Podcasts about cd8 t

BUFFALO, NY – June 20, 2025 – A new #review was #published in Volume 16 of Oncotarget on June 10, 2025, titled “Beyond DNA damage response: Immunomodulatory attributes of CHEK2 in solid tumors.” In this paper, led by first author Helen Qian and corresponding author Crismita Dmello from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, researchers compiled growing evidence that the CHEK2 gene, long known for its role in repairing DNA damage, may also influence how tumors respond to immunotherapy. Their analysis suggests that problems in CHEK2 function might make cancer cells more vulnerable to immune system attacks, highlighting a new opportunity to improve treatment outcomes in solid tumors. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed cancer treatment; however, they are effective in only a subset of patients. This review suggests that tumors with reduced CHEK2 activity may accumulate more mutations that produce signals the immune system can recognize. These signals, known as neoantigens, help immune cells identify and destroy cancer cells more effectively. The review connects this process not only to CHEK2's established role in the DNA damage response but also to a newly proposed function in shaping the immune environment of tumors. CHEK2 normally helps maintain genomic stability by enabling precise DNA repair. When this function is lost, cells rely on more error-prone repair methods, leading to additional mutations. These mutations can increase tumor mutational burden, which has been linked to better outcomes with immunotherapy. Beyond DNA repair, the review highlights a second mechanism: activation of the cGAS-STING pathway. This pathway detects fragments of damaged DNA and triggers inflammation that attracts immune cells to the tumor. The authors highlight studies where CHEK2-deficient tumors responded better to PD-1 inhibitors, a common type of immune checkpoint inhibitor. In both lab models and early-stage clinical settings, CHEK2 loss was associated with increased infiltration of CD8+ T cells—immune cells essential for attacking cancer cells. In cancers such as glioblastoma and renal cell carcinoma, which are typically resistant to immunotherapy, reduced CHEK2 expression was linked with more favorable immune activity and higher expression of interferon-related genes. The compiled evidence points to CHEK2 as a potential biomarker for identifying patients likely to respond to immunotherapy. In addition, combining CHEK2 inhibitors with existing immunotherapies may enhance anti-tumor effects, particularly in cancers with limited treatment options. The review notes that some clinical trials using the CHEK1/2 inhibitor prexasertib alongside immune checkpoint therapies have already shown promising early results. “The initial results from this Phase I clinical trial support the immunomodulatory role of CHEK2 expression and even suggest CHEK2 potentiates immunosuppression.” Although more research is needed to confirm these mechanisms and improve treatment approaches, this review underscores the expanding role of DNA repair genes like CHEK2—not only in maintaining genome integrity but also in helping the immune system fight cancer. DOI - https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28740 Correspondence to - Crismita Dmello - stellacpak@outlook.com Video short - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C26pEBc0itk Subscribe for free publication alerts from Oncotarget - https://www.oncotarget.com/subscribe/ To learn more about Oncotarget, please visit https://www.oncotarget.com and connect with us: Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/Oncotarget/ X - https://twitter.com/oncotarget Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/oncotargetjrnl/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@OncotargetJournal LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/oncotarget Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/oncotarget/ Reddit - https://www.reddit.com/user/Oncotarget/ Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/0gRwT6BqYWJzxzmjPJwtVh MEDIA@IMPACTJOURNALS.COM

Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 5 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including data from large trials in advanced malignant melanoma and mCSPC plus a new approach to first-line treatment for patients with multiple myeloma who are not transplant eligible. Transcript Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 5 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. The selected abstracts from this final day of ASCO25 include important new data from large, randomized trials in patients with advanced malignant melanoma and patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, as well as a new approach to the first-line treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who are not transplant eligible.  Starting with LBA9500, this study was conducted in patients with completely resected stage III or IV malignant melanoma and compared the combination of relatlimab plus nivolumab versus nivolumab alone in this population. The study, named the RELATIVITY-098 trial, was presented by Dr. Georgina Long from the University of Sydney, Australia. In her introduction to the study, Dr. Long explained that the current standard of care for adjuvant therapy of resected stage III/IV melanoma is with PD-1 monotherapy with nivolumab, but that about 50% of patients will suffer from a subsequent relapse. In the first-line setting in patients with advanced or unresectable melanoma, the combination of nivolumab with the LAG-3 inhibitor, relatlimab, has been previously shown to improve progression-free survival in the RELATIVITY-047 trial. The current study evaluated this same combination in the adjuvant setting. More than 1,000 patients from 24 countries were randomized to receive either nivolumab alone (546 patients) or the combination of nivolumab with relatlimab (547 patients). Both treatments were given for a maximum of 1 year or until progression of disease, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or death. Various biomarker studies were also undertaken including LAG-3 and PD-1 expression on CD8-positive T cells. The primary endpoint of the study was relapse-free survival, and Dr. Long reported that this was the same in both arms of the study. For example, at 24 months, the relapse-free survival was 64% in the monotherapy arm compared with 62% in the combination arm. The hazard ratio was 1.01 and the P value was 0.928. Metastasis-free survival was also identical in both arms. No benefit was observed for the combination in any of the prespecified subgroups. No new toxicity signals emerged compared with the RELATIVITY-047 trial. Interestingly, the baseline surface expression of LAG-3 and co-expression of LAG-3 and PD-1 on CD8 T cells in the 098 adjuvant trial were lower than in the 047 advanced disease trial, perhaps explaining why the combination did not confer benefit over nivo alone in the adjuvant setting. This is an important result, demonstrating that results from one clinical setting cannot always be extrapolated to another. Although the combination has gained some use in the adjuvant setting, this study clearly demonstrates that more drug in this situation is no better and that monotherapy remains the current standard of care. Results from the AMPLITUDE trial for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer with alterations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes, in LBA5006, were presented today by Dr. Gerhardt Attard from University College London, UK. This international, multicenter study evaluated the combination of the selective PARP inhibitor, niraparib, in combination with abiraterone acetate and prednisone. The same combination has been previously shown to improve outcomes in castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer harboring BRCA mutations in the MAGNITUDE study. The current trial included patients with castration-sensitive disease with HRR mutations including BRCA1/2. Six hundred and ninety-six patients were randomized between niraparib, abiraterone, and prednisone plus androgen deprivation therapy, or the same combination with placebo instead of niraparib. Permitted prior therapies included no more than 6 months of prior androgen deprivation therapy and the use of docetaxel, or prior palliative radiation therapy. The primary endpoint of the study was radiographic relapse-free survival. Dr. Attard reported that the risk for radiographic progression-free survival in the whole population was significantly reduced by 37% with niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone compared with the placebo arm. The radiographic progression-free survival risk reduction with niraparib in the prespecified BRCA1/2 subgroup was 48% and reached statistical significance compared with the placebo arm. The secondary endpoint of time to symptomatic progression was also improved with niraparib in the HRR population and the BRCA1/2 subgroup. There was a trend for overall survival favoring the niraparib combination. However, the overall survival data were immature at this first interim analysis and did not yet reach statistical significance. No new safety concerns emerged with the toxicity data consistent with the MAGNITUDE study. Less than 5% more of the patients on the experimental arm discontinued treatment in comparison to the control arm. The authors conclude that the AMPLITUDE study results support the use of niraparib, abiraterone, and prednisone as a new treatment option for patients with metastatic castration- sensitive prostate cancer and BRCA and homologous recombination repair gene alterations. The results certainly support this conclusion and are potentially practice-changing. Turning to hematologic malignancies, my final selection from today's presentations is Abstract 7504, presented by Dr. Hang Quach from St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, and describes a novel combination of elranatamab, daratumumab, and lenalidomide in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are not transplant-eligible – the so-called MagnetisMM-6 trial part 1. Elranatamab is a novel bispecific T-cell engaging antibody directed against BCMA and CD3, which has previously been approved for certain patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. In the present study, this was combined with lenalidomide and daratumumab in newly diagnosed patients. The report today describes the dose-finding phase of this study, which was part 1, specifically addressing so-called dose level ‘G', comprising elranatamab 76mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks plus daratumumab 1800mg subcutaneously and lenalidomide 25mg given orally. Thirty-seven patients were entered at this dose level, of whom 32 were on treatment at the time of analysis. Early response data show an overall response rate of 97.3%. With median follow up of 7.9 months, the current CR rate is 27% with a VGPR rate of almost 68%. The most frequent toxicities were hematologic, with neutropenia observed in 75%. Some cytokine release syndrome was observed in about 60% of patients, but none was greater than grade 2. The authors conclude that this combination is active in untreated multiple myeloma, with manageable toxicity and evidence of responses which appear to deepen over time. The dose-finding component of this trial is continuing and will subsequently progress into a phase 3 trial based on the data from the current study. This will compare daratumumab plus lenalidomide with the same combination plus elranatamab in previously untreated patients. That concludes our special coverage from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Thanks for listening and we hope you have enjoyed listening to our top takeaways from ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer:  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  Find out more about today's speaker:    Dr. John Sweetenham    Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter    @ASCO on Bluesky    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:   Dr. John Sweetenham:    No relationships to disclose

Broadcast from KSQD, Santa Cruz on 5-22-2025: Dr. Dawn explores groundbreaking cancer research using high-throughput "digital twin" analysis to reverse colon cancer cells back to normal states, identifying three master molecular switches that can induce normal cell differentiation without killing the cancer cells, thus avoiding traditional chemotherapy side effects. She discusses remarkable results from Memorial Sloan Kettering showing 80% of patients with mismatch repair deficient tumors, including all 49 rectal cancer patients, saw complete tumor disappearance after six months of dostarlimab immunotherapy, with no recurrence at five years and minimal side effects. The program covers innovative CRISPR applications, including targeting previously "undruggable" cancer mutations like KRAS and BRAF by selectively degrading mutant RNA messages while preserving healthy genes, offering unprecedented precision in cancer treatment. Dr. Dawn explains a clever immunotherapy approach that disguises tumors as pig organs using Newcastle disease virus carrying alpha-gal enzyme, tricking the immune system into mounting fierce attacks against cancer cells, showing promising results in both monkey and human trials. She describes fascinating research using cryoshocked tumor cells as Trojan horses, where liquid nitrogen-treated cancer cells carrying CRISPR gene editing tools directly seek out tumors, offering superior targeting compared to injecting CRISPR. The show reveals how cancers create protective acid walls around themselves to repel immune cells, with individual cancer cells pumping lactic acid away from the tumor center to form pH 5.3 barriers that kill attacking CD8 T cells within hours. Dr. Dawn discusses breakthrough mRNA cancer vaccines for glioblastoma using patients' own tumor cells, showing rapid immune system activation within 48 hours and extending survival in both dogs and humans with this aggressive brain cancer. She explores the "flower code" mechanism where cancer cells gaslight healthy cells through epigenetic manipulation, expressing dominant "flower win" codes to overpower normal cells expressing "flower lose" codes in biological turf wars. The program addresses systemic problems in cancer classification, explaining how organ-based categorization delays access to effective treatments, with patients waiting years for drugs that could help based on molecular profiles rather than tumor location. Dr. Dawn concludes by highlighting medical discrimination against people with Duffy null phenotype, primarily affecting African Americans, whose naturally lower neutrophil counts lead to reduced chemotherapy doses and excluded clinical trial participation despite no increased infection risk.

Tonix Pharmaceuticals Holdings CEO Dr Seth Lederman joined Steve Darling from Proactive to share encouraging preclinical results presented at the American Association for Cancer Research, highlighting the company's novel therapeutic candidate TNX-1700 for gastric cancer. In the study, a murine fusion protein (mTFF2-MSA) was tested, modeling the human fusion version TFF2-HSA currently under development as TNX-1700. Dr. Lederman explained that combining mTFF2-MSA with anti-PD1 immunotherapy significantly reduced tumor immunosuppression in animal models. Specifically, the therapy decreased immunosuppressive neutrophils and cancer-induced granulopoiesis, while stimulating CD8+ T-cell responses that helped inhibit tumor progression. The study also revealed a negative correlation between TFF2 expression and PMN-MDSC levels in gastric cancer patients, supporting the clinical relevance of TFF2 modulation in immuno-oncology. Tonix plans to continue advancing TNX-1700 as a first-in-class fusion protein therapeutic for hard-to-treat cancers. #proactiveinvestors #tonixpharmaceuticalsholdingcorp #nasdaq #tnxp #Biotech #TonixPharmaceuticals #TNX1700 #GastricCancer #CancerResearch #Immunotherapy #PD1Blockers #AACR2025 #BiotechNews #OncologyInnovation #CancerTreatment

Host Roz is joined by Timucin Taner, MD, PhD and Dami Ko, PhD to discuss the key articles of the May issue of the American Journal of Transplantation. Dr. Timucin Taner is a professor of surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Dr. Dami Ko is an assistant professor at the School of Nursing at Northeastern University. [02:51] Development and validation of the Neuro-Score: a specific scale to detect and monitor cognitive impairment in kidney or liver transplant recipients Editorial: Cognitive impairment after liver and kidney transplant: An easy way to check [14:16] Randomized trial investigating the utility of a liver tissue transcriptional biomarker in identifying adult liver transplant recipients not requiring maintenance immunosuppression [20:46] Donor-specific immune senescence as a candidate biomarker of operational tolerance following liver transplantation in adults: Results of a prospective, multicenter cohort study Editorial: Acquired immune tolerance 2.0 [29:10] Major histocompatibility complex and peptide specificity underpin CD8+ T cell direct alloresponse Editorial: Direct and indirect allorecognition—not so different after all?

