Dataset Information

Does Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) Truly Exist as a Distinct Cancer Entity?

ABSTRACT: Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) designates an enigmatic cancer entity with histologic confirmation of malignancy from a metastasis but no identifiable primary tumor in spite of a thorough diagnostic work-up. In this review, we discuss the validity of CUP as a distinct cancer entity as well as diagnostic pitfalls. As arguments against a distinct entity, the diagnosis of CUP is erroneous in some cases. Diagnostic pitfalls include incomplete diagnostics, uncertainty in classifying a lesion as either primary or metastasis and mistaking a relapse of an antecedent malignancy as CUP due to histologic and immunohistologic disparities. Given the high frequency of prior malignancies in CUP patients, relapse of an antecedent cancer should always be carefully excluded. Gene expression profiling-based classifier assays aim at aligning the molecular profile of CUP patients with established primary cancer patterns for highest congruency in order to identify the putative primary and treat accordingly. However, the spectrum of predicted putative primaries by molecular techniques is somewhat at odds with the primaries identified in autopsy series. Also, a first randomized clinical trial did not show superiority of primary-tailored therapy over unspecific platinum-based chemotherapy. CUP cases share an aggressive clinical course, atypical metastasis pattern, rapid progression of metastases, a generally poor response to chemotherapy and dismal outcome as distinct clinical features. Metastatic spread appears to take place in the early stages of tumor evolution, with CUP metastases subsequently undergoing genetic evolution toward a chromosomally highly complex and instable karyotype independent from the primary tumor. In clinical practice, the diagnosis of CUP is valid when no primary tumor is detectable. Treatment should ideally offer broad spectrum coverage across numerous malignancies and be well-established in CUP as is the case for carboplatin/paclitaxel and cisplatin / gemcitabine in particular, but it should also cover the most likely putative primary. The diligent diagnosis of CUP is warranted for clinical trials, making the eligibility process particularly laborious. In conclusion, we deem CUP a distinct cancer entity and the diagnosis accurate in most patient cases.

SUBMITTER: Bochtler T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6534107 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) Truly Exist as a Distinct Cancer Entity?

Bochtler Tilmann T Krämer Alwin A

Frontiers in oncology 20190517

Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) designates an enigmatic cancer entity with histologic confirmation of malignancy from a metastasis but no identifiable primary tumor in spite of a thorough diagnostic work-up. In this review, we discuss the validity of CUP as a distinct cancer entity as well as diagnostic pitfalls. As arguments against a distinct entity, the diagnosis of CUP is erroneous in some cases. Diagnostic pitfalls include incomplete diagnostics, uncertainty in classifying a lesion as eithe ...[more]

PMID: 31165045

Similar Datasets

Project description:Carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) is a difficult-to-manage malignancy. Multi-omic profiles and treatment outcome vs. degree of precision matching were assessed. Tumours underwent next-generation sequencing (NGS) [tissue and/or blood-derived cell-free DNA (cfDNA)]. Selected patients had transcriptome-based immune profiling and/or programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry analysis. Patients could be reviewed by a Molecular Tumor Board, but physicians chose the therapy. Of 6497 patients in the precision database, 97 had CUP. The median number of pathogenic tissue genomic alterations was 4 (range, 0-25), and for cfDNA, was 2 (range, 0-9). Each patient had a distinct molecular landscape. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved biomarkers included the following: PD-L1+ ≥ 1%, 30.9% of CUPs tested; microsatellite instability, 3.6%; tumour mutational burden ≥ 10 mutations·Mb-1, 23%; and neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase (NTRK) fusions, 0%. RNA-based immunograms showed theoretically druggable targets: lymphocyte activation gene 3 protein (LAG-3), macrophage colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF1R), adenosine receptor A2 (ADORA2) and indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1). Overall, 56% of patients had ≥ 1 actionable biomarker (OncoKB database). To quantify the degree of matching (tumours to drugs), a Matching Score (MS; roughly equivalent to number of alterations targeted/total number of deleterious alterations) was calculated post hoc. Comparing evaluable treated patients [MS high, > 50% (N = 15) vs. low ≤ 50% (N = 47)], median progression-free survival was 10.4 vs. 2.8 months (95% CI 0.11-0.64; HR 0.27; P = 0.002); survival, 15.8 vs. 6.9 months (95% CI 0.17-1.16; HR 0.45; P = 0.09); and clinical benefit rate (stable disease ≥ 6 months/partial/complete response), 71% vs. 24% (P = 0.003). Higher MS was the only factor that predicted improvement in outcome variables after multivariate analysis. In conclusion, CUPs are molecularly complex. Treatments with high degrees of matching to molecular alterations (generally achieved by individualized combinations) correlated with improved outcomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is a late-stage malignancy with poor prognosis, but we know little about what diagnostic tests and procedures people with CUP receive prior to diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to determine how health service utilisation prior to diagnosis for people with cancer-registry notified CUP differs from those notified with metastatic cancer of known primary. METHODS:We identified people with a cancer registry notification of CUP (n = 327) from the 45 and Up Study, a prospective cohort of 266,724 people ?45 years in New South Wales, Australia, matched with up to three controls with a diagnosis of metastatic cancer of known primary (n = 977). Baseline questionnaire data were linked to population health data to identify all health service use, diagnostic tests, and procedures in the month of diagnosis and 3 months prior. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS:After adjusting for age and educational attainment, people with a cancer-registry notified CUP diagnosis were more likely to be an aged care resident (OR = 2.78, 95%CI 1.37-5.63), have an emergency department visit (OR = 1.65, 95%CI 1.23-2.21), serum tumor marker tests (OR = 1.51, 95%CI 1.12-2.04), or a cytology test without immunohistochemistry (OR = 2.01, 95%CI 1.47-2.76), and less likely to have a histopathology test without immunohistochemistry (OR = 0.43, 95%CI 0.31-0.59). Neither general practitioner, specialist, allied health practitioner or nurse consultations, hospitalisations, nor imaging procedures were associated with a CUP diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS:The health service and diagnostic pathway to diagnosis differs markedly for people notified with CUP compared to those with metastatic cancer of known primary. While these differences may indicate missed opportunities for earlier detection and appropriate management, for some patients they may be clinically appropriate.

Dataset Information

Does Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) Truly Exist as a Distinct Cancer Entity?

Publications

Does Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) Truly Exist as a Distinct Cancer Entity?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets