Predicting tumour radiosensitivity to deliver precision radiotherapy

The fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System (CNS), published in 2021, is the sixth version of the international standard for the classification of brain and spinal cord tumors. Building on the 2016 updated fourth edition and the work of the Consortium to Inform Molecular and Practical Approaches to CNS Tumor Taxonomy, the 2021 fifth edition introduces major changes that advance the role of molecular diagnostics in CNS tumor classification. At the same time, it remains wedded to other established approaches to tumor diagnosis such as histology and immunohistochemistry. In doing so, the fifth edition establishes some different approaches to both CNS tumor nomenclature and grading and it emphasizes the importance of integrated diagnoses and layered reports. New tumor types and subtypes are introduced, some based on novel diagnostic technologies such as DNA methylome profiling. The present review summarizes the major general changes in the 2021 fifth edition classification and the specific changes in each taxonomic category. It is hoped that this summary provides an overview to facilitate more in-depth exploration of the entire fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System.

The hallmarks of cancer conceptualization is a heuristic tool for distilling the vast complexity of cancer phenotypes and genotypes into a provisional set of underlying principles. As knowledge of cancer mechanisms has progressed, other facets of the disease have emerged as potential refinements. Herein, the prospect is raised that phenotypic plasticity and disrupted differentiation is a discrete hallmark capability, and that nonmutational epigenetic reprogramming and polymorphic microbiomes both constitute distinctive enabling characteristics that facilitate the acquisition of hallmark capabilities. Additionally, senescent cells, of varying origins, may be added to the roster of functionally important cell types in the tumor microenvironment. SIGNIFICANCE: Cancer is daunting in the breadth and scope of its diversity, spanning genetics, cell and tissue biology, pathology, and response to therapy. Ever more powerful experimental and computational tools and technologies are providing an avalanche of "big data" about the myriad manifestations of the diseases that cancer encompasses. The integrative concept embodied in the hallmarks of cancer is helping to distill this complexity into an increasingly logical science, and the provisional new dimensions presented in this perspective may add value to that endeavor, to more fully understand mechanisms of cancer development and malignant progression, and apply that knowledge to cancer medicine.

Background Most patients with locally advanced, unresectable, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have disease progression despite definitive chemoradiotherapy (chemotherapy plus concurrent radiation therapy). This phase 3 study compared the anti-programmed death ligand 1 antibody durvalumab as consolidation therapy with placebo in patients with stage III NSCLC who did not have disease progression after two or more cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy. Methods We randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously) or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. The study drug was administered 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy. The coprimary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by means of blinded independent central review) and overall survival (unplanned for the interim analysis). Secondary end points included 12-month and 18-month progression-free survival rates, the objective response rate, the duration of response, the time to death or distant metastasis, and safety. Results Of 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received consolidation therapy (473 received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). The median progression-free survival from randomization was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.0 to 18.1) with durvalumab versus 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 7.8) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P<0.001); the 12-month progression-free survival rate was 55.9% versus 35.3%, and the 18-month progression-free survival rate was 44.2% versus 27.0%. The response rate was higher with durvalumab than with placebo (28.4% vs. 16.0%; P<0.001), and the median duration of response was longer (72.8% vs. 46.8% of the patients had an ongoing response at 18 months). The median time to death or distant metastasis was longer with durvalumab than with placebo (23.2 months vs. 14.6 months; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 29.9% of the patients who received durvalumab and 26.1% of those who received placebo; the most common adverse event of grade 3 or 4 was pneumonia (4.4% and 3.8%, respectively). A total of 15.4% of patients in the durvalumab group and 9.8% of those in the placebo group discontinued the study drug because of adverse events. Conclusions Progression-free survival was significantly longer with durvalumab than with placebo. The secondary end points also favored durvalumab, and safety was similar between the groups. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461 .).