Background: Alterations to apoptosis are a common occurrence in human tumours. The aim of our study was to determine the influence of apoptotic variations on the carcinogenesis and prognosis of colorectal carcinomas (CRCs). Methods: A TUNEL assay was performed on archival material from 103 colorectal carcinomas, 26 adenomas and 20 samples of normal epithelia. Results: The number of apoptotic cells was higher in CRCs (1.09 ± 0.13) than in adenomas (0.38 ± 0.23, p = 0.059) and normal epithelium (0.06 ± 0.04, p = 0.001). In addition, the apoptotic index (AI) was greater in metastatic disease (stage IV) than in other stages (p = 0.017). No relationship was found between apoptotic rates and age, gender or tumour grade. However, patients with tumours that showed higher AI values had a significantly lower disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) than those with tumours that had lower AIs (p = 0.020 and p = 0.027). In a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, AI remained a significant independent predictor of survival. Conclusions: We conclude that disregulated apoptosis is an important event during CRC development and progression. Higher AIs are associated with more aggressive tumours and a poorer prognosis for patients with CRC.

Comprehensive biomarker testing is essential in selecting optimal treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); however, incomplete genotyping is widespread, with most patients not receiving testing for all guideline-recommended biomarkers, in part due to reliance on burdensome sequential tissue-based single-biomarker tests with long waiting times or availability of only archival tissue samples. We aimed to demonstrate that liquid biopsy, associated with rapid turnaround time (TAT) and lower patient burden, effectively identifies guideline-recommended biomarkers in mCRC relative to standard of care (SOC) tissue testing. Prospectively enrolled patients with previously untreated mCRC undergoing physician discretion SOC tissue genotyping submitted pretreatment blood samples for comprehensive circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis with Guardant360 and targeted RAS and BRAF analysis with OncoBEAM. Among 155 patients, physician discretion SOC tissue genotyping identified a guideline-recommended biomarker in 82 patients, versus 88 identified with comprehensive ctDNA (52.9% versus 56.8%, noninferiority demonstrated down to α = 0.005) and 69 identified with targeted PCR ctDNA analysis (52.9% versus 44.5%, noninferiority rejected at α = 0.05). Utilizing ctDNA in addition to tissue increased patient identification for a guideline-recommended biomarker by 19.5% by rescuing those without tissue results either due to tissue insufficiency, test failure, or false negatives. ctDNA median TAT was significantly faster than tissue testing when the complete process from sample acquisition to results was considered (median 10 versus 27 days, P < 0.0001), resulting in accelerated biomarker discovery, with 52.0% biomarker-positive patients identified by ctDNA versus 10.2% by SOC tissue 10 days after sample collection (P < 0.0001). Comprehensive ctDNA genotyping accurately identifies guideline-recommended biomarkers in patients with mCRC at a rate at least as high as SOC tissue genotyping, in a much shorter time. Based on these findings, the addition of ctDNA genotyping to clinical practice has significant potential to improve the care of patients with mCRC.

Esophageal cancer is an aggressive tumor, and is the sixth-leading cause of death from cancer. Incidence is rising in Spain, particularly among men. Two main pathological different subtypes have been described: squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. Growing evidence of their epidemiology and molecular differences explains their different response to novel treatments, and they are therefore likely to be treated as two separate entities in the near future. The best results are obtained with a multidisciplinary therapeutic strategy, and the introduction of immunotherapy is a promising new approach that will improve prognosis. In these guidelines, we review the evidence for the different methods of diagnosis and therapeutic strategies that form the basis of our standard of care.