Description: Co-hosts Ryan Piansky, a graduate student and patient advocate living with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and eosinophilic asthma, and Holly Knotowicz, a speech-language pathologist living with EoE who serves on APFED's Health Sciences Advisory Council, interview Dr. Melanie Ruffner, an Attending Physician with the Division of Allergy and Immunology and the Center for Pediatric Eosinophilic Disorders at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Ruffner describes her work in clinic and the paper she co-authored about pediatric and adult eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). She covers the questions they considered in the paper and the conclusions they reached. Disclaimer: The information provided in this podcast is designed to support, not replace the relationship that exists between listeners and their healthcare providers. Opinions, information, and recommendations shared in this podcast are not a substitute for medical advice. Decisions related to medical care should be made with your healthcare provider. Opinions and views of guests and co-hosts are their own.   Key Takeaways: [:49] Co-host Ryan Piansky introduces the episode, brought to you thanks to the support of Education Partners Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Sanofi, Regeneron, and Takeda. Ryan introduces co-host Holly Knotowicz.   [1:17] Holly introduces today's topic, pediatric and adult eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), and introduces today's guest, Dr. Melanie Ruffner.   [1:23] Dr. Melanie Ruffner is an attending physician with the Division of Allergy and Immunology in the Center for Pediatric Eosinophilic Disorders at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Holly welcomes Dr. Ruffner to Real Talk.   [1:50] As an attending physician in the Center for Pediatric Eosinophilic Disorders at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Dr. Ruffner sees patients who have eosinophilic esophagitis and other eosinophilic disorders, including eosinophilic GI tract disorders.   [2:09] Dr. Ruffner also leads a research group that studies how the immune system causes inflammation in response to certain foods, leading to EoE.   [2:20] Inflammation in the esophagus is tied to other diseases like epithelial barrier dysfunction and fibrosis.   [2:28] Our bodies use many different proteins that allow cells to communicate with one another. One type of signaling protein that causes inflammation is called cytokines.   [2:41] Dr. Ruffner's group is interested in how these signaling proteins called cytokines interact with epithelial cells and how that impacts the oral function of the esophagus in patients with EoE.   [3:02] In training, Dr. Ruffner became interested in eosinophilic esophagitis and other non-IgE-mediated food allergies because we don't have a lot of clear treatments or clear mechanisms that cause them.   [3:21] Dr. Ruffner felt there was a lot of work to be done in that area. It was rewarding to be in clinical encounters with those patients. Often, patients had spent a long time trying to find out what was happening and to find a treatment plan that worked for them.   [4:31] Dr. Ruffner's group sees some patients who have eosinophilic gastroenteritis and patients who are referred for hypereosinophilia with impacts of inflammation in other organ systems.   [5:06] Dr. Ruffner co-authored a paper about pediatric and adult EoE published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. It explored if EoE in pediatric patients and adult patients is a spectrum or distinct diseases.   [5:29] EoE is a chronic allergic condition that affects the esophagus. The esophagus carries food from the mouth to the stomach. In people with EoE, the immune system overreacts to foods and causes inflammation in the esophagus.   [5:47] Eosinophils are a type of white blood cell. Eosinophils infiltrate the tissue in the esophagus of people with EoE. Doctors look for eosinophils in the tissue of the esophagus as a sign that inflammation in the esophagus is EoE.   [6:04] The symptoms of EoE can vary in children and adults. That was one of the things the doctors were interested in when they were thinking about this paper. There are no blood or allergy tests that make it easy to diagnose EoE, which requires an endoscopy.   [6:31] An endoscopy is performed by a gastroenterologist. The gastroenterologists look at the appearance of the esophagus and take biopsies.   [6:49] A pathologist counts the eosinophils in the tissue to determine if there are eosinophils present. If there are more than 15 eosinophils in the high-powered field of the microscope and symptoms and clinical conditions are present, EoE is diagnosed.   [7:25] One of the variables Dr. Ruffner considers is that symptoms can be different in children versus adults. In older adolescents and adults, the classic symptom is difficulty swallowing or dysphagia. That is often caused by fibrosis in the esophagus.   [7:54] In younger children this is often not how EoE presents. They may vomit or refuse food. They may experience more weight loss. Symptoms vary over the lifespan. Pediatric EoE symptoms of nausea and abdominal pain can also show up in adults.   [9:54] Atopy refers to allergic conditions. In the paper, a history of atopy means a history of allergic conditions, like atopic dermatitis, IgE-mediated food allergy, allergic rhinitis, or asthma.   [10:37] These disorders tend to cluster together, over time, because they share many common genetic risks. They cluster in families because some of the genetic risks are the same. Not every family member will have the same atopic or allergic conditions.   [11:07] In families, perhaps one person will have atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis while another will have atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, asthma, and EoE. They may have inherited different genetics or had different environmental exposures.   [11:50] Ryan says that describes his family. They each have different atopic conditions. Ryan got them all! Dr. Ruffner says it describes her family, as well.   [12:26] Dr. Ruffner says it's understandable for families to stress about atopic conditions. Unfortunately, right now, there's no way to predict who will develop which atopic conditions. It's on the minds of the medical and research communities.   [13:10] IgE is an antibody that binds to food allergens and mediates anaphylaxis, usually within 30 minutes, with hives, vomiting, and difficulty breathing. Not everyone with a diagnosed food allergy will be given an epinephrine auto-injector.   [13:44] IgE-mediated food allergies are influenced by type 2 cytokines. Cytokines are immune system signaling proteins that have been labeled as groups. The group that is involved in allergy most heavily is under the label type 2.   [14:15] These type 2 cytokines are responsible for influencing B cells to make IgE. In the tissue in EoE, we find that there is a large amount of these type 2 cytokines present.   [14:37] This is quite relevant because dupilumab, the monoclonal antibody that has been approved to treat EoE, targets type 2 inflammation by blocking type 2 cytokines.   [16:04] Dr. Ruffner says one of the biggest challenges in the field of EoE is we don't have a way to stratify who should get which treatment for EoE. Patients have to choose between diet and pharmacologic therapy.   [16:48] We don't know enough about the inflammatory profiles to give any patient the specific guided information that one therapy would be better than another.   [17:11] Pediatric and adult patients are given the same treatment options. Some dosing, such as proton pump inhibitors and dupilumab, is weight-based so different doses are needed.   [17:36] Over time, people's needs change. From early school age to when people leave home, they may have very different needs. They may do well on diet therapy when their diet is controlled by parents, but, on their own, that may not be the best option for them.   [18:20] Therapy may change over time to support each patient's individual goals. It can be challenging because therapies are imperfect. Each therapy has a percentage probability of success. Not every therapy is guaranteed to work for every individual.   [19:01] There is some flexibility and possibility of switching between therapies to support people. Ryan shares one of his experiences in changing treatments.   [20:03] Some patients are stable on a therapy for a time but then see symptoms creep back up. Dr. Ruffner strongly suggests they talk to their care team for an endoscopy and biopsy to see if they need to switch therapy and if their diet has changed.   [21:31] In young children, Dr. Ruffner sees a much higher incidence of feeding refusal. The child may have a preferred food or a preferred texture like puree, long past when that would be appropriate for the age.   [22:41] It can be very difficult to move past this learned behavior even if remission is achieved through therapy. The child may need feeding therapy to help with that. [22:59] Feeding behaviors in older individuals may be much more subtle. Talk about them with your care team. Needing water to eat, cutting food very small, and fearing to eat around people are common eating behaviors to discuss in older patients.   [23:53] These eating behaviors affect people's well-being deeply because they affect how social they feel when they are around people. Ideally, you want to be around people and share in social times.   [24:16] Holly has used these eating behaviors herself and notices them in other people. When adults come to her for therapy, she asks how many times they refill their water when they eat, and if food ever gets stuck. They are surprised that those are symptoms.   [26:01] Dr. Ruffner says it's important to recognize the difference in symptoms in diagnosing EoE. The main risk factor of EoE is fibrosis, over time. The thought is that early in EoE there is an inflammatory phenotype, but later, there is a fibrotic phenotype.   [26:51] The phenotype refers to the presentation or characteristic of disease. What is the appearance at endoscopy? What do we see in the biopsied tissue? Is there fibrosis or not?   [27:15] This is the crux of the paper: Is this on a spectrum, that the inflammation is driving the fibrosis, or are these two different things altogether? There is some evidence to suggest that the inflammation contributes to this fibrosis over time.   [27:40] One thing that is missing is following a group of patients from the start and having that evidence. There is mechanistic evidence from studies to show that inflammation can contribute to fibrosis. That was one of the discussions in the paper.   [28:29] In endoscopies, something that can be seen with fibrosis or fibrostenotic features is more of an appearance of rings and narrowing of the esophagus. A proportion of patients with strictures or narrowing need to have them dilated.   [29:11] For patients who have dilation, it can help with symptoms significantly. When pathologists look at the tissue with fibrosis, they can see changes in the protein structure. There is more collagen and other changes in the tissue, causing fibrosis.   [30:03] Some patients use adaptive eating behaviors to adapt to significant changes in their esophagus and go for many years without being diagnosed until they present with an impaction when food becomes stuck in their esophagus.   [30:46] This makes EoE a challenging disorder for many because it can be very difficult to diagnose. The journey to a diagnosis is very individual. As a group, adults are much more likely to have fibrosis, leading to dysphagia, strictures, or impaction.   [31:25] Statistically, across all patients, you see fibrosis more in adults than in children.   [32:42] In the paper, Th1 cells are mentioned. Th1 is an immune system term referring to a cell that produces interferon-gamma. Studies show there may be differences in interferon signaling in different age groups but it needs to be studied further.   [33:57] Dr. Ruffner's team had looked at a small group and saw that interferon signaling seemed to be relatively similar between children and adults. Both CD4 and CD8 T cells (types of immune system cells) are potentially producing interferon in the esophagus.   [34:32] More study needs to be done around those immune system cells and their potential significance in EoE, if any.   [35:33] The paper suggests that EoE in children and adults is essentially a spectrum of the same disorder rather than distinct diseases.   [35:42] Aspects of immunology, responses to different treatments across children and adults, the similar responses to diet and different medications, and over time in the same individuals, indicate these are changes and complications over time.   [36:41] Dr. Ruffner suggests that medical researchers need to understand which patients are at the highest risk of complications and work to identify the best treatments to prevent those.   [37:14] Dr. Ruffner is thinking about the response to proton pump inhibitor therapy. One of the things she is looking at is whether or not proton pump inhibitors affect how eosinophils migrate into the tissue.   [37:33] They are finding that it seems that PPIs can decrease the degree of migration of eosinophils into the tissue. They are very interested in looking at that. Ryan says when Dr. Ruffner gets that paper published, she'll have to come back on the show!   [38:06] Ryan thanks Dr. Ruffner. For our listeners who would like to learn more about eosinophilic disorders, including EoE, please visit APFED.org and check out the links in the show notes.   [38:15] If you're looking to find a specialist who treats eosinophilic disorders, we encourage you to use APFED's Specialist Finder at APFED.org/specialist.   [38:24] If you'd like to connect with others impacted by eosinophilic diseases, please join APFED's online community on the Inspire Network at APFED.org/connections.   [38:33] Ryan thanks Dr. Ruffner for participating in the podcast episode. Holly also thanks APFED's Education Partners Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Sanofi, Regeneron, and Takeda for supporting this episode.   Mentioned in This Episode: Dr. Melanie Ruffner, MD, PhD, Attending Physician with the Division of Allergy and Immunology and the Center for Pediatric Eosinophilic Disorders at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia “Pediatric and adult EoE: A spectrum or distinct diseases?” by Stanislaw J. Gabryszewski, Melanie A. Ruffner, and Jonathan M. Spergel   APFED on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram Real Talk: Eosinophilic Diseases Podcast apfed.org/specialist apfed.org/connections   Education Partners: This episode of APFED's podcast is brought to you thanks to the support of Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Sanofi, Regeneron, and Takeda.   Tweetables:   “EoE is a chronic allergic condition that affects the esophagus. The esophagus carries food from the mouth to the stomach. In people with EoE, the immune system overreacts to food allergens and causes inflammation in the esophagus.” — Dr. Melanie Ruffner   “In EoE, there are no blood or allergy tests that make it easy to diagnose EoE without an endoscopy.” — Dr. Melanie Ruffner   “Is EoE on a spectrum, that the inflammation is driving the fibrosis, or are these two different things altogether? There is some evidence to suggest that the inflammation contributes to fibrosis over time.” — Dr. Melanie Ruffner   “When pathologists look at the tissue with fibrosis, they can see the changes in the protein structure.” — Dr. Melanie Ruffner   “There are some folks who have adapted their eating behavior quite significantly and may have quite a number of chronic changes in their esophagus that they have adapted around, and they go for many years without being diagnosed.” — Dr. Melanie Ruffner

An unexpected link between KLRG1 and PD-1, two key immune system proteins, was revealed in a study recently published in Oncotarget. This discovery could help explain why some cancer immunotherapy treatments are less effective for certain patients and lead to new therapeutic strategies. How the Immune System Fights Cancer The immune system is a powerful defense mechanism against cancer, with CD8 T cells acting as the primary soldiers. These specialized immune cells identify and destroy tumor cells. However, cancer can cleverly evade this attack by manipulating immune checkpoints—natural “breaks” on the immune system that prevent it from overreacting and damaging healthy tissue. One of the most studied checkpoints is PD-1 (Programmed Death-1), a receptor on T cells that acts as an “off switch” when activated by tumor cells. This mechanism suppresses the immune response, allowing cancer to grow without control. In response, researchers have developed treatments called PD-1 inhibitors, which block this “off switch” and keep T cells active. The Study: Investigating KLRG1 and PD-1 in Tumor-Fighting T Cells In the study titled “Anti-correlation of KLRG1 and PD-1 expression in human tumor CD8 T cells,” Dr. Steven A. Greenberg from Harvard Medical School analyzed publicly available gene expression data from various cancer types, including lung cancer, melanoma, and colorectal cancer. His goal was to identify immune-related proteins that could complement existing therapies, such as PD-1 inhibitors. Full blog - https://www.oncotarget.org/2025/01/28/a-new-approach-for-cancer-treatment-the-surprising-relationship-between-klrg1-and-pd-1/ Paper DOI - https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28679 Correspondence to - Steven A. Greenberg - sagreenberg@bwh.harvard.edu Video short - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PME2xfyYN18 Sign up for free Altmetric alerts about this article - https://oncotarget.altmetric.com/details/email_updates?id=10.18632%2Foncotarget.28679 Subscribe for free publication alerts from Oncotarget - https://www.oncotarget.com/subscribe/ Keywords - cancer, immunotherapy, KLRG1 About Oncotarget Oncotarget (a primarily oncology-focused, peer-reviewed, open access journal) aims to maximize research impact through insightful peer-review; eliminate borders between specialties by linking different fields of oncology, cancer research and biomedical sciences; and foster application of basic and clinical science. Oncotarget is indexed and archived by PubMed/Medline, PubMed Central, Scopus, EMBASE, META (Chan Zuckerberg Initiative) (2018-2022), and Dimensions (Digital Science). To learn more about Oncotarget, please visit https://www.oncotarget.com and connect with us: Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/Oncotarget/ X - https://twitter.com/oncotarget Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/oncotargetjrnl/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@OncotargetJournal LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/oncotarget Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/oncotarget/ Reddit - https://www.reddit.com/user/Oncotarget/ Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/0gRwT6BqYWJzxzmjPJwtVh MEDIA@IMPACTJOURNALS.COM

