Signal transducers and activators of transcription (STAT) proteins comprise a family of transcription factors latent in the cytoplasm that participate in normal cellular events, such as differentiation, proliferation, cell survival, apoptosis, and angiogenesis following cytokine, growth factor, and hormone signaling. STATs are activated by tyrosine phosphorylation, which is normally a transient and tightly regulates process. Nevertheless, several constitutively activated STATs have been observed in a wide number of human cancer cell lines and primary tumors, including blood malignancies and solid neoplasias. STATs can be divided into two groups according to their specific functions. One is made up of STAT2, STAT4, and STAT6, which are activated by a small number of cytokines and play a distinct role in the development of T-cells and in IFNg signaling. The other group includes STAT1, STAT3, and STAT5, activated in different tissues by means of a series of ligands and involved in IFN signaling, development of the mammary gland, response to GH, and embriogenesis. This latter group of STATS plays an important role in controlling cell-cycle progression and apoptosis and thus contributes to oncogenesis. Although an increased expression of STAT1 has been observed in many human neoplasias, this molecule can be considered a potential tumor suppressor, since it plays an important role in growth arrest and in promoting apoptosis. On the other hand, STAT3 and 5 are considered as oncogenes, since they bring about the activation of cyclin D1, c-Myc, and bcl-xl expression, and are involved in promoting cell-cycle progression, cellular transformation, and in preventing apoptosis.

The increasing evidence that ;D T cells have potent antitumor activity suggests their value in immunotherapy, particularly in areas of unmet need such as metastatic carcinoma. To this end, we initiated a phase I clinical trial in metastatic hormonerefractory prostate cancer to examine the feasibility and consequences of using the ;D T-cell agonist zoledronate, either alone or in combination with low-dose interleukin 2 (IL-2), to activate peripheral blood ;D cells. Nine patients were enlisted to each arm. Neither treatment showed appreciable toxicity. Most patients were treated with zoledronate + IL-2, but conversely only two treated with zoledronate displayed a significant longterm shift of peripheral ;D cells toward an activated effectormemory-like state (T EM ), producing IFN-; and perforin. These patients also maintained serum levels of tumor necrosis factorrelated apoptosis inducing ligand (TRAIL), consistent with a parallel microarray analysis showing that TRAIL is produced by ;D cells activated via the T-cell receptor and IL-2. Moreover, the numbers of T EM ;D cells showed a statistically significant correlation with declining prostate-specific antigen levels and objective clinical outcomes that comprised three instances of partial remission and five of stable disease. By contrast, most patients treated only with zoledronate failed to sustain either ;D cell numbers or serum TRAIL, and showed progressive clinical deterioration. Thus, zoledronate + IL-2 represents a novel, safe, and feasible approach to induce immunologic and clinical responses in patients with metastatic carcinomas, potentially providing a substantially increased window for specific approaches to be administered. Moreover, ;D cell phenotypes and possibly serum TRAIL may constitute novel biomarkers of prognosis upon therapy with zoledronate + IL-2 in metastatic carcinoma. [Cancer Res 2007;67(15):7450-7]

There is no difference in ORR, TTP, and OS for patients treated with the FOLFIRI or FOLFOX4 regimen. Both therapies seemed effective as first-line treatment in these patients. The difference between these two combination therapies is mainly in the toxicity profile.

Analysis of TP53 mutations from a large cohort of CRC patients has identified tumor site, type of mutation, and adjuvant treatment as important factors in determining the prognostic significance of this genetic alteration.

marrow complete remission (CR), and standard non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) doses of rituximab in untreated CLL patients 4 cleared the bone marrow in only 9% of patients. We, therefore, would offer an alternative focus for future investigation with rituximab. Specifically, efforts should be focused on understanding potential factors such as stromal cell interaction that disrupt apoptosis, 5 CLL cell density, antibody penetration, and decreased access to complement and effector cells within the bone marrow that might prevent efficient clearance of tumor cells in the majority of patients. Such studies will facilitate development of alternative combination strategies to improve bone marrow responses with this promising combination therapy.