Caterina Marchiò

Prof. Caterina Marchiò

1. Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.2. Division of Pathology, FPO-IRCCS Candiolo Cancer Institute, Candiolo, Italy.
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

22Years (2005-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
28 February 2010 in Cancer Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
NTNicholas Turner
Nicholas Turner
APAlex Pearson
Alex Pearson
RSRachel Sharpe
Rachel Sharpe
MLMaryou Lambros
Maryou Lambros
FGFelipe Geyer
Felipe Geyer
AAAlan Ashworth
Alan Ashworth
Amplification of fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1) occurs in ∼10% of breast cancers and is associated with poor prognosis. However, it is uncertain whether overexpression of FGFR1 is causally linked to the poor prognosis of amplified cancers. Here, we show that FGFR1 overexpression is robustly associated with FGFR1 amplification in two independent series of breast cancers. Breast cancer cell lines with FGFR1 overexpression and amplification show enhanced ligand-dependent signaling, with increased activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase and phosphoinositide 3-kinase–AKT signaling pathways in response to FGF2, but also show basal ligand-independent signaling, and are dependent on FGFR signaling for anchorage-independent growth. FGFR1-amplified cell lines show resistance to 4-hydroxytamoxifen, which is reversed by small interfering RNA silencing of FGFR1, suggesting that FGFR1 overexpression also promotes endocrine therapy resistance. FGFR1 signaling suppresses progesterone receptor (PR) expression in vitro, and likewise, amplified cancers are frequently PR negative, identifying a potential biomarker for FGFR1 activity. Furthermore, we show that amplified cancers have a high proliferative rate assessed by Ki67 staining and that FGFR1 amplification is found in 16% to 27% of luminal B–type breast cancers. Our data suggest that amplification and overexpression of FGFR1 may be a major contributor to poor prognosis in luminal-type breast cancers, driving anchorage-independent proliferation and endocrine therapy resistance. Cancer Res; 70(5); 2085–94

1 September 2019 in Annals of Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Caterina MarchiòCaterina Marchiò
Caterina Marchiò
MSMaurizio Scaltriti
Maurizio Scaltriti
MLM. Ladanyi
M. Ladanyi
AIA.J. Iafrate
A.J. Iafrate
FBF. Bibeau
F. Bibeau
JRJ.S. Reis-Filho
J.S. Reis-Filho
NTRK1, NTRK2 and NTRK3 fusions are present in a plethora of malignancies across different histologies. These fusions represent the most frequent mechanism of oncogenic activation of these receptor tyrosine kinases, and biomarkers for the use of TRK small molecule inhibitors. Given the varying frequency of NTRK1/2/3 fusions, crucial to the administration of NTRK inhibitors is the development of optimal approaches for the detection of human cancers harbouring activating NTRK1/2/3 fusion genes. Experts from several Institutions were recruited by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group (TR and PM WG) to review the available methods for the detection of NTRK gene fusions, their potential applications, and strategies for the implementation of a rational approach for the detection of NTRK1/2/3 fusion genes in human malignancies. A consensus on the most reasonable strategy to adopt when screening for NTRK fusions in oncologic patients was sought, and further reviewed and approved by the ESMO TR and PM WG and the ESMO leadership. The main techniques employed for NTRK fusion gene detection include immunohistochemistry, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), RT-PCR, and both RNA-based and DNA-based next generation sequencing (NGS). Each technique has advantages and limitations, and the choice of assays for screening and final diagnosis should also take into account the resources and clinical context. In tumours where NTRK fusions are highly recurrent, FISH, RT-PCR or RNA-based sequencing panels can be used as confirmatory techniques, whereas in the scenario of testing an unselected population where NTRK1/2/3 fusions are uncommon, either front-line sequencing (preferentially RNA-sequencing) or screening by immunohistochemistry followed by sequencing of positive cases should be pursued.

1 July 2021 in Seminars in Cancer Biology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
Caterina MarchiòCaterina Marchiò
Caterina Marchiò
LALaura Annaratone
Laura Annaratone
DMDra. Ana Marques
Dra. Ana Marques
LCLaura Casorzo
Laura Casorzo
EBEnrico Berrino
Enrico Berrino
Anna SapinoAnna Sapino
Anna Sapino
The human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) is a well-known negative prognostic factor in breast cancer and a target of the monoclonal antibody trastuzumab as well as of other anti-HER2 compounds. Pioneering works on HER2-positive breast cancer in the 90s' launched a new era in clinical research and oncology practice that has reshaped the natural history of this disease. In diagnostic pathology the HER2 status is routinely assessed by using a combination of immunohistochemistry (IHC, to evaluate HER2 protein expression levels) and in situ hybridization (ISH, to assess HER2 gene status). For this purpose, international recommendations have been developed by a consensus of experts in the field, which have changed over the years according to new experimental and clinical data. In this review article we will document the changes that have contributed to a better evaluation of the HER2 status in clinical practice, furthermore we will discuss HER2 heterogeneity defined by IHC and ISH as well as by transcriptomic analysis and we will critically describe the complexity of HER2 equivocal results. Finally, we will introduce the clinical impact of HER2 mutations and we will define the upcoming category of HER2-low breast cancer with respect to emerging clinical data on the efficacy of specific anti-HER2 agents in subgroups of breast carcinomas lacking the classical oncogene addition dictated by HER2 amplification.

19 August 2010 in Histopathology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MLMaria A Lopez‐Garcia
Maria A Lopez‐Garcia
FGFelipe C Geyer
Felipe C Geyer
MLMagali Lacroix‐Triki
Magali Lacroix‐Triki
Caterina MarchiòCaterina Marchiò
Caterina Marchiò
JRJorge S Reis‐Filho
Jorge S Reis‐Filho

6 October 2007 in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
DTDavid Tan
David Tan
Caterina MarchiòCaterina Marchiò
Caterina Marchiò
Robin L. JonesRobin L. Jones
Robin L. Jones
KSKay Savage
Kay Savage
ISIan E. Smith
Ian E. Smith
Jorge S. Reis-FilhoJorge S. Reis-Filho
Jorge S. Reis-Filho

13 July 2021 in Virchows Archiv
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LALaura Annaratone
Laura Annaratone
GPGiuseppe De Palma
Giuseppe De Palma
GBGiuseppina Bonizzi
Giuseppina Bonizzi
ASAnna Sapino
Anna Sapino
GBGerardo Botti
Gerardo Botti
OGOn behalf of Alleanza Contro il Cancro (ACC) Pathology and Biobanking Working Group
On behalf of Alleanza Contro il Cancro (ACC) Pathology and Biobanking Working Group
The term “biobanking” is often misapplied to any collection of human biological materials (biospecimens) regardless of requirements related to ethical and legal issues or the standardization of different processes involved in tissue collection. A proper definition of biobanks is large collections of biospecimens linked to relevant personal and health information (health records, family history, lifestyle, genetic information) that are held predominantly for use in health and medical research. In addition, the International Organization for Standardization, in illustrating the requirements for biobanking (ISO 20387:2018), stresses the concept of biobanks being legal entities driving the process of acquisition and storage together with some or all of the activities related to collection, preparation, preservation, testing, analysing and distributing defined biological material as well as related information and data. In this review article, we aim to discuss the basic principles of biobanking, spanning from definitions to classification systems, standardization processes and documents, sustainability and ethical and legal requirements. We also deal with emerging specimens that are currently being generated and shaping the so-called next-generation biobanking, and we provide pragmatic examples of cancer-associated biobanking by discussing the process behind the construction of a biobank and the infrastructures supporting the implementation of biobanking in scientific research.