BUFFALO, NY - January 21, 2025 – A new #research paper was #published in Oncotarget's Volume 16 on January 20, 2025, titled “Anti-correlation of KLRG1 and PD-1 expression in human tumor CD8 T cells." The study, authored by Dr. Steven A. Greenberg from Harvard Medical School, has discovered a potential new way to improve cancer treatment by studying two key molecules found in immune cells: KLRG1 and PD-1. Analysis of data from cancer patients and healthy individuals revealed that these molecules work in opposite ways in cancer-fighting cells, suggesting that targeting both at the same time could enhance the effectiveness of cancer immunotherapy. “Much effort in the field of immuno-oncology has involved the study of combination therapies, including combinations involving blockade of more than one T cell inhibitory receptor.” The immune system helps fight cancer through specialized cells called T cells. Treatments known as checkpoint inhibitors, which block proteins like PD-1, have been successful in helping these cells attack cancer. However, combining different checkpoint inhibitors has not always provided the expected improvements. This new research focuses on KLRG1, a lesser-known protein, and its relationship with PD-1. The findings suggest that targeting both markers simultaneously could create a stronger and more effective immune response against cancer. Most existing immunotherapy treatments focus only on blocking PD-1, which is commonly found in “exhausted” T cells that struggle to fight cancer. In contrast, KLRG1 is linked to more active, mature T cells that are better at attacking tumors. By blocking both PD-1 and KLRG1, new treatment strategies could help patients with hard-to-treat cancers, such as lung cancer, melanoma, and colorectal cancer. KLRG1 has not been widely studied in cancer immunotherapy, but this research highlights its potential to revolutionize treatment strategies. While current combinations of checkpoint inhibitors have shown only limited improvements, using therapies that target both PD-1 and KLRG1 could lead to more significant and long-lasting benefits. “Whereas much of the T cell inhibitory drug development efforts over the last decade have been focused on combinations of expression-correlated inhibitory receptor targets, the targeting of anti-correlated inhibitory receptors has greater potential to produce supra-additive benefit, and KLRG1 has this distinct property.” Further studies and clinical trials are needed to explore how combining PD-1 and KLRG1 treatments could benefit different types of cancer. If successful, this strategy could open the door for the creation of new combined immunotherapies. DOI - https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28679 Correspondence to - Steven A. Greenberg - sagreenberg@bwh.harvard.edu Video short - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PME2xfyYN18 About Oncotarget Oncotarget (a primarily oncology-focused, peer-reviewed, open access journal) aims to maximize research impact through insightful peer-review; eliminate borders between specialties by linking different fields of oncology, cancer research and biomedical sciences; and foster application of basic and clinical science. Oncotarget is indexed and archived by PubMed/Medline, PubMed Central, Scopus, EMBASE, META (Chan Zuckerberg Initiative) (2018-2022), and Dimensions (Digital Science). To learn more about Oncotarget, please visit https://www.oncotarget.com and connect with us: Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/Oncotarget/ X - https://twitter.com/oncotarget Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/oncotargetjrnl/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@OncotargetJournal LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/oncotarget Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/oncotarget/ Reddit - https://www.reddit.com/user/Oncotarget/ Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/0gRwT6BqYWJzxzmjPJwtVh MEDIA@IMPACTJOURNALS.COM

Professor Nancy Klimas is interviewed about the mechanisms behind how a nebulised medication caused a remarkable recovery from symptoms of ME/CFS and Long COVID in a small group of individuals and her objective to gain the ability to extend this research into a larger population of people with the hope of finding a viable treatment for these diseases.REFERENCES1 Gil A, Hoag GE, Salerno JP, Hornig M, Klimas N, Selin LK. Identification of CD8 T-cell dysfunction associated with symptoms in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and Long COVID and treatment with a nebulized antioxidant/anti-pathogen agent a restropective case series.2 Long COVID the Answers Episode 6:“PEM, Long COVID & It's Management featuring Professor Todd Davenport”3 Appelman B, Charlton BT, Goulding RP, Kerkhoff TJ, Breedveld EA, Noort W, Offringa C,Bloemers FW, van Weeghel M, Schomakers BV, Coelho P., Wüst Rob.C Muscle abnormalitiesworsen after post-exertional malaise in long COVID. Nature communications. 2024Jan 4;15(1):1-54 Oldham WM, Lewis GD, Opotowsky AR, Waxman AB, Systrom DM. Unexplained exertional dyspnea caused by low ventricular filling pressures: results from clinical invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Pulm Circ. 2016 Mar;6(1):55-62. 5 Joseph P, Arevalo C, Oliveira RKF, Faria-Urbina M, Felsenstein D, Oaklander AL, Systrom DM. Insights From Invasive Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing of Patients With Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Chest. 2021 Aug;160(2):642-651. 6 Singh I, Joseph P, Heerdt PM, Cullinan M, Lutchmansingh DD, Gulati M, Possick JD, Systrom DM, Waxman AB. Persistent Exertional Intolerance After COVID-19: Insights From Invasive Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing. Chest. 2022 Jan;161(1):54-63. 7 Joseph P, Pari R, Miller S, Warren A, Stovall MC, Squires J, Chang CJ, Xiao W, Waxman AB, Systrom DM. Neurovascular Dysregulation and Acute Exercise Intolerance in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Pyridostigmine. Chest. 2022 Nov;162(5):1116-1126. 8 Open Medicine Foundation: Dr. David Systrom Discusses OMF's LIFT Clinical Trial

JCO PO authors Dr. Philippe Bedard (Staff Medical Oncologist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and Professor of Medicine at University of Toronto) and Dr. Alberto Hernando Calvo (Medical Oncologist at Vall d´Hebron University Hospital) share insights into their JCO PO article, “Combined Transcriptome and Circulating Tumor DNA Longitudinal Biomarker Analysis Associates With Clinical Outcomes in Advanced Solid Tumors Treated With Pembrolizumab,” one of the top downloaded articles of 2024. Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Drs. Bedard and Hernando Calvo discuss how combined transcriptome and ctDNA longitudinal analysis associates with pembrolizumab outcomes. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, podcast editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Assistant Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma.  Today we are excited to be joined by Dr. Philippe Bedard, Staff Medical Oncologist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center and Professor of Medicine at the University of Toronto, as well as by Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo, Medical Oncologist at the Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, both authors of the JCO Precision Oncology article titled, “Combined Transcriptome and Circulating Tumor DNA Longitudinal Biomarker Analysis Associates With Clinical Outcomes in Advanced Solid Tumors Treated With Pembrolizumab.”  Thank you for joining us today. Phil and Alberto. Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: Thank you. Dr. Philippe Bedard: Great to be with you. Thanks for having us.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: One of the reasons we do this podcast, as some of the listeners who listen to this podcast regularly may know, is to bring in novel approaches and try to understand how the field is moving towards a space where we are understanding biomarkers better. So your manuscript that was published in JCO Precision Oncology fulfills many of those criteria. And interestingly enough, I was at a conference at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer last month earlier in November and a lot of excitement at SITC was revolving around novel transcriptomic biomarkers, proteomic biomarkers or imaging based biomarkers. So could you tell us a little bit about why you started looking at biomarkers? This is an extremely competitive field. Why did you think that looking at the transcriptome is somewhat different from or more interesting from tumor mutational burden PDL-1 than other biomarkers that we currently use? And that question is for you Alberto to start off.  Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: So I think gene expression profiles may have a predictive performance as compared to already existing biomarkers and this was one of the points that we describe in our manuscript. The gene expression signature that we developed back in 2019 at Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology was initially developed based on over 45 different tumor types and tested in over 1000 patients treated with antiPD-1 and anti PDL-1. And back then and in this manuscript, we proved that for instance the gene expression signature VIGex that we developed has a potential complementary role to other predictive biomarkers. In this case, we observe this predictive power with ctDNA dynamics and we then see a correlation with other existing biomarkers such as tumor mutational burden. So I don't think we need to use one or the other, but rather they may have additive predictive power. So we need to better individualize predictive biomarkers based on tumor types and select the best combination possible to improve the performance.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I completely agree that one size does not fit all, especially in the landscape of immunotherapy. From your perspective, when you developed the original signature, how did you choose what genes to look at? I looked at the manuscript, on the methodology side, some of the signatures are pro-inflammatory STING interferon gamma based, so how did you try to identify that these are the 7 to 10 or whatever number of signatures on the transcriptome side? And then why did you try to combine it with ctDNA based changes?  Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: Back in our initial manuscript, published in Med from Cell Press, we developed the VIGex gene expression signature, as I mentioned, with taking into consideration over 1000 tumor samples from FFPE that we can consider real world samples because they are from real patients coming from the clinic notes as part of real investigational protocol doing or performing biopsies on patients. We did observe after doing a VIGex research and doing different tests, we eventually collected these 12 different genes. Because there is a combination of both genes involved in the interferon gamma pathway, we have genes associated with Tregs as well as T cell memory cells. So it's not only looking at genes that are associated with T cell activation or CD8+ T cell infiltration, but also looking at genes that may be overactivated, overexpressed, an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. So it was both selecting genes, the minimum number of genes to do it more scalable and having the minimum dataset of genes and including in the signature genes that are already at targets for immune sequent inhibitors or are being tested in immunotherapy combinations.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you. And Phil, for the sake of our listeners, could you elaborate upon this aspect of using ctDNA? So this was tumor-informed ctDNA from what I understood in the manuscript. You guys basically try to use it to understand changes in the ctDNA with treatment and then try to combine it with the transcriptome signature. How did the idea come up initially and how did you plan on combining this with an RNA-based signature? Because I have seen manuscripts and other data where people are either using one or the other, but not necessarily both together. So how did you guys come up with that idea? Dr. Philippe Bedard: Well, we thought that this was a great opportunity to look at the combination of the transcriptome as well as the ctDNA dynamics because we had run an investigator-initiated phase 2 clinical trial called INSPIRE at our institution at Princess Margaret from 2016 to 2018, where patients across five different tumor groups received single agent pembrolizumab. And we really did a deep dive on these patients where there were tumor biopsies before and while on treatment. We did exome sequencing, we did RNA sequencing to capture the transcriptome. And in a prior analysis, we had partnered with Natera to look at their Signatera assay, which is a bespoke ctDNA assay, to look at ctDNA dynamics using this test and the association with response outcomes as well as survival outcomes. So we thought that this was a really unique data set to try and address the question of whether or not there was complementarity in terms of looking at the transcriptome and transcriptome signatures of IO benefit together with the ctDNA dynamics. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: From a patient treatment standpoint, it sounded like you mostly tried to include individuals who were treated with pembrolizumab. Did this not include individuals who were treated with chemoimmunotherapy or chemotherapy with pembrolizumab? Just pembrolizumab alone? And if that's the case, some of the tumor types there included, from what I remember, ovarian cancer and some other unusual cancers that don't necessarily have approvals for single agent pembrolizumab, but perhaps in the TMB-high setting. So can you elaborate on the patient selection there for the study?  Dr. Philippe Bedard: Yeah, that's a great question. So at the time that the study was designed in 2015, this was really the early days of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, so we didn't have the approvals that we have now in specific tumor types for immunotherapy and chemotherapy combinations. So when the study was designed as an investigator initiated clinical trial, the idea was really to capture patients across different tumor types - so head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, ovarian cancer, triple negative breast cancer, and a kind of mixed histology solid tumor cohort, where we knew that there were some patients who were going to be immunotherapy responsive, where there was already approvals or evidence of single agent activity, and others where the responses were more anecdotal, to try and understand in a phase 2 clinical trial with kind of a deep dive, which patients benefited from treatment and which didn't. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Interesting approach. Going to the results, Alberto, could you help us understand some of the important findings from these data? Because there's different sections of how you tried to look at the response rates, the survival, looking at the immune deconvolution, if you could explain that. Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: So the first thing that we tried was to further confirm the external validation of this immune gene expression signature, VIGex in the INSPIRE asset. So what we observed at VIGex-Hot, the category defined by VIGex-Hot tumor microenvironment, was associated with better progression free survival. After including that in a multivariable analysis adjusted by other biomarkers such as TMB, PDL-1 or tumor type, this was also confirmed for overall survival. So then the next step was to really try to hypothesize if the addition of ctDNA dynamics, taking into consideration the ctDNA quantification at baseline as compared to cycle three, if those dynamics could further improve the predictive performance of VIGex categories taken in the baseline samples. What we did observe was that, for instance, VIGex-Hot tumors in baseline tumor samples that were having a ctDNA decrease, as I mentioned before on cycle three assessment as compared to baseline, were having both better progression free survival and better prognosis overall. Another important finding was the evaluation of response rate across tumor types considering both biomarkers. I would say the most important finding is that when we were considering a cold tumor microenvironment in baseline samples before pembrolizumab initiation plus an increase in ctDNA values, what we observed is that those patients were having a 0% response rate. So this may help as a future strategy either for intensification of immunotherapy regimens in a more individualized way or for an early stop to immunotherapy and try to avoid financial toxicities as well as toxicities for our patients. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: From the data that you showed, it seems that there was a strong correlation, as you sort of mentioned, between individuals that had ctDNA clearance and baseline immune pro-inflammatory signatures. So do you really need the transcriptome signature or could the ctDNA just serve as an easy quick surrogate? Because from a cost standpoint, doing whole transcriptome sequencing or more RNA sequencing or tissue standpoint, where tissue is often limited, can become a big issue. So do you think that validation of this may perhaps more revolve around using ctDNA as an easier metric or surrogate? Or am I overestimating the utility of ctDNA? Dr. Philippe Bedard: I think it's a really good question. In our data set which was relatively small, there were 10 patients who had ctDNA clearance, meaning ctDNA that was positive at baseline was not detected. And so 9 out of those 10 patients, as you alluded to, were VIGex-Hot. So the question is a good one, could you do the same with just ctDNA clearance alone, particularly in identifying these patients who really do well, who have long term disease control on immunotherapy? I think it's a tough question to answer because the field is also changing in terms of sensitivity of detection of ctDNA tests. So we know now that there are newer generations of tests which can detect even at logs down in terms of allele variants in the circulation. So I think we need more data to address the question. I think it is important as to what is the best test, what is the endpoint that we should be using from a drug development point of view in terms of really trying to push and understand which treatment regimens are the most effective and have early readouts in terms of activity. Because we all recognize in the clinic that radiographic response doesn't tell the whole story, especially early radiographic assessments using RECIST or other criteria that we apply in clinical trials. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: From a clinical trial standpoint, we often talk about validation of these studies. You may have heard of other tests where, for example, the NCI iMatch, which is incorporating transcriptome sequencing based approach to stratify patients as an integral biomarker for treatment stratification. Is that something that you guys are thinking of using, this approach where individuals who are signature highly inflamed perhaps get lesser therapies or there's a de-intensification of some sort similar to what people are trying to do with ctDNA-based approaches? Dr. Philippe Bedard: I think that's a great question. I think it makes a lot of sense. And certainly, with the new wave antibody drug conjugates in terms of identifying patients who have expression of targets for antibody drug conjugates, that's very attractive as an approach because we don't necessarily have IHC markers for all of the different targets of antibody drug conjugates. We don't necessarily have IHC markers to completely understand different contributions to the tumor microenvironment and whether or not tumors are inflamed. But it's also a challenging approach too because RNA-seq currently is not a routine clinical test. Sometimes there are issues, particularly in patients who have stored specimens that are formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded in terms of the quality of the RNA for RNA sequencing. And it's not always feasible to get pre-treatment biopsies and turn them around in an approach. So I think it is an attractive approach for clinical trials, but it's a hypothesis that needs to be tested. It's not something that is ready for clinical prime time today in 2024. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: One of the other interesting observations that I came across in your manuscript was that tumor mutational burden, interestingly, did not correlate with signature high tumors. What is the explanation for that? Because generally you would expect a TMB high to perhaps also have an immune gene high signature. Could it have something to do with the tumor types because there was a heterogeneous mixture of tumor type? Or I'm not sure. What else could you possibly think of that you didn't see those correlations or just sample size limitations? Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: Yes. So our findings are consistent with prior data suggesting for instance T cell inflamed gene expression profile was also not correlated with tumor mutational burden and both biomarkers in a prior publication. So to have additive predictive performance for identifying patients most likely to benefit from anti PD-1 regimen, so we somehow were expecting this observation, the fact that both biomarkers are not very correlated. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: So given the proof of concept findings from your study, Phil, what is the next interesting step that you guys are thinking of to expand this? Would you think that a nivolumab-ipilimumab treated cohort would have similar findings? Or is this a treatment specific single agent immunotherapy specific correlation that you found versus something else that you may find in a nivo-ipi cohort or a doublet immune checkpoint cohort?  Dr. Philippe Bedard: The findings are really hypothesis generating. They require additional validation. And you're quite right, there may be nuances in terms of specific tumor types, combinations with other immunotherapy or combinations with chemotherapy or other agents. So I think it would be great if there are other data sets that are collecting this type of information that have ctDNA dynamics and also have transcriptome and potentially exome or genome analysis to look at these types of questions because the field is moving quickly and we really need more data sets in order to understand some of the nuances and greater numbers to validate the signals that we see. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: And one thing, as you said, the field is definitely moving very quickly. I was meeting with a company an hour back and they have an imaging-based approach using fresh tissue to look at pharmacodynamic biomarkers. And I used to work in the NCI with a group that was very interested and they developed an immuno-oncology pharmacodynamic panel that has been used and published in a few clinical trials where they did phosphorylation status. So the final theme that comes out of most of these research based studies that are being done is that one size does not fit all. But the question that comes to my mind is how many things do you necessarily need to combine to get to a predictive biomarker that is useful, that is patient centric, and that perhaps is able to identify the right therapy for the right patient. What is your take on that, Phil?  Dr. Philippe Bedard: Yeah, that's a great question too. The challenge is it depends on the context in terms of what degree of positive predictive value do you need as well as the negative predictive value to drive clinical decisions. So I think in certain situations where you don't have other approved treatment options and with a therapy that is potentially low toxicity and low financial toxicity, then I think the bar is very high in terms of being able to really confidently identify that patients aren't going to benefit. I think the nuance and the challenge becomes when you move into earlier lines of therapy, or when you talk about combinations of agents, or trying to understand within the context of other available options, particularly with treatments that have significant side effect profiles as well as financial risks, then it becomes a much more nuanced question and you really need comparative studies to understand how it fits versus the existing treatment paradigm. So I'm not really answering your question with a specific number because I think it's hard to give you a number. Some of that we also need input from patients in terms of what kind of level of validation do you need and what kind of level of discrimination do you need in order to drive decisions that are meaningful for them. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Definitely early days, as you pointed out. More and more work in this field will hopefully lead us in the direction that we all want to go in.  Now, going to a different aspect of this podcast, which is trying to understand the trajectories for both of you, Phil and Alberto. And as you mentioned, this project seemed to have started in 2015. So I'm guessing there's a history there between Princess Margaret and Vall d'Hebron. Could you highlight that a little bit? And then perhaps, Alberto, after that you could tell us a little bit about your career when you worked at Princess Margaret as a fellow and then now back at Vall d'Hebron. Phil, you as well. Dr. Philippe Bedard: So absolutely. We have a long history of collaborating with Vall d'Hebron in Barcelona. It's really a great cancer institution with a lot of like minded individuals. We have a formal partnership and we have a lot of informal links in terms of scientists and clinicians who we work with and who we collaborate with on early phase clinical trials, as well as through different investigator networks and other translational projects. So this was really how this collaboration came about and we were fortunate to have Alberto, who came to work with us for two years and brought this great idea of looking at this signature they had developed at Vall d'Hebron in their phase one group and applying it to a data set that we had through the INSPIRE clinical trial.  Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Sounds like a very successful academia-academic collaboration, which is very nice to see. So, Alberto, could you tell us a little bit about your career trajectory and how you ended up at Princess Margaret and then back at Vall d'Hebron and what you do currently? Dr. Alberto Hernando-Calvo: Yes. So I did my oncology residency at Vall d'Hebron in Barcelona, Spain. Then I decided to further specialize in early drug development as well as head and neck cancer oncology. So I decided to pursue a clinical research fellowship under the supervision of Phil Bedard, among others. And so we decided to further validate the signature that we had developed both in the cancer genomic lab at Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology and the phase one unit at Vall d'Hebron, and apply the signature that have been originally tested in patients receiving anti PD-1 or anti PDL-1 combinations in early phase clinical trials. In the phase 2 clinical trial of INSPIRE, where we also had ctDNA dynamics and allowed us to test both biomarkers and see that additive predictive power when we were using both. That was one of my research topics under the mentorship of Dr. Bedard and my fellowship at Princess Margaret. And this was one of the manuscripts describing all the findings of this collaboration between Vall d'Hebron and Princess Margaret Cancer Center. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: And then, Phil, if you could highlight some of the things that you've done over the course of your career and perhaps some advice for early career junior investigators and trainees.  Dr. Philippe Bedard: I finished my oncology, medical oncology training at the University of Toronto in 2008. And then I did a breast cancer fellowship in Brussels at Breast International Group. At the time, I was really intrigued because it was really kind of the early days of microarray and RNA signatures in terms of expressing signatures were being used as part of a clinical trial that BIG was running called the MINDACT Study. And so when I finished my fellowship, I came back to Princess Margaret, started on staff. I've been here now for 15 years. I was fortunate to work with the phase 1 group and kind of my career has sort of morphed in terms of early drug development as well as genomics. I've been involved with the American Association for Cancer Research project GENIE, where I'm the current chair. This is really an international data sharing project with panel based sequencing, which both Princess Margaret and Vall d'Hebron have contributed to. And I've been fortunate to work with a number of really talented early career investigators like Alberto, who spend time with us in our drug development program and launched transitional research projects that leverage some existing data sets at their own institutions and also bring together with different research groups at our institution to lead to publications like this one. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much. This was very exciting. Phil and Albert, thanks for joining us today and thank you for allowing us to discuss your interesting manuscript and hopefully we'll see more of this biomarker work from you guys in the near future, perhaps published in JCO Precision Oncology.   And thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts.     The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

