Metastatic and locally-advanced neuroendocrine neoplasms (aNEN) form clinically and genetically heterogeneous malignancies, characterized by distinct prognoses based upon primary tumor localization, functionality, grade, proliferation index and diverse outcomes to treatment. Here, we report the mutational landscape of 85 whole-genome sequenced aNEN. This landscape reveals distinct genomic subpopulations of aNEN based on primary localization and differentiation grade; we observe relatively high tumor mutational burdens (TMB) in neuroendocrine carcinoma (average 5.45 somatic mutations per megabase) withTP53,KRAS,RB1,CSMD3,APC,CSMD1,LRATD2,TRRAP and MYCas major drivers versus an overall low TMB in neuroendocrine tumors (1.09). Furthermore, we observe distinct drivers which are enriched in somatic aberrations in pancreatic (MEN1,ATRX,DAXX,DMDandCREBBP) and midgut-derived neuroendocrine tumors (CDKN1B). Finally, 49% of aNEN patients reveal potential therapeutic targets based upon actionable (and responsive) somatic aberrations within their genome; potentially directing improvements in aNEN treatment strategies.

Introduction: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have been studied in breast cancer with the CellSearch® system. Given the low CTC counts in non-metastatic breast cancer, it is important to evaluate the inter-reader agreement. Methods: CellSearch® images (N = 272) of either CTCs or white blood cells or artifacts from 109 non-metastatic (M0) and 22 metastatic (M1) breast cancer patients from reported studies were sent to 22 readers from 15 academic laboratories and 8 readers from two Veridex laboratories. Each image was scored as No CTC vs CTC HER2- vs CTC HER2+. The 8 Veridex readers were summarized to a Veridex Consensus (VC) to compare each academic reader using % agreement and kappa (κ) statistics. Agreement was compared according to disease stage and CTC counts using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results: For CTC definition (No CTC vs CTC), the median agreement between academic readers and VC was 92% (range 69 to 97%) with a median κ of 0.83 (range 0.37 to 0.93). Lower agreement was observed in images from M0 (median 91%, range 70 to 96%) compared to M1 (median 98%, range 64 to 100%) patients (P < 0.001) and from M0 and <3CTCs (median 87%, range 66 to 95%) compared to M0 and ≥3CTCs samples (median 95%, range 77 to 99%), (P < 0.001). For CTC HER2 expression (HER2- vs HER2+), the median agreement was 87% (range 51 to 95%) with a median κ of 0.74 (range 0.25 to 0.90). Conclusions: The inter-reader agreement for CTC definition was high. Reduced agreement was observed in M0 patients with low CTC counts. Continuous training and independent image review are required.

Malignancies of the peritoneal cavity are associated with a dismal prognosis. Systemic chemotherapy is the gold standard for patients with unresectable peritoneal disease, but its intraperitoneal effect is hampered by the peritoneal-plasma barrier. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy, which is administered repeatedly into the peritoneal cavity through a peritoneal implanted port, could provide a novel treatment modality for this patient population. This review provides a systematic overview of intraperitoneal used drugs, the performed clinical studies so far, and the complications of the peritoneal implemental ports. Several anticancer drugs have been studied for intraperitoneal application, with the taxanes paclitaxel and docetaxel as the most commonly used drug. Repeated intraperitoneal chemotherapy, mostly in combination with systemic chemotherapy, has shown promising results in Phase I and Phase II studies for several tumor types, such as gastric cancer, ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer, and pancreatic cancer. Two Phase III studies for intraperitoneal chemotherapy in gastric cancer have been performed so far, but the results regarding the superiority over standard systemic chemotherapy alone, are contradictory. Pressurized intraperitoneal administration, known as PIPAC, is an alternative way of administering intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and the first prospective studies have shown a tolerable safety profile. Although intraperitoneal chemotherapy might be a standard treatment option for patients with unresectable peritoneal disease, more Phase II and Phase III studies focusing on tolerability profiles, survival rates, and quality of life are warranted in order to establish optimal treatment schedules and to establish a potential role for intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the approach to unresectable peritoneal disease.