases for their trial; TB has reported honoraria from Roche and PharmaMar and advisory board and honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Eisai and Eli Lilly; JMB has reported consulting advisory role for PharmaMar, Lilly, Bayer, Novartis and being a member of the speaker's bureau for PharmaMar and received travel grants from PharmaMar and Lilly; EDA has received honoraria from PharmaMar, Roche, Lilly and Pfizer and travel grants from Roche; APDT is a member of the speakers' bureau for Lilly, Pfizer and Merck Sharp & Dohme; XGDM has reported advisory role for Lilly, PharmaMar and Novartis; PD has reported conducted research sponsored by Eli Lilly; ME has participated in advisory boards for Bayer, Sobi, Lilly, Eisai and Novartis; AMF has conducted studies sponsored by Amgen Dompe, AROG Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo Pharma, Epizyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar; SG has received research grants and honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer and Bayer; HG has received research grants from Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo Pharma and Pfizer; AG has reported compensation for advisory boards from Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, LiZlly, PharmaMar and Nanobiotix, honoraria from Novartis, Lilly, PharmaMar and Nanobiotix, and research funds from PharmaMar and travel grants from PharmaMar and Nanobiotix; BH has received research grants from EuroSarc and has conducted research with EIT Health in collaboration with GE Healthcare and Philips and has received reagents from Takeda and Astellas to conduct clinical trials without direct funding; PH has reported conducting research sponsored by Novartis, Blueprint Medicines, Nanobiotix and Lilly and has received honoraria and travel grants from PharmaMar, Eisai and Lilly; HJ has reported co-appointment with Orion Pharma and holds stock in Sartar Therapeutics, Faron Pharmaceuticals and Orion Pharma; RLJ is a consultant for Adaptimmune, Blueprint Medicines, Clinigen, Eisai, Epizyme, Daichii, Deciphera, Immunedesign, Lilly, Merck and PharmaMar; IJ has received honoraria from Lilly for lectures; PJ has reported being a consultant for Stryker for the design of a new tumour prosthesis; BK has reported honoraria from Bayer, Lilly, Nr ovartis and PharmaMar, advisory role for Bayer and Lilly and travel grants from PharmaMar; KK has received travel grants from Novartis and Pfizer; ALC has received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Bayer and PharmaMar; IL has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Novartis and Pfizer for scientific presentations or research; MAP has served on advisory boards for Bayer and Pfizer, and has received research grants from Novartis; PRe has served on advisory boards for Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Ariad, Merck, Deciphera, Roche, Clinigen and Lilly and has received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, PharmaMar and Lilly; PRu has received honoraria for lectures from Novartis, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche and has served as a member of advisory board for Novartis, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Blueprint Medicines; PS has received honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Medspace, Novartis, Swedish Orphan Biovitrium, has reported consulting or advising roles for Sixth Element Capital, Adaptaimmune, Amcure, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boeringer Ingelheim, Cristal Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Epizyme, Genzyme, Ipsen, Loxo Oncology, Medspace, Nektar, Novartis, Philogen, Piqur Therapeutics, Plexxikon, is a member of speaker's bureau of Bayer, Eisai, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, PharmaMar, Swedish Orphan Biovitrium, has received research grants from Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, CoBioRes, Exelixis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Plexxikon, and has received travel grants from Sixth Element Capital, Adaptaimmune, Amcure, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cristal Therapeutics, Daichii Sankyo Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Epizyme, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen, Loxo Oncology, Medpace, Nektar, Novartis, PharmaMar, Philogen, Piqur Therapeutics, Plexxikon, Swedish Orphan Biovitrium; SSt has received honoraria from Eli Lilly and PharmaMar, research grants from Amgen Dompe, Advenchen, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo Pharma, Epizyme Inc., Novartis, Pfizer and PharmaMar; travel grants from PharmaMar and has reported advisory/consultant roles for Bayer, Eli Lilly, ImmuneDesign, Maxivax and PharmaMar; WVdG has received research grants from Novartis; EW has reported travel/research grants and/or honoraria from Novartis Oncology, Milestone, Menarini, PharmaMar, Roche, Nanobiotix and Bayer; JYB has declared research grants and honoraria from Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Bayer; NA, RB, BB, LB, AB, CD, FF, AFed, VF, AFer, NG, TG, RLH, SHN, RI, SK, LK, DAK, RL, OM, MM, BM, RP, PP, SP-N, ALP, MHR, AAS, SSl, SStr, KSH, MU, JW and FVC have declared no conflicts of interest. SF, AH and OZ have not reported any potential conflicts of interest. (Amgen Dompe, AROG Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo Pharma, Epizyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Janssen-Cilag, Eisai, Loxo Oncology, Incyte, Lilly, Bayer, Nanobiotix, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Regeneron, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genesis, EuroSarc, CoBioRes, Exelixis, Plexxikon, Sixth Element Capital, Adaptaimmune, Amcure, AstraZeneca, Cristal Therapeutics, Daichii Sankyo Pharma, Genzyme, Ipsen, Medpace, Nektar, Philogen, Piqur Therapeutics, Swedish Orphan Biovitrium, Advenchen, Epizyme Inc., Novartis Oncology, Milestone, Menarini, Servier)

Some autoimmune disorders are increasingly recognized as risk factors for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) overall, but large-scale systematic assessments of risk of NHL subtypes are lacking. We performed a pooled analysis of self-reported autoimmune conditions and risk of NHL and subtypes, including 29 423 participants in 12 case-control studies. We computed pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) in a joint fixed-effects model. Sjögren syndrome was associated with a 6.5-fold increased risk of NHL, a 1000-fold increased risk of parotid gland marginal zone lymphoma (OR = 996; 95% CI, 216-4596), and with diffuse large B-cell and follicular lymphomas. Systemic lupus erythematosus was associated with a 2.7-fold increased risk of NHL and with diffuse large B-cell and marginal zone lymphomas. Hemolytic anemia was associated with diffuse large B-cell NHL. T-cell NHL risk was increased for patients with celiac disease and psoriasis. Results for rheumatoid arthritis were heterogeneous between studies. Inflammatory bowel disorders, type 1 diabetes, sarcoidosis, pernicious anemia, and multiple sclerosis were not associated with risk of NHL or subtypes. Thus, specific autoimmune disorders are associated with NHL risk beyond the development of rare NHL subtypes in affected organs. The pattern of associations with NHL subtypes may harbor clues to lymphomagenesis.