Dr Philip Smith, Digital and Education Editor of Gut and Honorary Consultant Gastroenterologist at the Royal Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, UK, interviews Professor Jihui Hao from the Department of Pancreatic Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin, China, on the paper "CD64+ fibroblast-targeted vilanterol and a STING agonist augment CLDN18.2 BiTEs efficacy against pancreatic cancer by reducing desmoplasia and enriching stem-like CD8+ T cells" published in paper copy in Gut in December 2024. A close transcript of this podcast is available at this link: https://bit.ly/3Ox8Io2 Please subscribe to the Gut podcast on your favourite platform to get the latest podcast every month. If you enjoy our podcast, you can leave us a review or a comment on Apple Podcasts (https://apple.co/3UOTwqS) or Spotify (https://spoti.fi/3Ifxq9p).

Flu Vaccines: Advancements, Challenges, and Global Impact – Expert Insights on Vaccine Platforms and Immune ResponsesIn this phenomenal episode, three leading experts in the field of vaccinology and immunology dive into the science behind various vaccine platforms and immune responses. Tune in as they explore the evolution of vaccines, from early, early vaccine platforms to cutting-edge technologies, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.  In a dynamic, educational conversation, we hear about the quest for the holy grail, the crucial role of CD8 T-cells, and the global challenges of vaccine accessibility and hesitancy.Join Professor Ab Osterhaus, ESWI Executive Committee Member and Director of the Center of Infection Medicine and Zoonosis Research at the University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Germany; ESWI Board Member Florian Krammer, Professor of Vaccinology at the Department of Microbiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and Professor for Infection Biology at the Medical University of Vienna; and ESWI Associate Member Carolien van de Sandt, Senior Research Fellow, Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the Peter Doherty Institute, Australia in this thought-provoking discussion on the future of vaccines and global health.With the support of Moderna and Viatris.

In this week's episode we'll discuss how CD8+ T-cell differentiation and dysfunction inform treatment response in acute myeloid leukemia; learn more about the effect of ATM germline pathogenic variants on the outcomes in children with ataxia-telangiectasia and hematological malignancies; and discuss the preclinical efficacy of a potent, selective menin-KMT2A inhibitor JNJ-75276617 in KMT2A- and NPM1-altered leukemias.Featured Articles:CD8+ T-cell differentiation and dysfunction inform treatment response in acute myeloid leukemiaATM germ line pathogenic variants affect outcomes in children with ataxia-telangiectasia and hematologicalmalignanciesPreclinical efficacy of the potent, selective menin-KMT2A inhibitor JNJ-75276617 (bleximenib) inKMT2A- and NPM1-altered leukemias

