Kolling Stefan, Ventre Ferdinando, Geuna Elena, Milan Melissa, Pisacane Alberto, Boccaccio Carla, Sapino Anna, Montemurro Filippo
Department of Investigative Clinical Oncology, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, Candiolo, Italy.
Multidisciplinary Oncology Outpatient Clinic, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, Candiolo, Italy.
Front Oncol. 2020 Jan 17;9:1546. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01546. eCollection 2019.
Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is an umbrella term used to classify a heterogeneous group of metastatic cancers based on the absence of an identifiable primary tumor. Clinically, CUPs are characterized by a set of distinct features comprising early metastatic dissemination in an atypical pattern, an aggressive clinical course, poor response to empiric chemotherapy and, consequently, a short life expectancy. Two opposing strategies to change the dismal prognosis for the better are pursued. On the one hand, following the traditional approach, more and more sophisticated tissue-of-origin (TOO) classifier assays are employed to push identification of the putative primary to its limits with the clear intent of allowing tumor-site specific treatment. However, robust evidence supporting its routine clinical use is still lacking, notably with two recent randomized clinical trials failing to show a patient benefit of TOO-prediction based site-specific treatment over empiric chemotherapy in CUP. On the other hand, with regards to a strategy, precision medicine approaches targeting actionable genomic alterations have already transformed the treatment for many known tumor types. Yet, an unmet need remains for well-designed clinical trials to scrutinize its potential role in CUP beyond anecdotal case reports. In the absence of practice changing results, we believe that the emphasis on finding the presumed unknown primary tumor at all costs, implicit in the term CUP, has biased recent research in the field. Focusing on the distinct clinical features shared by all CUPs, we advocate adopting the term primary metastatic cancer (PMC) to denominate a distinct cancer entity instead. In our view, PMC should be considered the archetype of metastatic disease and as such, despite accounting for a mere 2-3% of malignancies, unraveling the mechanisms at play goes beyond improving the prognosis of patients with PMC and promises to greatly enhance our understanding of the metastatic process and carcinogenesis across all cancer types.
原发灶不明癌(CUP)是一个概括性术语,用于对一组异质性转移性癌症进行分类,其依据是缺乏可识别的原发性肿瘤。临床上,CUP具有一系列独特特征,包括以非典型模式早期发生转移扩散、临床病程侵袭性强、对经验性化疗反应不佳,因此预期寿命较短。人们采取了两种相反的策略来改善这种糟糕的预后。一方面,遵循传统方法,越来越复杂的组织起源(TOO)分类检测被用于将推定原发性肿瘤的识别推向极限,其明确目的是实现肿瘤部位特异性治疗。然而,仍缺乏支持其常规临床应用的有力证据,尤其是最近两项随机临床试验未能表明基于TOO预测的部位特异性治疗比CUP的经验性化疗对患者更有益。另一方面,关于一种策略,针对可操作基因组改变的精准医学方法已经改变了许多已知肿瘤类型的治疗方式。然而,除了轶事性病例报告外,仍需要精心设计的临床试验来审视其在CUP中的潜在作用。在缺乏改变实践结果的情况下,我们认为,CUP这一术语中隐含的不惜一切代价寻找假定不明原发性肿瘤的重点,使该领域最近的研究产生了偏差。我们强调所有CUP共有的独特临床特征,主张采用“原发性转移性癌”(PMC)这一术语来命名一种独特的癌症实体。我们认为,PMC应被视为转移性疾病的原型,因此,尽管它仅占恶性肿瘤的2%-3%,但阐明其中的机制不仅有助于改善PMC患者的预后,还有望极大地增进我们对所有癌症类型的转移过程和致癌作用的理解。