To review the current management, outline recent advances and address controversies in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The treatment of HCC is multidisciplinary involving hepatologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, interventional radiologists, and other disciplines. Each of these disciplines brings its unique perspective and differing opinions that add to controversies in the management of HCC. A focused literature review was performed to identify recent studies on the management of HCC and thereby summarize relevant information on the various therapeutic modalities and controversies involved in the treatment of HCC. The main treatment algorithms continue to rely on hepatic resection or transplantation with controversies involving patients harboring early stage disease and borderline hepatic function. The other treatment strategies include locoregional therapies, radiation, and systemic therapy used alone or in combination with other treatment modalities. Recent advances in locoregional therapies, radiation, and systemic therapies have provided better therapeutic options with curative intent potential for some locoregional therapies. Further refinements in combination therapies such as algorithms consisting of locoregional therapies and systemic or radiation therapies are likely to add additional options and improve survival. The management of HCC has witnessed significant strides with advances in existing options and introduction of several new treatment modalities of various combinations. Further refinements in these treatment options combined with enrollment in clinical trials are essential to improve the management and outcomes of patients with HCC.

We have used a gene expression array–based strategy to identify the methylation of tissue factor pathway inhibitor 2 (TFPI2), a potential tumor suppressor gene, as a frequent event in human colorectal cancers (CRC). TFPI2 belongs to the recently described group of embryonic cell Polycomb group (PcG)–marked genes that may be predisposed to aberrant DNA methylation in early stages of colorectal carcinogenesis. Aberrant methylation of TFPI2 was detected in almost all CRC adenomas (97%, n = 56) and stages I to IV CRCs (99%, n = 115). We further explored the potential of TFPI2 as a biomarker for the early detection of CRC using stool DNA–based assays in patients with nonmetastatic CRC and average-risk noncancer controls who were candidates for screening. TFPI2 methylation was detected in stool DNA from stage I to III CRC patients with a sensitivity of 76% to 89% and a specificity of 79% to 93%. Detection of TFPI2 methylation in stool DNA may act as a useful adjunct to the noninvasive strategies for screening of CRCs in the future. [Cancer Res 2009;69(11):4691–9]

Purpose: The importance of genetic and epigenetic alterations maybe in their aggregate role in altering core pathways in tumorigenesis. Experimental Design: Merging genome-wide genomic and epigenomic alterations, we identify key genes and pathways altered in colorectal cancers (CRC). DNA methylation analysis was tested for predicting survival in CRC patients using Cox proportional hazard model. Results: We identified 29 low frequency-mutated genes that are also inactivated by epigenetic mechanisms in CRC. Pathway analysis showed the extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling pathway is silenced in CRC. Six ECM pathway genes were tested for their prognostic potential in large CRC cohorts (n = 777). DNA methylation of IGFBP3 and EVL predicted for poor survival (IGFBP3: HR = 2.58, 95% CI: 1.37–4.87, P = 0.004; EVL: HR = 2.48, 95% CI: 1.07–5.74, P = 0.034) and simultaneous methylation of multiple genes predicted significantly worse survival (HR = 8.61, 95% CI: 2.16–34.36, P < 0.001 for methylation of IGFBP3, EVL, CD109, and FLNC). DNA methylation of IGFBP3 and EVL was validated as a prognostic marker in an independent contemporary-matched cohort (IGFBP3 HR = 2.06, 95% CI: 1.04–4.09, P = 0.038; EVL HR = 2.23, 95% CI: 1.00–5.0, P = 0.05) and EVL DNA methylation remained significant in a secondary historical validation cohort (HR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.05–1.89, P = 0.022). Moreover, DNA methylation of selected ECM genes helps to stratify the high-risk stage 2 colon cancers patients who would benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (HR: 5.85, 95% CI: 2.03–16.83, P = 0.001 for simultaneous methylation of IGFBP3, EVL, and CD109). Conclusions: CRC that have silenced genes in ECM pathway components show worse survival suggesting that our finding provides novel prognostic biomarkers for CRC and reflects the high importance of integrative analyses linking genetic and epigenetic abnormalities with pathway disruption in cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 17(6); 1535–45. ©2011 AACR.

Recent years have seen standardization of the anatomic definitions of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and increasing utilization of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). The aim of the current review was to summarize the evidence for NAT in pancreatic adenocarcinoma since 2009, when consensus criteria for resectable (R), borderline resectable (BR), and locally advanced (LA) disease were endorsed. PubMed search was undertaken along with extensive backward search of the references of published articles to identify studies utilizing NAT for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Abstracts from ASCO-GI 2014 and 2015 were also searched. A total of 96 studies including 5520 patients were included in the final quantitative synthesis. Pooled estimates revealed 36% grade ≥ 3 toxicities, 5% biliary complications, 21% hospitalization rate and low mortality (0%, range 0–16%) during NAT. The majority of patients (59%) had stable disease. On an intention-to-treat basis, R0-resection rates varied from 63% among R patients to 23% among LA patients. R0 rates were > 80% among all patients who were resected after NAT. Among R and BR patients who underwent resection after NAT, median OS was 30 and 27.4 months, respectively. The current study summarizes the recent literature for NAT in pancreatic adenocarcinoma and demonstrates improving outcomes after NAT compared to those historically associated with a surgery-first approach for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

We conducted a retrospective, case control study on patients undergoing surgery for spinal tumors. OBJECTIVE.: Our aim was to determine the incidence and to identify risk factors for surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients undergoing surgery for spinal tumors. SSIs after spinal tumor surgery may be particularly devastating as they may add to substantial surgical morbidity and may further exacerbate already existing neurologic deficits. Incidence and risk factors predisposing to SSIs in patients undergoing surgery for spinal tumors are not well studied yet. Between January 1995 and February 2008, 971 procedures for spinal tumors were performed on 739 patients. Excluding sacral tumors from the current study, 895 procedures on 678 patients were reviewed to identify those cases with SSIs. Furthermore, 65 infected cases and a randomly selected subset of 162 controls were analyzed by logistic regression modeling to identify the risk factors associated with SSIs. There were 678 patients that were included in this study with 364 men (54%) and 314 women (46%), with an average age of 47.2 year. Sixty-five patients who developed SSIs underwent a total of 162 procedures including 78 procedures for wound debridement and washout. The incidence of SSIs was 8.89% for primary nonbony spinal tumors, 9.5% for metastatic spinal tumors, and 13.7% for primary bony spinal tumors. Staphylococcus aureus was the most commonly isolated organism (n = 22 of 65, 33%). In the multivariate logistic regression model, previous spinal surgeries, complex plastic closures, increasing number of comorbidities, presence of a hospital acquired infection at the time of a previous surgery, and increasing duration of hospital stay during primary surgery were significantly associated with increased likelihood of developing postoperative SSIs. Surgery for spine tumors appears to be associated with a higher incidence of SSI than nontumor spine surgery. Identification of perioperative risk factors will help delineate this subset of patients with high risk for developing SSIs thus potentially allowing perioperative modification for such factors, which may lead to an overall better clinical outcome and patient satisfaction.