A video snippet of our conversation. Full videos of all Ground Truths podcasts can be seen on YouTube here. The audios are also available on Apple and Spotify.Shane Crotty: A Landmark Study on Upper Airway Mucosal ImmunityTranscriptThis is the first time a Ground Truths podcast is being posted simultaneous with a new publication, this one in Nature, by Professor Shane Crotty and his colleagues at La Jolla Institute for Immunology. Shane is one of the leading immunologists and virologists in the country; he and his group published in 2020 the first detailed analysis for how our immune system responds to SARS-CoV-2. Shane also, among many other notable contributions during COVID, illuminated the role of hybrid immunity vs COVID, the differences between and additivity of vaccination and infection.Today's paper in Nature is indeed a landmark contribution doing something that hasn't been done before—to understand the underpinnings of mucosal immunity of the upper airway. 100 participants had monthly nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs throughout the pandemic. With a median of >100,000 cells per swab recovered, they undertook single-cell sequencing and full characterization of the cells (tissue-resident memory B cells, CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, germinal center follicular helper T cells and B cells, etc.) to determine optimal immune protection of the upper airway, the effect of infections by different variants, breakthrough infections, vaccination, and age.Here is the transcript of our conversation about the new report with links to the audio:Eric Topol (00:06):Hello, it's Eric Topol with Ground Truths, and with me today is Professor Shane Crotty from the La Jolla Institute of Immunology (LJI), not too far away from where I work at Scripps. And Shane has been a go-to immunologist colleague here in the Mesa, and he and his colleagues were the ones that really first published the response to SARS-CoV-2 as far as the immunologic response. And today we're doing something very unique. We're going to go over for the first time in the two year plus history of Ground Truths, going to have a publication with at least simultaneous or near simultaneous podcast. Shane, welcome and congratulations on this really important paper in Nature.Shane Crotty (00:57):Thanks, Eric. Thanks for having me. Yeah, somebody asked if I was going to go over to Scripps for the podcast and I was like, yeah, we could.Eric Topol (01:06):You could. You could. But no, it's good. And it's nice having the logo of this great institute you work at right in the right corner. And you've done so many contributions with your colleagues at La Jolla Institute. It's really a privilege to have a chance to learn from you and particularly about what we're going to talk about today, which is mucosal immunity to upper airway infections, which is especially germane to COVID. And we're actually in the middle of a significant wave of COVID right now. And I guess it would maybe be fair to say, Shane, that we've never truly understood the underpinnings, the real details of upper airway mucosal immunity. Is that a fair statement?Shane Crotty (01:53):Yeah, it is a fair statement.Eric Topol (01:56):Okay. So today we're going to crack the case. This paper from you and your colleagues, of course, you're the senior author and first author, Sydney Ramirez did a remarkable study. I mean, just extraordinary. This is why we're doing a special podcast about it. Maybe you could just kind of give us the overview of the design because you were doing things that haven't been done before.Shane Crotty (02:24):Sure. And, I would say the genesis even of it goes back to what you were introducing. I mean, during the pandemic, we like a lot of scientists spent a lot of time and energy trying to help understanding immune responses to this virus, and immune memory to this virus, and what was involved in protective immunity. And we're certainly proud of the work that we did. And it was hard work. And after a while we were exhausted and we stopped.Shane Crotty (02:59):And then we came back to it after a while and said, well, the virus is still here. And so many people have contributed so much to better understanding the virus and creating vaccines. But there are clearly still things we don't understand. What are those biggest knowledge gaps and where might we be able to contribute? And really to me the biggest one was location, location, location. This is a virus that infects your nose, infects your upper airway—your nose, and throat, and oral cavity. And then obviously if you get severe disease, the severe disease and death are from the lungs. And it's just been a big knowledge gap in terms of understanding what actually occurs in those tissues immunologically and what is associated with protective immunity or what could be associated with protective immunity. And sort of looking forward what might be helpful for mucosal vaccine development from things that we could learn.Shane Crotty (04:12):So we started from what we would call the basics, and what does immune memory look like in the upper airways in normal people? And that hasn't been available really even in, and we started this two years ago, even in the biggest atlases published of the human body. There was no upper airway tissue representation at all. And that's because technically it's just tough to access and difficult to reproducibly get at. And so, we recruited people to a group of 20 to 30 people to come to LJI once a month, and just started testing out, published and unpublished sampling techniques to see were there ways where we could reproducibly sample immune cells in the upper airways from people. And once we got things, so the keys for us were you got to have enough cells that you can collect to learn something from. And luckily with modern techniques of flow cytometry and single cell sequencing, you don't need that many cells. And so, we could get a hundred thousand cells on a swab and that's enough to do a lot with. And second, how reproducible was it? So we showed, we had people come in every month for a year and we could reproducibly find the same things in their swab; same cell types in their swabs. And the third thing was that people would come back.Shane Crotty (06:05):We found that if you have good nurses doing the techniques, we could find ways that this would be a sampling approach that was tolerable and people would come back for repeat measures, which is really valuable to see what's happening in people over time. So that was what we started from in the study and built from.Eric Topol (06:27):And if I am correct, you sampled two places with the swabs, one in the nose and one of the throat. Or, I think one which you have in the paper as the MT for something about the median nasal turbinate and the other adenoid in the back of the throat. Is that right?Shane Crotty (06:50):So all the sampling is a swab into your nose. And when we were doing that, we were really excited to see the diversity of immune cells, particularly T cells and B cells, memory T cells and B cells that we isolated. They're like, wow, there's actually a lot of interesting immune memory up in there. And the lab said, oh, by the way, we're seeing T follicular helper cells (TFH). Now that happens to be my favorite cell type.Eric Topol (07:22):Why is that, Shane? Of all the cells, why do you say that's your favorite? I know you publish a lot on it.Shane Crotty (07:31):Because those are the T cells that are required for basically all neutralizing antibody responses. All high-quality antibody responses depend on—almost all high-quality antibody responses depend on—T cell help. That T cell help comes from T follicular helper cells. Antibody evolution is certainly one of the coolest processes of the immune system. And all of that depends on T follicular helper cells. So the fact that for example, you could get Omicron neutralizing antibodies even after only being vaccinated with ancestral vaccine, that's the immune system making guesses of what variants would look like. And those guesses come about through this antibody evolution that's driven by T follicular helper cells. So, it's really one of the most brilliant things the immune system does, and that's a cell type that's really key, but those processes happen in lymphoid tissue. That's what happens in lymph nodes and spleen. And here we were sampling epithelium, your nasal epithelium, so the cells didn't really belong there.Shane Crotty (08:37):And so, that's what turned the study in another direction. And we said, okay, let's figure out why is it that these cells are present in these swabs? And we had a couple of possibilities. One possibility was that the swab was going all the way back to the posterior wall of your nasopharynx, your top of your throat and sampling adenoid tissue. So adenoid tonsils and adenoids are a true lymphoid tissue and they're a mucosal lymphoid tissue. And so, we came up with multiple ways to validate that that's what we were testing. And in fact, it was the Sydney Ramirez, a clinician, and the ENTs involved who said, well, let's just look. And so, they actually did endoscopies with the swab to actually see where the swab went. We've got videos of the swabs going into the adenoid crypt in the back, and then we've got measurements of here are the cells that you find on those swabs.Shane Crotty (09:58):And what's cool about it is that, yes, so we did studies with two sets. We then shifted to doing studies with two sets of swabs. One where we essentially went “halfway back” where we were detecting that epithelium of your nasal passages and then one where it was all the way back and detecting the adenoid lymphoid tissue. So here we've got two different sites in your upper airways that are about an inch apart, and we're detecting essentially completely different cells of the immune system at those two places. And we tend to think of the cells present in that epithelial tissue as probably the sentinels, the cells that are sitting there that can potentially immediately react and try and protect you against a viral or bacterial infection. Whereas the lymphoid tissue, the adenoids, is really about generating the immune responses in the first place and priming immune responses. And that's where these germinal centers can occur, which are where the TFH are where you can get antibody evolution. And so, we found in the course of the study that with this non-invasive technique that we can.Eric Topol (11:14):By the way, I don't want to be signing up for the one way up there because I mean just a mid-nose enough for me. So wow, I got to give credit to your study participants for coming back every month for a year to have that. Some people call it a brain biopsy.Video of swab of nasopharyngeal tissueShane Crotty (11:33):Right. So I will tell you, it is a different experience than the COVID nasopharyngeal swab might've gotten through your car window. If you're actually sitting down in a comfortable space and there's a nurse doing it with these particular goals. We really found, we had a hundred people in the study and a total of 300 swabs, and the vast majority of people came back if we asked them to.Eric Topol (12:06):That's great.Shane Crotty (12:07):And we're certainly very thankful for the volunteers. Obviously they were volunteering in the first place to participate. So I'm a little hesitant about the video because I've told people to not show it to potential volunteers because it definitely doesn't encourage you to volunteer. You're like, wait, that's what's happening? But actually, I've had it done on me.Video of the swab to the nasopharynx for adenoid (lymphoid tissue) access.Eric Topol (12:37):Not that bad.Shane Crotty (12:39):It's really pretty compelling. And by doing these repeated samples, we actually now have the capacity to look at ongoing immune responses like after an infection or vaccination in people and see how that results in the immune system changing and what might be the source of the protective immunity that comes up. So we've actually got data in the paper looking at this antibody evolution in real time. So we've got affinity maturation of B cells occurring in just normal healthy adults of mucosal B cells against COVID. And so, that's really helping us learn what's possible, basically to figure out, okay, if you're going to try and make a vaccine, what types of immune cells are even possible to generate in this tissue? And where might you try and generate them? Or if you're trying to study some disease state, what are types of cells that might be problematic?Eric Topol (13:45):Yeah, I mean, I think the idea that so many of us have been pushing for a nasal vaccine to induce mucosal immunity because, as you know very well, the current shots are not very good at any durable or substantial protection from upper airway infections of COVID or SARS-CoV-2 and other infections. So I think one of the most important parts of this report is that it lends itself well to helping towards artificially, if you will, make a vaccine to get the protective features that you were able to identify. Maybe you could just [speculate], if you had the ideal nasal airway, what would the cellular profile look like?Shane Crotty (14:44):Ah, I see. Yeah, great question. So, first of all, antibodies are great. So most of my career has been dedicated to most licensed vaccines. The correlate of protection is antibodies. Antibodies clearly can be protective, and if you can get them that's excellent, so certainly I would want, in terms of the non-cellular component, I would want antibodies present, neutralizing antibodies present in it.Eric Topol (15:26):Are these IgA or IgG?Shane Crotty (15:31):Yeah, in an ideal situation, what would I want? I'd want a mix of both, basically. The IgAs look like they have a little more protective efficacy, but the IgGs, just at a molecular level have a longer half-life, stick around a little. So yeah, I'd want both. And then really the premise for most of what we do is saying, in situations where antibody isn't enough or the antibodies don't stay around long enough, or you've got a variant that now obviates the protective efficacy of that particular antibody, are there other types of protective immunity you can have? And the immune system has other stuff besides antibodies for a reason. Of the lymphocytes in your blood, most of them aren't antibody producing cells. Most of them are other things. And so, well sticking with adjacent to antibodies, those antibodies in the mucosa, I'd want them to be made by cells that were literally right there. So plasma cells living in that site so that you've got basically the highest concentration of antibodies you can get because they're not having to diffuse through the whole body. They're just already at their highest concentration right there. Now antibodies come from B cells, that's what encodes the antibodies.Shane Crotty (17:03):And so, the B cells can make neutralizing antibodies if it turns out that you haven't made enough neutralizing antibodies, or if there's a variant that escapes those, maybe there are other B cells that could make, once you get infected, more B cells that could make more antibody rapidly infection, or B cells that recognize this variant that is mismatched to the current antibodies you have. But memory B cells are basically a library of different antibody specificities representing different guesses about what viral variants or structures might look like. And so, I would want memory B cells in that upper airway tissue that could reactivate quickly. There are memory B cells in your blood and we don't know how long it takes. And that's one of the reasons we're hoping we and others build upon this study. But it might take, let's say five days for memory B cells to go from your blood into your upper airway.Eric Topol (18:06):Oh, right.Shane Crotty (18:08):That's right, you were already quite sick by that point. Instead, if memory B cells are right there, as soon as virus showed up, they got activated. Now maybe after (we're not sure yet), but maybe after 48 hours those cells are now activated and doing something useful. That would be optimal. So then we can pivot to the T cell side. So there's a fantastic recognition that T cells being physically present in tissues, tissue resident memory cells, as they're most often called, can really have fantastic protective capacities. From a lot of mouse model systems where you can see T cells are in the skin or the liver, or whatever [tissue] are already there, they're more protective than if the cells are in the blood. So if you could also have T cells essentially permanently parked in the epithelium of your nasal passages and in the adenoid, hopefully those could essentially be sentinels for protective immunity, and as soon as you get infected, those T cells would reactivate and start killing off infected cells. 'That's the mix that I would want to see. And I think there's at least some reasonable evidence in the context of COVID that people who have T cells in their upper airways maybe manage to control the virus so quickly that it's a subclinical infection; they never notice when they get infected. And so, building on those types of observations, that's what I would want.Eric Topol (19:56):That sounds good. I like that. I'd like to have that in my nasal airway. Now, just to make sure I've got this, what you found, of course, the memory B cells, the T cell memory, CD8+, that is the cell-killing T cells that you mentioned, the resident T cells. One clarification on that, they are not really going to do much until there's been some cells that have been infected with the virus, right? Then they come alive and kill those cells. So they're not immediate, but they can work pretty quickly still though, right? If they're resident T cells?Shane Crotty (20:45):Yeah, in theory it might take as little as 12 hours for a virus to infect a cell, and then you get some antigen presentation on that cell that could activate the T cell.Eric Topol (20:58):And that's all happening perhaps within the incubation phase of the virus, right?Shane Crotty (21:07):Correct. That's a tough thing to study, but conceptually that's the way people tend to sketch it out.Eric Topol (21:13):Right. Now the other part of the story is, and you alluded to it earlier, is the lymphoid tissue up there, higher up where there are these germinal centers; is there anything different you want in these germinal centers? Do they contribute to mucosal immunity that you haven't already mentioned?Shane Crotty (21:36):So they really contribute in this forward looking sense or really in the classroom kind of sense. The germinal centers are where you're basically teaching the B cells in advance of seeing the infection either with your vaccine or with your previous infection, evolving better B cells and better antibodies and hopefully instructing them where to go reside to then be ready for the next infection. If you get really great protection that next time, hopefully then you don't need to start.Eric Topol (22:14):Right. So it's like the training grounds for this coordinated response, I guess. Now you also noted this, I mean this is a rich paper, which is we're illuminating something that's never been done before in human beings. I mean it's pretty damn important and impressive. But you also found that you had an age relationship. Can you tell us about that?Shane Crotty (22:39):Sure. This is one of our favorite parts of the study. I'd say in particular for several of the clinicians who were involved, because the general conversations people have about upper airway lymphoid tissue, like your tonsils and including your adenoids, is that adults don't really have functional lymphoid tissue in the upper airway that your tonsils atrophy by the time maybe you're 20 or something. So, immunologically, functionally, what that means is if you have let's say an intranasal vaccine or you get infected with a new [virus] like SARS-CoV-2, if those would normally be the sites that start your immune response, where does it now happen? And instead what we saw was, we had such a diverse group of people in our studies—we realized we had people from age 18 to 68—and so we could directly ask, in normal healthy individuals across a large age span of adulthood is there functional mucosal lymphoid tissue? And the answer was yes, it was there. But it definitely declines over time, and it's declining on a log scale. Our simplest statement was that 75% of everybody we sampled still had functional tissue, but the younger the people were, the more functional it was, and the more germinal centers actually we saw; again these training grounds.Eric Topol (24:35):So this is really important because we know for COVID and obviously for influenza and other respiratory infections that people of advanced age are much more susceptible. And here you are finding something that supports that ,and it's almost like, the thymus, it involutes. After that, what age 20, and our lymphoid tissue [involutes]. We're just set up to fail. Old codgers, like me we're defenseless, I guess, right?Shane Crotty (25:12):So what I've liked about that in a positive sense is that it's not that all of these things go to zero. Like for example, naive T cells are definitely less abundant in people over the age of 60 than under, but they're not zero. And the mucosal lymphoid tissue is definitely less abundant in people over the age of 60, but in most people it still wasn't zero. And I always think about these things from a vaccine immunology perspective, and fundamentally the difference between getting vaccinated and infected frequently is that the whole point of the vaccine is you get to generate the immune response on your own time. And so, even if you're starting with five times fewer T cells or five times fewer germinal centers, if you're getting to do all that training ground in advance, you can end up with just as many bispecific T cells as a 20-year-old or just as many memory B cells as a 20-year-old because these things occur on an exponential scale because of the cell divisions. And so, it might take you three extra days, for example, to get to the same level, which again, if you're racing a virus, can be the difference between life and death. But if it's not a race and if you're doing it in the context of a vaccine, it's a much smaller factor. And that's some of what we've been trying to learn.Eric Topol (26:42):Now we only have started to scratch the surface of your findings. One of the things that drives me nutty in reading papers, especially from great immunologists like you, is that in each figure there's like 20 different panels. We get to one of the figures, figure three is all the way to panel W. I mean that starts with A. That gives you a little impression of the data. It's rich, another one goes to N or R. I mean we're talking about a lot of data. So I've only started to really deconvolute what you've done here, which is just an amazing study. But what are some other things that we should touch on before wrapping up?Shane Crotty (27:35):A lot of the goal in this study was to establish baselines of what is normal in humans in the upper airways. And that's one reason why in this case there actually are a lot of figure panels because we could work out a bunch of individual parts of the immune system that really hadn't been characterized in this way before. And something we really cared about was durability of immune memory. It's often talked about, well, mucosal responses are inherently short-lived. And we're like, well, what does that mean? Does that mean there's just no memory? Is it different kinds of memory? And so, this is the first measurement of memory B cells in this tissue in an antigen specific way. And we were doing it in people who had had recent COVID breakthrough infections. And we saw really the mucosal memory was stable for six months. And so, to me that's quite encouraging that it's not one month and it's gone, at least with an infection, it's at least six months and it looks like it'll project out for substantially longer.Shane Crotty (28:53):Amongst those cells, many of them are IgA. IgA is this antibody isotype that's particularly mucosal associated. And only 5% of the memory B cells circulating in blood were IgA. Whereas many of the memory B cells in the local tissue were IgA, which we think is also telling us that there's a lot of immune memory and the immune system in this tissue that we're probably not sampling in the blood. And so, sampling blood's great, right? It's accessible and we can learn a lot from it, but it does look like there is some tissue compartmentalization.Eric Topol (29:37):Oh, not a question. And the findings you had of the resident T cell is so indicative of that. And what's really striking, of course Shane, is that as we assess the immune system in people at large, we look at a lymphocyte neutrophil ratio [in the blood], we get almost nothing. And then in the course of the pandemic, you and your colleagues there provided such granular data on B and T cells, CD4 and CD8 T cells, and that you illuminated things that are not done ever clinically. These are research, high tier research labs like yours. The only question I have on before I just wrap up with the nasal vaccine story, interferon wasn't really part of this. As we know SARS-CoV-2 can shut down the interferon response, it's considered a frontline part of the defense. Where does that fit into the mucosal immunity of the upper airway?Shane Crotty (30:46):Yeah, it's really important. And that's in this basic divide we do in the immune system, the innate immune system and the adaptive immune system. So everything I was talking about is the B cells, the T cells, and antibodies. That's all the adaptive immune system. That's all virus specific. And then the innate immune system is the generalists, and really sort of the fire alarm, just sensing some danger. And definitely in COVID interferon is very important. I'm quite intrigued to see if using these techniques. I'm curious to see if some of these other aspects of the immune system can compensate somewhat for the fact that this virus. To me, if this virus has one superpower, it's its incredible ability to evade triggering interferon for as long as it does. And that has this massive cascading effect to almost everything about the pandemic essentially. And so, I'm intrigued by whether in people who have immunity are there ways that these other cells of the immune system or even antibodies can do things when a viral infection occurs, that helps trigger the overall immune system to recognize that something's there, even in the absence of type 1 interferons. That's where I think for now it fits in.Eric Topol (32:14):Well. I think you've so aptly described, not surprisingly, the superpower of SARS-CoV-2, which I think a lot of people haven't realized that it's so good at shutting down that defense system. Now on the basis of you having really gotten this understanding of the mucosal immunity in the upper airway, does this make you think that the nasal vaccine that we aspire to have is more of a reality? Do you kind of know what the ideal profile might look like to keep people healthy and resist infections? Do you think this is achievable in any durable sense at high level success with a nasal spray vaccine?Shane Crotty (33:04):I'm optimistic for several reasons. One is we really saw a lot of different immune memory cell types that were present, that was encouraging and seeing the B cell memory durability for at least six months—pretty flat line for that six months—was encouraging. It looks like the immune system knows how to keep these cells around if it wants to for a significant period of time. We'll have to do more in follow up. But again, it was encouraging. Third, we had some people who were vaccinated only and some people who had breakthrough infections. And really in the vaccinated only, we didn't see T cell memory in the upper airways. And I actually consider that encouraging because it suggests local exposure does give you the memory and exposure in your arm really doesn't. So I think there is something to improve upon. It can be improved upon. And lastly, I get asked all the time, I'm sure you get asked all the time: Why aren't there more intranasal vaccines or inhaled vaccines, more mucosal vaccines in some way?Shane Crotty (34:25):And I think there's more than one reason, but I tend to be very practical, and I think one practical reason is there's very little to measure, to guide you in your vaccine development. If you have six ideas or six constructs that you think might work in humans as a nasal vaccine, you basically just have to pick one, try something, and hoping there's not much you can measure it clinical trials for what might be the type of response even. So for example, the FluMist vaccine, it's the only licensed inhaled vaccine, intranasal vaccine. In adults it doesn't have a clear correlate of protection. If you get vaccinated with that, your circulating antibody responses don't increase, but also increases in nasal antibody didn't correlate with protection well. So, what does that mean? That probably means there's other things going on up there that could be indicative of protection but weren't being measured before. So I'm hopeful with these types of approaches. Now, if you're an intranasal vaccine developer, you maybe have 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ideas or constructs. If you can try those in a few people and make these different measurements and you've got your favorite immune profile that you might, now you have something to, it's more of an engineering problem. It's not a throwing a dart problem. You're like, yeah, this has given me the type of response that I like and I'm going to try and push this into clinical trials. So those are the things that I'm optimistic about moving forward.Eric Topol (36:04):Well, I love it because we really need it. And if anybody's optimistic that means a lot; it's yours. What you've done here has been quite extraordinary because you defined for the first time really the underpinnings of the mucosal immune response, the upper airway, you did it by age, you did it by variant, you did it by vaccine and infection. And most importantly, perhaps for longer term is you established what are the desirable features to have, which didn't exist before. It seemed like whatever I read for nasal vaccines, they were measuring some IgA or IgG, and they didn't get down to the memory B cells and the tissue resident T cells, memory cells, and all these other things that you found. You did all this single cell sequencing and flow cytometry. The work is just really fantastic. So Shane, just in closing, I just want to congratulate you.Eric Topol (37:05):You made seminal findings along the pandemic. You were the one that really illuminated hybrid immunity, the advantage of if you don't want to have an infection of COVID, but if you did have that and a vaccine, you kind of had some extra synergy, if you will. But here you've done something, you and your team. Unique. Congratulations on that. No surprise that it's in Nature this week. I'm sure a lot of people will share your optimism that we will have something beyond just shots in the future because COVID isn't going away. There's other respiratory pathogens. And finally, somebody did the right study, who knows immunology inside and out. So Shane, thanks very much.Shane Crotty (37:52):Thanks Eric. Very much appreciated particularly coming from you.*****************************************Thanks for listening, reading or watching!The Ground Truths newsletters and podcasts are all free, open-access, without ads.Please share this post/podcast with your friends and network if you found it informativeVoluntary paid subscriptions all go to support Scripps Research. Many thanks for that—they greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for 2023 and 2024.Thanks to my producer Jessica Nguyen and Sinjun Balabanoff for audio and video support at Scripps Research.Note: you can select preferences to receive emails about newsletters, podcasts, or all I don't want to bother you with an email for content that you're not interested in. Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

