Prognostic stratification of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib: comparison with the Memorial Sloan-Kettering prognostic factors model.

BACKGROUND: The treatment paradigm in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed in the recent years. Sunitinib has been established as a new standard for first-line therapy. We studied the prognostic significance of baseline characteristics and we compared the risk stratification with the established Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) model. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of patients treated in six Greek Oncology Units of HECOG. Inclusion criteria were: advanced renal cell carcinoma not amenable to surgery and treatment with Sunitinib. Previous cytokine therapy but no targeted agents were allowed. Overall survival (OS) was the major end point. Significance of prognostic factors was evaluated with multivariate cox regression analysis. A model was developed to stratify patients according to risk. RESULTS: One hundred and nine patients were included. Median follow up has been 15.8 months and median OS 17.1 months (95% CI: 13.7-20.6). Time from diagnosis to the start of Sunitinib (12 months, p = 0.001), number of metastatic sites (1 vs. >1, p = 0.003) and performance status (PS) (1, p = 0.001) were independently associated with OS. Stratification in two risk groups ("low" risk: 0 or 1 risk factors; "high" risk: 2 or 3 risk factors) resulted in distinctly different OS (median not reached [NR] vs. 10.8 [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.3-13.3], p < 0.001). The application of the MSKCC risk criteria resulted in stratification into 3 groups (low and intermediate and poor risk) with distinctly different prognosis underlying its validity. Nevertheless, MSKCC model did not show an improved prognostic performance over the model developed by this analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Studies on risk stratification of patients with advanced RCC treated with targeted therapies are warranted. Our results suggest that a simpler than the MSKCC model can be developed. Such models should be further validated.

Characterization of a novel large deletion and single point mutations in the BRCA1 gene in a Greek cohort of families with suspected hereditary breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 predispose to breast and ovarian cancer. A multitude of mutations have been described and are found to be scattered throughout these two large genes. We describe analysis of BRCA1 in 25 individuals from 18 families from a Greek cohort. METHODS: The approach used is based on dHPLC mutation screening of the BRCA1 gene, followed by sequencing of fragments suspected to carry a mutation including intron--exon boundaries. In patients with a strong family history but for whom no mutations were detected, analysis was extended to exons 10 and 11 of the BRCA2 gene, followed by MLPA analysis for screening for large genomic rearrangements. RESULTS: A pathogenic mutation in BRCA1 was identified in 5/18 (27.7 %) families, where four distinct mutations have been observed. Single base putative pathogenic mutations were identified by dHPLC and confirmed by sequence analysis in 4 families: 5382insC (in two families), G1738R, and 5586G > A (in one family each). In addition, 18 unclassified variants and silent polymorphisms were detected including a novel silent polymorphism in exon 11 of the BRCA1 gene. Finally, MLPA revealed deletion of exon 20 of the BRCA1 gene in one family, a deletion that encompasses 3.2 kb of the gene starting 21 bases into exon 20 and extending 3.2 kb into intron 20 and leads to skipping of the entire exon 20. The 3' breakpoint lies within an AluSp repeat but there are no recognizable repeat motifs at the 5' breakpoint implicating a mechanism different to Alu-mediated recombination, responsible for the majority of rearrangements in the BRCA1 gene. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that a combination of techniques capable of detecting both single base mutations and small insertions/deletions and large genomic rearrangements is necessary in order to accurately analyze the BRCA1 gene in patients at high risk of carrying a germline mutation as determined by their family history. Furthermore, our results suggest that in those families with strong evidence of linkage to the BRCA1 locus in whom no point mutation has been identified re-examination should be carried out searching specifically for genomic rearrangements.