Increasing evidence supports the critical roles played by adipose tissue in breast cancer progression. Yet, the mediators and mechanisms are poorly understood. Here, we show that breast cancer–associated adipose tissue from freshly isolated tumors promotes F-actin remodeling, cellular scattering, invasiveness, and spheroid reorganization of cultured breast cancer cells. A combination of techniques, including transcriptomics, proteomics, and kinomics enabled us to identify paracrine secretion of oncostatin M (OSM) by cancer-associated adipose tissue. Specifically, OSM, expressed by CD45+ leucocytes in the stromal vascular fraction, induced phosphorylation of STAT3 (pSTAT3-) Y705 and S727 in breast cancer cells and transcription of several STAT3-dependent genes, including S100 family members S100A7, S100A8, and S100A9. Autocrine activation of STAT3 in MCF-7 cells ectopically expressing OSM-induced cellular scattering and peritumoral neovascularization of orthotopic xenografts. Conversely, selective inhibition of OSM by neutralizing antibody and Jak family kinases by tofacitinib inhibited STAT3 signaling, peritumoral angiogenesis, and cellular scattering. Importantly, nuclear staining of pSTAT3-Y705 identified at the tumor invasion front in ductal breast carcinomas correlates with increased lymphovascular invasion. Our work reveals the potential of novel therapeutic strategies targeting the OSM and STAT3 axis in patients with breast cancer harboring nuclear pSTAT3-Y705. Cancer Res; 74(23); 6806–19. ©2014 AACR.

Background: Over the past decades, advancements in oncological treatments have led to major improvements in survival. Particularly for adolescents and young adults (AYAs), fertility is an important concern in cancer survivorship. The purpose of the review is to provide physicians with a practical overview of the current knowledge about the impact of systemic oncological treatments on the fertility of female and male AYAs. Methods: A systematic review was performed based on relevant articles obtained from 4 databases up until 31 December 2022. Results: The mechanisms of gonadotoxicity and the concurrent risk is described for the following categories: chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy. For the category “chemotherapy”, the specific effects and risks are listed for the different classes and individual chemotherapeutics. In the category “targeted therapy”, a distinction was made between tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and monoclonal antibodies. Information concerning immunotherapy is scarce. Conclusions: The effects of chemotherapy on fertility are well investigated, but even in this category, results can be conflicting. Insufficient data are available on the fertility effects of targeted therapy and immunotherapy to draw definitive conclusions. More research is needed for these therapies and their evolving role in treating cancers in AYAs. It would be useful to include fertility endpoints in clinical trials that evaluate new and existing oncological treatments.

The in ovo chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) is grafted with fresh sarcoma-derived tumor tissues, their single cell suspensions,...

PURPOSE: Antitumor activity in preclinical models and a phase I study of patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DD-LPS) was observed with selinexor. We evaluated the clinical benefit of selinexor in patients with previously treated DD-LPS whose sarcoma progressed on approved agents. METHODS: SEAL was a phase II-III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients age 12 years or older with advanced DD-LPS who had received two-five lines of therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to selinexor (60 mg) or placebo twice weekly in 6-week cycles (crossover permitted). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02606461 ). RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled (selinexor, n = 188; placebo, n = 97). PFS was significantly longer with selinexor versus placebo: hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.95; one-sided P = .011; medians 2.8 v 2.1 months), as was time to next treatment: HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66; one-sided P < .0001; medians 5.8 v 3.2 months). With crossover, no difference was observed in overall survival. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade versus grade 3 or 4 with selinexor were nausea (151 [80.7%] v 11 [5.9]), decreased appetite (113 [60.4%] v 14 [7.5%]), and fatigue (96 [51.3%] v 12 [6.4%]). Four (2.1%) and three (3.1%) patients died in the selinexor and placebo arms, respectively. Exploratory RNA sequencing analysis identified that the absence of CALB1 expression was associated with longer PFS with selinexor compared with placebo (median 6.9 v 2.2 months; HR, 0.19; P = .001). CONCLUSION: Patients with advanced, refractory DD-LPS showed improved PFS and time to next treatment with selinexor compared with placebo. Supportive care and dose reductions mitigated side effects of selinexor. Prospective validation of CALB1 expression as a predictive biomarker for selinexor in DD-LPS is warranted.