On this episode of JHLT: The Podcast, the JHLT Digital Media Editors explore two studies from the July issue of The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation. Digital Media Editor Marty Tam, MD, a transplant cardiologist from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, hosts this episode.   First, Dr. Tam and Digital Media Editor Erika Lease, MD, FCCP, interview their first guest, Daniel Calabrese, MD, first author on the study “Macrophage and CD8 T cell discordance are associated with acute lung allograft dysfunction progression.” The study's authors sought to tackle challenges behind early detection of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) by identifying biomarkers associated with acute lung allograft dysfunction (ALAD) progression to CLAD.   To do this, they collected bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) cells at the time of ALAD diagnosis and performed single cell RNA sequencing to identify significant differences in 26 unique cell populations across groups, with discordant CD8 T cells and macrophages providing the best discrimination between ALAD with decline from ALAD with recovery and controls.   Dr. Calabrese discusses how his team identified the diagnostic criteria, why the biomarkers might lead ALAD to progress to CLAD, and how the findings might lead to early targeted therapies.   Next, Dr. Tam joins and Digital Media Editor Khue Ton, MD and David Schibilsky, MD, to interview their next guest, David D'Alessandro, MD, the Surgical Director of Cardiac Transplantation and MCS at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. Dr. D'Alessandro was the first author on the study “Impact of controlled hypothermic preservation on outcomes following heart transplantation,” which sought to assess the impact of the Paragonix SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System, a device allowing controlled hypothermic  preservation, on rates of primary graft dysfunction (PGD) and post-transplant mortality.   The key finding was that controlled hypothermic preservation was associated with a lower incidence of severe PGD – 6.6% compared to ice storage at 10.4%. In the conversation, Dr. D'Alessandro answers questions about the need for innovation over traditional ice cold storage, the greatest advantages of controlled hypothermic approaches, and the next steps in this research.   Follow along at www.jhltonline.org/current, or, if you're an ISHLT member, access your Journal membership at www.ishlt.org/jhlt.   Don't already get the Journal and want to read along? Join the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation at www.ishlt.org for a free subscription, or subscribe today at www.jhltonline.org.

Host Roz is joined by AJT Associate Editor Orla Morrissey, MD (Monash University) and AJT Editorial Fellow Elena-Bianca Barbir, MD (Mayo Clinic-Rochester). [3:16] The respiratory syncytial virus vaccines are here: Implications for solid organ transplantation [19:14] Association between cytomegalovirus viremia and long-term outcomes in lung transplant recipients [35:40] Genetic versus self-reported African ancestry of the recipient and neighborhood predictors of kidney transplantation outcomes in 2 multiethnic urban cohorts [EDITORIAL] Untangling genetic and environmental risks in kidney transplant outcomes: The interplay of self-identified race, genetic ancestry, monogenic risk alleles, and socioeconomic factors [45:15] Low-affinity CD8+ T cells provide interclonal help to high-affinity CD8+ T cells to augment alloimmunity [53:44] Outcomes in solid organ transplant recipients with a pretransplant diagnosis of melanoma

Host Roz is joined by AJT Executive Guest Editor Nadim Mahmud, MD, MPH (University of Pennsylvania) and AJT Editorial Fellow Tina Marinelli, MBBS, MPH&TM,  FRACP (Royal Prince Alfred Hospital).   [03:10] Semidirected Living Donors in Israel: Sociodemographic Profile, Religiosity, and Social Tolerance   [11:54] TCRseq Reveals Selected Donor-reactive CD8+ T cell Clones Resist Anti-Thymocyte Globulin Depletion after Kidney Transplantation   [18:47] Natural killer cell functional genetics and donor-specific antibody-triggered microvascular inflammation   [26:36] Surgical site infections after kidney transplantation are independently associated with graft loss   [38:26] Introduction to Virtual Special Issue, Insights into ACLF: From Pathogenesis to Interventions   [39:21] Immunopathogenesis of acute on chronic liver failure   [43:43] Geographic disparities in access to liver transplant for advanced cirrhosis: Time to ring the alarm!

TWiV reviews a fatal Alaskapox case, MERS in Kenya, diagnostic tests for Nipah and Lassa diseases, HPV vaccination rates in the US, cases of measles in Arizona and Minnesota, hepatitis C virus-derived RNA circles in infected cells, and prevention of respiratory virus transmission by resident memory CD8+ T cells. Hosts: Vincent Racaniello, Dickson Despommier, Alan Dove, and Brianne Barker Subscribe (free): Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, RSS, email Become a patron of TWiV! Links for this episode MicrobeTV Discord Server MicrobeTV store at Cafepress Become a member of ASV (asv.org) Research assistant position in Rosenfeld Lab CBER/FDA (pdf) The New City by Dickson Despommier Viruses of Microbes 2024 Fatal case of Alaskapox (AK Beacon) MERS in Kenya (Emerg Inf Dis) Diagnostic tests for Nipah and Lassa (CEPI) Measles in Arizona and Minnesota HCV-derived circular RNAs (PNAS) Resident memory CD8 T cells prevent respiratory virus transmission (Nature) Letters read on TWiV 1087 1:24:33 Timestamps by Jolene. Thanks! Weekly Picks Dickson – Visualizing Science: Illustration and Beyond Brianne – Vaccination from the Misinformation Virus and Invisible Corps Alan – Preventing needlephobia in kids Vincent – Two new Djs I discovered Rosana Nun and Sunset Cartel Intro music is by Ronald Jenkees Send your virology questions and comments to twiv@microbe.tv

Arnold Han, MD PhD, of Columbia University, was awarded the 2022 Beyond Celiac and SSCD Early Career Investigator Grant to investigate the role of CD8 T-cells in celiac disease. Thus far, Dr. Han's innovative research has found more precise ways that gluten sets off damage to the intestine in those who have celiac disease, which he believes could help in the development of innovative approaches to finding a treatment. In our discussion, Han reveals what he's discovered so far through this research and where he hopes it leads in the future. Special thanks to our friends at Crunchmaster Crackers for sponsoring this event! To hear more episodes of Celiac Straight Talk, visit https://www.beyondceliac.org/news-events/podcast-series/. 

Dr. Catherine Ewen from STEMCELL Technologies answers questions from a recent webinar where she describes how to set up DC and CD8⁺ T cell co-culture experiments and assess T cell proliferation and activity.

Today, you'll learn about the hunt for the elusive sixth taste, a new discovery showing how HIV keeps fighting the immune system even with effective treatment, and the altruism of bees. Sixth Taste “And then there were 6 - kinds of taste, that is.” by Darrin S. Joy. 2023. “How does our sense of taste work?” NIH. 2020. “Researchers Say Ammonium Is the Sixth Basic Taste: Here's What to Know.” by Julia Ries. 2023. HIV Immunity Battle “‘Dormant' HIV has ongoing skirmishes with the body's immune system.” by John Carey. 2023. “10 Things to Know About HIV Suppression.” NIH. 2020. “Spontaneous HIV expression during suppressive ART is associated with the magnitude of function of HIV-specific CD4 and CD8 T cells.” by Mathieu Dube, et al. 2023. Altruistic Bees “Honey bees may inherit altruistic behavior from their mothers.” by Katie Bohn. 2023. “Beyond conflict: Kinship theory of intragenomic conflict predicts individual variation in altruistic behaviour.” by Sean T. Bresnahan, et al. 2023. Follow Curiosity Daily on your favorite podcast app to get smarter with Calli and Nate — for free! Still curious? Get exclusive science shows, nature documentaries, and more real-life entertainment on discovery+! Go to https://discoveryplus.com/curiosity to start your 7-day free trial. discovery+ is currently only available for US subscribers. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I det här avsnittet utforskar vi en studie som nyligen fångade vår uppmärksamhet genom en provokativ tidningsrubrik: “Eating beef staves off cancer, scientists discover”. Vår nyfikenhet ledde oss till en artikel i Nature, "Trans-vaccenic acid reprograms CD8+ T cells and anti-tumour immunity" av Fan, Hao, et al. Studien undersöker trans-vaccensyra (TVA), en fettsyra i nötkött, lamm och mejeriprodukter, och dess potential i cancerbehandling. Läs hela studien här.Vi belyser det vanliga misstaget i media att extrapolera och förenkla vetenskapliga resultat, vilket ofta leder till missförstånd. I det här avsnittet granskar vi studiens verkliga resultat och dess betydelse. Vi diskuterar hur TVA visar sig förbättra kroppens förmåga att bekämpa tumörer och dess koppling till ökad effektivitet av immunterapi.Dessutom reflekterar vi över den bredare betydelsen av matens roll i vår hälsa. Vi utforskar hur kött, genom sin interaktion med immunförsvaret, kan bidra till hälsa, särskilt för personer med befintliga hälsoproblem.Avsnittet avslutas med en diskussion om det evolutionsmedicinska perspektivet på kost och hälsa, och betonar vikten av att luta sig mot vetenskapliga bevis snarare än sensationella rubriker.Glöm inte att anmäla dig till vårt nyhetsbrev för de senaste nyheterna och exklusivt innehåll. Besök våra sidor för att lära dig mer om våra böcker, onlinekurser, medlemskap och följ oss på sociala medier. Vi uppskattar också om du tar dig tid att recensera vår podcast på Apple Podcast eller Spotify.AKTUELLT JUST NU: Hälsoutmaningen Reset-30 som startar 11:e januari: https://www.paleoteket.se/reset30/Nyhetsbrev: https://www.paleoteket.se/nyhetsbrev/Böcker: https://www.paleoteket.se/bocker/Utbildning: https://www.paleoteket.se/utbildning/Medlemskap: https://www.paleoteket.se/medlemskapFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/paleoteket.se/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/paleoteket.se Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Klaus Früh visits the Incubator to discuss his career and his work on cytomegalovirus-vectored vaccines which are unique in their ability to persistently maintain an immune shield of effector memory T cells, including highly unconventional MHC-II and MHC-E restricted CD8+ T cells. Host: Vincent Racaniello, Rich Condit, and Brianne Barker Guest: Klaus Früh Subscribe (free): Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, RSS, email Become a patron of TWiV! Links for this episode MicrobeTV Discord Server MicrobeTV store at Cafepress Spike shirts at vaccinated.us (promo code Microbetv) Research assistant position in Rosenfeld Lab CBER/FDA (pdf) HCMV-based attenuated vaccine platform (Sci Rep) HLA-E-restricted, Gag-specific CD8+ T cells suppress HIV-1 infection (Sci Immunol) RhCMV/SIV vaccine shows long-term efficacy against SIV challenge (Sci Transl Med) Timestamps by Jolene. Thanks! Intro music is by Ronald Jenkees Send your virology questions and comments to twiv@microbe.tv

