Purpose: Expression levels of insulin-like growth factor type 1 receptor (IGF-IR), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and HER2 expressions have been linked to clinical outcomes in several solid tumors. However, the clinical significance of these biomarkers in gastric cancer (GC) remains unclear. This study was designed to delineate the clinical implications of these three biomarkers in GC. Experimental Design: The study group comprised 87 patients who underwent gastrectomy at National Cancer Center Hospital and subsequently received chemotherapy for recurrent or residual tumors. Using immunohistochemical techniques, we analyzed the expressions of IGF-IR, EGFR, and HER2 on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens of surgically removed primary tumors.Results: IGF-IR expression (defined as >10% membranous staining) was found in 67 tumors (77%), EGFR expression in 55 (63%), and HER2 expression in 16 (18%). Positive coexpression of IGF-IR and EGFR was found in 48 tumors (55%), that of IGF-IR and HER2 in16 (18%), and that of EGFR and HER2 in 13 (15%). Multivariate survival analysis showed that IGF-IR^positive expression [hazard ratio (HR) 2.14, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.20-3.82; P = 0.01], performance status 1 or 2 (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.15-2.91; P = 0.01), and diffuse type tumors (HR 1.71; 95% CI 1.08-2.70; P = 0.02) were significant predictors of poor survival. Conclusions: IGF-IR expression in surgical GC specimens, poor performance status, and diffuse type tumors are significant predictors of poor outcomes in patients with GC. Our data suggest that anti^IGF-IR strategies may prove valuable in such patients.

High serum levels of sPD-L1 correlated with worse overall survival on the first-line chemotherapy in metastatic GC patients.

Background To promote precision oncology in clinical practice, the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology, the Japanese Society of Clinical Oncology, and the Japanese Cancer Association, jointly published “Clinical practice guidance for next-generation sequencing in cancer diagnosis and treatment” in 2017. Since new information on cancer genomic medicine has emerged since the 1st edition of the guidance was released, including reimbursement for NGS-based multiplex gene panel tests in 2019, the guidance revision was made. Methods A working group was organized with 33 researchers from cancer genomic medicine designated core hospitals and other academic institutions. For an impartial evaluation of the draft version, eight committee members from each society conducted an external evaluation. Public comments were also made on the draft. The finalized Japanese version was published on the websites of the three societies in March 2020. Results The revised edition consists of two parts: an explanation of the cancer genomic profiling test (General Discussion) and clinical questions (CQs) that are of concern in clinical practice. Particularly, patient selection should be based on the expectation that the patient's post-test general condition and organ function will be able to tolerate drug therapy, and the optimal timing of test should be considered in consideration of subsequent treatment plans, not limited to treatment lines. Conclusion We expect that the revised version will be used by healthcare professionals and will also need to be continually reviewed in line with future developments in cancer genome medicine.

Background Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) occur in various primary sites, but rarely in the stomach. NETs are classified into three types, carcinoids, malignant carcinoids and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (PNECs), whose clinical behavior is different. Currently, clinical outcomes and standard chemotherapy for NETs of the stomach remain unclear. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of histopathologically confirmed NETs of the stomach at our hospital between January 2000 and August 2006. Results Thirty-seven NETs were identified. Fifteen patients had carcinoids while 22 had PNECs. Among the carcinoid patients, 7 underwent endoscopic mucosal resection and 5 had gastrectomy as first-line treatment. Three patients were observed without intervention. All patients were alive after an average follow-up period of 27 months. Among the 22 PNEC patients, 3 had no metastasis, 11 had regional lymph node metastasis, and 8 had distant metastasis. Eight of 14 patients relapsed at a median of 177 days (range 120-1459 days) after curative surgery. Twelve patients with metastatic or recurrent disease received palliative cisplatin plus irinotecan chemotherapy. The response rate was 75%, the median progression-free survival time was 212 days, and median survival time was 679 days. Conclusion Gastric PNEC patients with distant metastasis had poor outcomes. Regimens containing cisplatin plus irinotecan produced a good response in gastric PNEC.

In developed countries, the number of patients with colorectal cancer has been increasing, and colorectal cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer death. To improve the quality of life of colorectal cancer patients, it is necessary to establish novel screening methods that would allow early detection of colorectal cancer. We performed metabolome analysis of a plasma sample set from 282 stage 0/I/II colorectal cancer patients and 291 healthy volunteers using gas chromatography/triple-quadrupole mass spectrometry in an attempt to identify metabolite biomarkers of stage 0/I/II colorectal cancer. The colorectal cancer patients included patients with stage 0 (N=79), I (N=80), and II (N=123) in whom invasion and metastasis were absent. Our analytical system detected 64 metabolites in the plasma samples, and the levels of 29 metabolites differed significantly (Bonferroni-corrected p=0.000781) between the patients and healthy volunteers. Based on these results, a multiple logistic regression analysis of various metabolite biomarkers was carried out, and a stage 0/I/II colorectal cancer prediction model was established. The area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity values of this model for detecting stage 0/I/II colorectal cancer were 0.996, 99.3%, and 93.8%, respectively. The model's sensitivity and specificity values for each disease stage were >90%, and surprisingly, its sensitivity for stage 0, specificity for stage 0, and sensitivity for stage II disease were all 100%. Our predictive model can aid early detection of colorectal cancer and has potential as a novel screening test for cases of colorectal cancer that do not involve lymph node or distant metastasis.