Dr. Mahdi Sheikh and Dr. David Zaridze join Dr. Shannon Westin to discuss how quitting smoking after diagnosis may impact survival in kidney cancer. TRANSCRIPT  The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Shannon Westin: Hello everyone, and welcome to another episode of JCO After Hours. This is the podcast where we get in-depth on manuscripts that have been published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. As always, I'm your host, Shannon Westin, Gynecologic Oncologist and Social Media Editor for the JCO. And I am so excited to be here today. We are going to be discussing the paper, “Smoking Cessation After Diagnosis of Kidney Cancer Is Associated With Reduced Risk of Mortality and Cancer Progression: A Prospective Cohort Study,” which was published in the JCO on March 29, 2023. And this very intriguing paper, I have two of the major authors from this paper. First is Mahdi Sheikh, who is a scientist and epidemiologist at the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organization in Lyon, France. Welcome, Dr. Sheikh. Dr. Mahdi Sheikh: Thank you very much, Dr. Westin, and thanks for having us. Dr. Shannon Westin: And then with Dr. Sheikh is Dr. David Zaridze. He is the Director of the Department of Clinical Epidemiology at the N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center in Moscow and also the President of the Russian Cancer Society. We are with greatness today. Dr. David Zaridze: Thank you. Thank you very much. Nice to be with you. Dr. Shannon Westin: Very nice to be with the two of you. So, let's get started. I first wanted to just level set. Could one of you review just the overall incidence of kidney cancer and what proportion of patients with kidney cancer are known to be smokers at diagnosis? Dr. David Zaridze: The figures I'm going to present are rates. They are adjusted to standard world population. Why am I saying that? Because in America you sometimes use adjustment to the US population. These figures will be different from what you are accustomed to see. Okay, incidence of kidney cancer in Russia, in men, 14.1 per 100,000. I compare this with the United States of America, men, 16.5. Very small difference. Women in Russia, 8 per 100,000. In the United States of America, 8.8 per 100,000 of population. Exactly the same. Very close. These rates are sort of high-ish, but there are very high rates, for example, in the Czech Republic, where rates are more than 20 and other Central European countries. In Russia, kidney cancer mortality in men is 6 per 100,000. In USA, 3 per 100,000. In women in Russia, 1.9. In the United States, 1.3. I would say that there is a difference in mortality in men, not much in women. The incidence of kidney cancer is increasing in Russia sharply, sharply. Since 1990 it has increased - it's tripled. It increased from 5 per 100,000 in 1990 to 14 per 100,000 in 2019. Mortality is stable or declining. This is suggesting that kidney cancer is overdiagnosed in Russia and probably elsewhere. But this is not a problem of our discussion now. The frequency of the prevalence of smoking in kidney cancer patients. It is estimated that 15% to 20% of patients with kidney cancer smoke. In Russia, we have results only from our study. 18% of patients smoked at admission to our cancer center. Dr. Shannon Westin: Got it. Okay, good. Well, that's really helpful, especially to those of us that don't take care of patients with kidney cancer every day. It helps us just understand. And I guess the next question is what do we know about the impact of tobacco cessation on the risk of kidney cancer? So you were talking about that increasing incidence. How does tobacco cessation impact that? Dr. Mahdi Sheikh: Tobacco smoking is a known risk factor for kidney cancer and an estimated 17% of the kidney cancer burden worldwide can be attributed to tobacco smoking. There is a recent meta-analysis of 56 studies that was published a few years ago that clearly showed a dose-response relationship between smoking and kidney cancer, meaning that the more cigarettes a day you smoke, the risk of kidney cancer will go up. For example, the risk that was shown for five cigarettes per day was 20%. It goes up until 70% for 30 cigarettes per day. And also with a duration, the more years you smoke, the risk for kidney cancer will go higher. However, the good news is that when you quit smoking, there is strong evidence that the risk for developing kidney cancer will be lower compared to if you continue smoking. And there is some evidence that shows again dose-response relationship, meaning that the more years you spend in quitting smoking, the lower your risk would be for developing kidney cancer compared to if you continue smoking. So this is not only about renal cancer or kidney cancer but also true about many other cancer sites as well. Dr. Shannon Westin: Okay, that's super helpful. And then I guess prior to your study that we're about to talk about, did we have any information on what happens when patients quit smoking after their diagnosis? Any limitations to those data that were available? Dr. David Zaridze: You mean the data which was prior our study? You know, the negative effect of smoking after diagnosis has been shown nearly three decades ago. The information exists already for thirty years, but it was largely ignored not only in clinical practice but also in clinical trials. And I have to stress that in clinical trials this information is still ignored. I came across these studies and decided to review them some time ago. All they were case-control studies and to my knowledge, none of them assessed the effect of quitting smoking. I decided to review these studies and included this review in my book, Smoking: A Major Cause of Cancer, which was published in 2012 and was dedicated to Professor Richard Doll's anniversary. In fact, this was a stimulus for the study we are discussing. And in fact, the component of this study we are discussing today was built in and baked into the existing cohort study to which we added the active follow-up component for assessing the changes in smoking habit and disease status. Dr. Mahdi Sheikh: If you review the evidence, before publishing this study just like a few years ago, we find that there are many studies published talking about the effects of smoking cessation on cancer survival. However, as David mentioned when you go deep into these studies, you'll find a lot of limitations. First of all, most of these studies are retrospective studies, which means that either case-control or retrospective course that patients developed the outcome, and then some investigators came to see their records to assess or ask family members before they developed the outcomes. There are a lot of biases with these types of studies. And with the epidemiologic study, perspective study that we did, has less limitations compared to retrospective ones. Another one is that when we go into the study you see, they only assess a small number of patients, small sample size. Some studies just assess 10 smokers, some assess like 30. By this study we try to assess a large number of smokers who quit smoking after diagnosis. Another limitation is that– First, let's see what exposure and what setting we are talking about. We're talking about smoking which is a very dynamic behavior. People quit smoking and they relapse smoking and they quit smoking and so on. So if you access this exposure for only a limited time, for example, for one year, then you may miss what happens after that which results in misclassification of some of the participants. So repeated assessment was not done in other studies that we did here in this study. Another one, you are talking about special setting patients who are diagnosed with cancer. These patients have special circumstances, they have treatments, they have family support, they might go under the stress of cancer, and all these different stages at diagnosis. And most studies that are available, they didn't account for this. They didn't adjust or they didn't try to understand the role of these compounding factors, as we call it in epidemiology, on that, the thing that we're trying to address. And a prospective study, as I said, long follow-up time. Even the very few prospective studies that were available for other cancer sites that have only one year or maximum two years of follow-up with this type of exposure, so it is important to follow them for a long time. Another thing I would say was exposure assessment. Not only did we repeatedly try to assess exposure among participants, but try to call the people– David and his team who did the study in the field, called the participants and tried to ask the family members and sometimes their physicians about their smoking behaviors. When you go to current evidence you see, mostly smoking behavior was assessed using the record that is available like treatment records or patient records, which again has some limitations if you do not assess exposure among qualified participants. Finally, we're talking about a dynamic behavior in the follow-ups. Some people might change smoking. But there is a very important thing, in this study, we also collect at the time of quitting smoking. There's a very important thing in statistics we call Survivorship Bias, meaning that, if you were assessing an exposure doing the follow-up and if you do not pay attention to this, you will assess an exposure that is a proxy of people who lived longer. Meaning that people have enough time, they have a long time, and those who have longer time, will have more time to quit smoking. And then you will be assessing this, actually, not the exposure, but you're only assessing people who quit smoking, and then whatever you assess, you would end up with a beneficial effect. But if you have the time of quitting smoking and follow up and all these statistical things and lower sample size, you are able to account for this very very important bias in epidemiology. Dr. Shannon Westin: Before we go further, I'd love for just a bit of a description of exactly how you laid out your study to really add to where this data are so limited around survival and tobacco cessation. So maybe review the primary/secondary objectives, basic design, just to make sure our listeners are all on the same page. Dr. David Zaridze: The study has classical prospective cohort design that the study, which was basically a basic study, in which the new component was built in. This study used a user's questionnaire-based exposure assessment and molecular epidemiologic approach. I mean that, in addition to the questionnaire approach, we collected blood and tumor tissues for molecular studies. All patients with kidney cancer admitted to the cancer center were interviewed at admission before receiving any treatment. A structured lifestyle questionnaire was used. Participants were asked about their lifetime smoking history which included questions about the duration and frequency of smoking cigarettes, the average number of cigarettes smoked every day. They were also asked about their lifetime history of alcohol drinking. The questions included questions about exposures to carcinogens other than smoking, and health conditions, including chronic kidney diseases, hypertension, diabetes and so on. Height and weight were measured. Today, this study generated and continues to generate plenty of results and papers published in most prestigious journals such as Nature Genetics, for example. So, as you know, we started from 2012, we started the follow up of the cohort members, we were focusing on Moscow residents and the follow-up includes regular annual contacts with the patients personally or via telephone or with patients' household members, etc. Again, we collected information about changes in smoking behavior and disease status. We also used information from the regional cancer registry to confirm the information obtained from patients. The average period of follow up was eight years. And this is quite a long follow-up. Repeated assessment of smoking status reduces the likelihood that exposure to smoking was misclassified. However, regrettably, the self-reported information on smoking was not supported by biochemical tests, for example, by blood cotinine testing. To my knowledge, this is the only prospective cohort study in patients with cancer, not only with kidney cancer that have collected data on participants' smoking status prospectively for quite a long time. The average follow-up time was eight years. Dr. Shannon Westin: That was incredible. That definitely caught my eye. And I was looking, I was like, “Oh, how many did they lose?” And you guys kept 80-100% of the patients. I just was so impressed by that. And now hearing the mechanisms in which you did that, it makes sense. You were very diligent, multiple ways to contact patients and confirm the data. So you really are to be congratulated for the work that you're able to achieve. Dr. Sheikh, I'd love to hear, you talked a little bit about how some of the studies didn't really think about confounding variables. Can you kind of highlight some of the confounding variables that you all controlled for in order to really assess the impact of the cessation on survival? Dr. Mahdi Sheikh: Thanks to the high-quality data and also the large sample size and the way the study was designed, we were able to adjust for a lot of confounding. So we tried to adjust for all these things. So we used three approaches. The first approach was adjustment. When you ran this in the analysis, we tried a statistical model, we tried to adjust for these confounders like age, sex, treatment, socioeconomic status, smoking intensity, alcohol, and other factors. This is one effect, one approach. The second approach was stratification, meaning that we come and see the effect within people who have been diagnosed with only earlier stage tumors to see if the effect among people with earlier stage tumors differs with the effect that we see among people with higher stage tumors. But again, if you read the paper, you see that we saw the protective effects of smoking cessation on both groups of people, those who were diagnosed at earlier stages and those who were diagnosed at later stages. And also heavy smokers or mild to moderate smokers, again, we tried stratified analysis excluding those heavy smokers and saw the effect, again, among those who were light smokers or moderate smokers and also with the heavy smokers. I want to say that we tried all these types of analytical approaches and we really saw the protective effects across all patient subgroups. Finally, I talked again about the survivorship bias. So we used really strict statistical approaches to address this confounding, and because we had the time of quitting, we had the follow up time and all these things. And, again, whatever we did in the study we still could see the effects of smoking and all this is due to the good design, the large sample size, and the good questionnaire data that we have. Dr. Shannon Westin: That's awesome. I think, of course, now let's get to the bottom line. 40% reported that they quit smoking after diagnosis with none relapsing during the time period. And what did you see was the impact on overall survival as well as cancer-specific survival? Dr. Mahdi Sheikh: So we tried several outcomes - overall survival, cancer-specific survival, but also progression-free survival. And then because we had the large sample size we could assess all this. Interestingly, we saw the effect on all the three outcomes that we assessed. So the overall survival was better among those during the quitting time and also the cancer-specific survival was also better and also progression-free survival was better among all these participants. Dr. Shannon Westin: I think most people that have read this paper - and if you haven't read this paper you should run to read it right now - I really was impressed with that kind of clear benefit across cancer-specific mentality across all subgroups regardless of how much they smoked. So I don't know why you get a sense of like, “Oh, if you smoke a little bit you wouldn't see as big of an impact,” but a very clear impact. And I would love to hear why you think smoking negatively impacts these outcomes. How does the cessation help? This is a perfect time for that. Dr. Mahdi Sheikh: When we review the evidence about how smoking cessation may be beneficial for patients, for the survivorship of patients with cancer, we come to five mechanisms that are suggested in the literature. So the first one can be, is suggested, that is altered cancer biology. Smoke and tobacco smoke contain numerous carcinogens and mutagens. So it has been shown that cancer cells that are exposed to tobacco smoke, they may become more aggressive and the risk of metastasis might go higher and also, angiogenesis and all other effects on the biology of cancer cells. So it may affect the cancer cell biology. Another suggested mechanism might be altered immune response. So tobacco smoking affects the immune system and then the immune response among those who are exposed to tobacco might be affected by tobacco smoking. So their response to the cancer cells but also other bacteria, viruses, and other things might be affected as well. The third possible mechanism suggested altered drug metabolism. It has been shown that tobacco smoke and smoking can affect some of the enzymes that have metabolic responsibilities and metabolism of the drugs. So that can affect the washout period for the drug. It might not stay enough in the blood or vice versa as well. It might affect the toxicity. There is some evidence about this. The fourth mechanism suggested is about increasing treating-related complications or treatment-related complications. People who smoke have delayed wound healing, they have more complications, the surgery, the time they spend at the hospital might be longer. And this is also part of which smoking may affect the outcomes that we saw here. And finally, that is we are talking about tobacco smoking and patients with cancer are human beings with all these systems. So we know that smoking causes damage to the cardiovascular system, to the pulmonary system and also to the lungs and other things. So this is why we see different outcomes are affected by cancer. Dr. David Zaridze: I was impressed by the data that exposure to tobacco smoke condensate induces changes in tumor microenvironment. For example, it inhibits formation of interferons, interferon alpha and gamma, inhibits the migration to tumor microenvironment of the immune cells. The number of CD8+ T lymphocytes, T killers, are significantly lower in the tumor microenvironment of current smokers compared to former smokers and never smokers. And even more interestingly, the number of PD-L1+ cells are also lower in the tumor microenvironment of current smokers than former or never smokers. This is probably very important in terms of effectiveness of impairment by smoking of the immunotherapeutic approaches in cancer treatment. Dr. Shannon Westin: That's very important and we know the microenvironment has a huge impact on just the way the cells respond to treatment and develop resistance and so that makes a lot of sense. Okay, well, this has been amazing and I think one thing that you just said just struck me, Dr. Sheikh, that you've obviously shown this in lung cancer and you're looking at this in other cancers. I guess the question is: What should we be doing? How should we be implementing tobacco cessation efforts across all cancer diagnoses to help all patients that have really any diagnosis of cancer? Dr. David Zaridze: Let me first underline the clinical importance of these results. The benefits from quitting smoking are comparable or even superior to those recorded in the clinical trials of modern kidney cancer treatments such as immune checkpoint inhibitors. I refer to the results of pivotal trials in advanced renal cell cancer in the frontline setting and these results were reported at ASCO Meeting 2023 recently in May. If you compare the results of our study with results of these pivotal trials, it is very impressive. It is clear that our findings strengthen the case for making tobacco cessation treatment a standard part of the routine health care for all people with cancer, however, smoking is still quite high in cancer patients. And I would like to quote Peter Shields who is saying that, in the United States,10% to 50% of cancer patients smoke. As far as Russia is concerned, in our study, 80% of kidney cancer patients smoke, and in our lung cancer study, 58% of cancer patients smoke.  The barrier is that the oncologists do not believe or are accepting with a great deal of skepticism the results of our study. They don't believe the idea that anything else besides surgical, radiological, or medical treatment could improve the outlook of cancer patients. It's difficult for them to apprehend. Many of them think that smoking cessation after diagnosis is simply a waste of time. Many patients simply don't know that smoking cessation after diagnosis may be beneficial for them. In addition, they are pessimistic and they feel discouraged to quit smoking, as they might think it is too late. I would like to quote my favorite quote: “Smoking cessation treatment has to become the fourth pillar of cancer treatment, one that could affect cancer treatment outcomes as powerfully as surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation therapy.” This is Dr. Fiore, 2019. Dr. Shannon Westin: Thank you so much. And Dr. Sheikh, anything to add there around cessation efforts? Dr. Mahdi Sheikh: As we saw the results of these studies that smoking cessation is feasible and it is accessible at a minimum cost for many patients, it should really be integrated in the  management of patients with cancer. It is feasible, it is cheap, it is accessible. But unfortunately, when we review the evidence we see that only less than half of the physicians, like around 40% of physicians, send the patients to tobacco smoking cessation services. And even some do not discuss this issue. And as David mentioned, they do not know the effect of smoking cessation. So when you go through these studies to find the major barriers, in addition to what David had mentioned, we find two important points. First one is lack of education or experience in providing tobacco cessation interventions among those who deal with patients with cancer. So they do not have the education. And second is lack of available resources for referrals. Now we're not only talking about the United States but also many other countries even high-income countries, we do not see the resources for referrals on smoking cessation services in cancer care settings. The take home message probably from this study and also from these barriers, would be for three groups. First, for the policymakers, we would recommend sustainable funding should be dedicated to tobacco cessation services. As we saw, the effect is huge and seems to be a very big effect and it is cheap so why not implement this smoking cessation service within cancer care settings.  And the second one, tobacco treatment training programs for healthcare providers. This is also very, very important that we try to implement this training program in the curriculum of healthcare providers, especially those who deal with cancers and tobacco-related outcomes. And also for physicians, we recommend that physicians should assess and address tobacco use in all patients with cancer. They should talk about this topic and also show the benefits of quitting smoking. And patients with cancer who smoke should be supported to stop smoking at any time and each visit after diagnosis is not like some time pass, as we saw, all patient subgroups could benefit from smoking cessation. This is important.  But something also very, very important that we shouldn't forget that cancer itself causes a lot of fear and anxiety and stress. And smoking cessation sometimes may be associated with stress and more anxiety. So it is very, very important to think about this point and provide the psychosocial support to patients who quit smoking. Sometimes they may relapse just because of the fear and anxiety they have. So it's not only showing the evidence, but also supporting these patients, telling them how to do that and also supporting them emotionally and also psychosocially. And finally for the patients, I would like to give this message that we see and we know that it is never too late to quit smoking. As David said, patients may feel like, “It is too late now I've developed cancers,” but no, it's really not too late. And if you quit smoking at any time after diagnosis, you would benefit a lot from smoking cessation. Dr. David Zaridze: In the United States there are guidelines, several guidelines for smoking cessation, specifically for cancer patients because smoking cessation in cancer patients is very different from smoking cessation in general population. In the general population, we more or less succeeded, I would say, and we have to look now at this direction to the smoking cessation in cancer patients. And this is a message to WHO, that countries, members of WHO, based on the recommendation guidelines of WHO, develop their own specific guidelines for smoking cessation in cancer patients. And that should be used in all cancer clinics and that should be a must, absolutely important part of anti-cancer treatment. And as I already told, it should be the fourth pillar in cancer treatment, as treatment, as surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Dr. Shannon Westin: Thank you both. That was such a great discussion, and I hope that we've convinced everyone that this is a critical effort that they need to be addressing every day.  I just want to thank everyone who listened. This has been "Smoking Cessation after Diagnosis of Kidney Cancers Associated with Reduced Risk of Mortality and Cancer Progression: A Prospective Cohort Study", again published in the JCO on March 29, 2023. Thank you guys again for listening to JCO After Hours. Please check out our other podcast offerings. You can check them out on the website or wherever you get your podcasts and let us know what you think about the podcast on Twitter. Dr. David Zaridze: Thank you. Dr. Mahdi Sheikh: Thank you very much.  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Link to bioRxiv paper: http://biorxiv.org/cgi/content/short/2023.07.17.549427v1?rss=1 Authors: Groh, J., Abdelwahab, T., Kattimani, Y., Hoerner, M., Loserth, S., Gudi, V., Adalbert, R., Imdahl, F., Saliba, A.-E., Coleman, M., Stangel, M., Simons, M., Martini, R. Abstract: Axon degeneration and functional decline in myelin diseases are often attributed to loss of myelin but their relation is not fully understood. Perturbed myelinating glia can instigate chronic neuroinflammation and contribute to demyelination and axonal damage. Here we study mice with distinct defects in the proteolipid protein 1 gene that develop axonal damage which is driven by cytotoxic T cells targeting myelinating oligodendrocytes. We show that persistent ensheathment with perturbed myelin poses a risk for axon degeneration, neuron loss, and behavioral decline. We demonstrate that CD8+ T cell-driven axonal damage is less likely to progress towards degeneration when axons are efficiently demyelinated by activated microglia. Mechanistically, we show that cytotoxic T cell effector molecules induce cytoskeletal alterations within myelinating glia and aberrant actomyosin constriction of axons at paranodal domains. Our study identifies detrimental axon-glia-immune interactions which promote neurodegeneration and possible therapeutic targets for disorders associated with myelin defects and neuroinflammation. Copy rights belong to original authors. Visit the link for more info Podcast created by Paper Player, LLC

Link to bioRxiv paper: http://biorxiv.org/cgi/content/short/2023.07.13.548931v1?rss=1 Authors: Hobson, R., Levy, S. H. S., Flaherty, D., Xiao, H., Ciener, B., Reddy, H., Singal, C., Teich, A. F., Shneider, N. A., Bradshaw, E. M., Elyaman, W. Abstract: Recent murine studies have highlighted a crucial role for the meninges in surveilling the central nervous system (CNS) and influencing CNS inflammation. However, how meningeal immunity is altered in human neurodegeneration and its potential effects on neuroinflammation is understudied. In the present study, we performed single-cell analysis of the transcriptomes and T cell receptor repertoire of 72,576 immune cells from 36 postmortem human brain and leptomeninges tissues from donors with neurodegenerative diseases including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Alzheimers disease, and Parkinsons disease. We identified the meninges as an important site of antigen presentation and CD8 T cell activation and clonal expansion and found that T cell activation in the meninges is a requirement for infiltration into the CNS. We further found that natural killer cells have the potential to negatively regulate T cell activation locally in the meninges through direct killing and are one of many regulatory mechanisms that work to control excessive neuroinflammation. Copy rights belong to original authors. Visit the link for more info Podcast created by Paper Player, LLC

Link to bioRxiv paper: http://biorxiv.org/cgi/content/short/2023.07.01.547333v1?rss=1 Authors: Fong, H., Mendel, M., Jascur, J., Najmi, L., Kim, K., Lew, G., Garimalla, S., Schock, S., Hu, J., Villegas, A., Conway, A., Fontenot, J., Zompi, S. Abstract: iPSCs can serve as a renewable source of a consistent edited cell product, overcoming limitations of primary cells. While feeder-free generation of clinical grade iPSC-derived CD8 T cells has been achieved, differentiation of iPSC-derived CD4sp and regulatory T cells requires mouse stromal cells in an artificial thymic organoid. Here we report a serum- and feeder-free differentiation process suitable for large-scale production. Using an optimized concentration of PMA/Ionomycin, we generated iPSC-CD4sp T cells at high efficiency and converted them to Tregs using TGF{beta} and ATRA. Using zinc finger nucleases, we demonstrated high non-viral, targeted integration of an HLA-A2 CAR in iPSCs. iPSC-Tregs +/- HLA-A2 CAR phenotypically, transcriptionally and functionally resemble primary Tregs and suppress T cell proliferation in vitro. Our work is the first to demonstrate an iPSC-based platform amenable to manufacturing CD4 T cells to complement iPSC-CD8 oncology products and functional iPSC-Tregs to deliver Treg cell therapies at scale. Copy rights belong to original authors. Visit the link for more info Podcast created by Paper Player, LLC

In this week's episode, we will review patients with chronic ITP having clonal expansions of a specific subset of CD8 T cells, called terminally differentiated effector memory T cells, or TEMRA. Next, for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphomas, use of a so-called dark-zone signature, previously referred to as the double-hit signature, could help refine prognosis. Finally on today's podcast we'll discuss rethinking the role of hematopoietic stem cells following physiologic emergencies such as acute inflammation and blood loss.

In this Buddisode, we sit down with Dr. Nataliya Prokhnevska to discuss her work on the fate and role of non-cytotoxic CD8+ T cells found in the tumor-draining lymph nodes of cancer patients.

4.07 Polymyositis and Dermatomyositis MSK/Rheum review for the USMLE Step 1 Exam Polymyositis and dermatomyositis are autoimmune inflammatory myopathies. They are caused by abnormal activation of T cells that attack skeletal muscle and both cause proximal muscle weakness, especially of the shoulders and pelvic girdle muscles. Polymyositis develops when there is abnormal activation of CD8 T cells, while dermatomyositis is primarily attacked by CD4 T cells. Both are diagnosed through a muscle biopsy and the presence of elevated CK levels and several different autoantibodies. Dermatomyositis includes dermatologic manifestations, such as gottron papules, heliotrope rash, and shawl rash. Both are associated with MI, interstitial lung disease, and various types of cancer (dermatomyositis more so). Both diseases require prompt treatment with steroids and immunosuppressive agents.

Dr. Mohamed Salem, Dr. Myriam Chalabi, and Dr. Andrea Cercek discuss pivotal neoadjuvant immunotherapy clinical trials for patients with MSI-H/dMMR colorectal cancer, focusing on the development of active therapies in the neoadjuvant setting—where patients are treated without surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy—and the importance of patient selection in finding the right target and treatment to improve outcomes. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Mohamed Salem: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your guest host today, Dr. Mohamed Salem. I'm a GI oncologist at the Levine Cancer Institute at Atrium Health. Today, we will be discussing very promising advancements in the neoadjuvant immunotherapy for patients with MSI-H/dMMR colorectal cancer. And I'm very delighted to welcome two world-renowned oncologists whose research has tremendously helped shape the treatment landscape of colorectal cancer. Dr. Myriam Chalabi is a GI medical oncologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, and Dr. Andrea Cercek is a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering in the United States.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures relating to all episodes of the podcast are available on our transcripts at asco.org/DNpod.  Dr. Chalabi and Dr. Cercek, welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Myriam Chalabi: Thank you for having me. Dr. Andrea Cercek: Thank you very much for having me. Dr. Mohamed Salem: It's a pleasure to have two world-renowned stars like you. Thank you for taking the time.  So, before we start going deep into the topic, obviously, now we are seeing emerging data in CRC using immunotherapy as the neoadjuvant approach, which actually can reduce or even eliminate some of the other treatment modalities and potentially save patients from toxicities. Both of you led what I think are landmark studies in this field. I wanted to give you the chance to tell our audience about your studies and why you think they're important. Dr. Cercek? Dr. Andrea Cercek: Sure. Thank you so much. So, our study was a neoadjuvant study in early-stage, locally advanced rectal cancer with tumors that were mismatch repair-deficient or MSI-H. And rectal cancer normally is treated with chemotherapy, chemoradiation, and surgery. And the goal of the trial was to utilize PD-1 blockade alone in this subpopulation and evaluate the response.  Patients received six months of dostarlimab, which is a PD-1 blocking agent, and then were evaluated for response. If there was no residual disease, they were able to avoid radiation and surgery. And what we've seen thus far in the presentation at GI ASCO in 2022 was that all patients who received six months of dostarlimab had a clinical complete response, so no residual tumor, and were able to avoid chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery and are on observation. And the study is ongoing and actively accruing patients. Dr. Mohamed Salem: All of us were very excited seeing that presentation at ASCO. And when we came back to the clinic everyone was talking about it, including patients, obviously. Thank you for this, Dr. Cercek. Dr. Chalabi, you also led a similar study that was actually presented in ESMO in 2022. Can you please give us, like, a brief description of that trial? Dr. Myriam Chalabi: Yeah, sure. So, this is the NICHE trial, and actually the NICHE trial has been ongoing for quite some time now. We recently presented a larger NICHE-2 study, but basically– so what we started out by doing in NICHE is giving patients what we considered back then a window of opportunity study. We treated patients with MMR-deficient tumors, which I'll be focusing on for now, with two cycles of nivolumab and one single cycle of low-dose ipilimumab. And patients all undergo surgery within six weeks of registration within the study. And back in 2020, we published the first data of NICHE-1 showing 100% pathologic responses with 60% pathologic complete responses and decided that this should definitely be a treatment that we need to explore in a larger group of patients. And that's where NICHE-2 was born, which we presented at ESMO last year, where we treated over 100 patients with this neoadjuvant approach of two cycles nivolumab, one single cycle ipilimumab, showing 99% pathologic responses, including 95% major pathologic responses and 67% pathologic complete responses. And this was all within five and a half weeks of the first treatment with immunotherapy, so a very short treatment duration with dual checkpoint blockade. Dr. Mohamed Salem: Amazing results, too. And I know you had a standing ovation when you presented the outcome of the study. And again, congratulations to you, your investigator, and also all the patients participated. Dr. Myriam Chalabi: Thank you so much.  Dr. Mohamed Salem: I guess the first question that comes to my mind - we have two trials, obviously, now we're moving from one size fits all to precision therapy, like getting actually the right treatment for the right patient. But in the NICHE study, it was a checkpoint inhibitor, and the rectal study was a single agent. I want to start with you, Dr. Chalabi. In your opinion, when should we use single agent or double blockade immunotherapy? Dr. Myriam Chalabi: That is a great question. I'm going to start off by saying that I don't know the exact answer. I don't think we know that answer. And Dr. Cercek is going to share also her thoughts on this because we're seeing, of course, fantastic responses with monotherapy as well in Dr. Cercek's study. And we've also seen that in a study by Dr. Overman with monotherapy. So that may suffice in some patients, although what we're seeing is that you need to treat patients longer, probably to achieve that response, at least clinically. And I think that is the difference with dual checkpoint blockade, that we're giving in NICHE where we're seeing these very deep responses in just under six weeks' time.  So, I think it may be more of a question of how long we want to treat patients for to achieve the endpoint that we're aiming for. And, of course, there may be, at some point, patients that need dual checkpoint blockade, but so far, we're seeing great responses in both of our studies. So I think we need more patients, more data to see whether we're going to see non-responders. And hopefully, the studies that are ongoing in the metastatic disease setting will give us at least a little bit of insight into what the differences are in response to mono and dual checkpoint blockade and whether we can tell which patients might benefit more from the combination. But I think there's still a lot of work to be done in that field. Dr. Mohamed Salem: I totally agree. Dr. Cercek, same question to you. What do you think?  Dr. Andrea Cercek: Dr. Chalabi answered beautifully and very comprehensively. I agree completely with what she said. It's hard to argue with the responses that we're seeing with PD-1 blockade alone. But then again, dual checkpoint inhibitors in the NICHE study with just one month of therapy had phenomenal responses as well. So I think it's a question of duration of therapy and, really importantly, what we're trying to achieve. If our goal is organ preservation, then perhaps longer duration is better. The question then becomes, can we do, should we do longer duration with dual checkpoint inhibitors versus single agent? So I think, as she concluded, I couldn't agree more that we just need more information, we need more work to do, basically to answer this question for our patients. Dr. Mohamed Salem: More to come and more studies, which is fascinating.  So, Dr. Chalabi, you created actually a new term on Twitter called ‘Chalabi Plot'. It was amazing to see such a response. But we're curious, among those patients who achieved complete response so far, did you see any relapse? Dr. Myriam Chalabi: Short answer, no.  we're waiting, of course on the disease-free survival data, the three-year DFS data for NICHE-2, and we hope to have that by the end of this year, beginning of next year. But as of now, we showed that data, and so far, we haven't seen any recurrences in, actually, any of the patients treated in NICHE-2. Dr. Mohamed Salem: Fantastic. Dr. Cercek. So I think your slide -- I remember clearly from the ASCO presentation -- was all complete response, every single patient.  Same question, did you see any relapse so far? Dr. Andrea Cercek: So far, no, we have not. Dr. Mohamed Salem: Amazing. So, Dr. Cercek, as you know, and obviously, this is metastatic disease, but in KEYNOTE-177, as you know, about 30% of patients with MSI-high tumors did not respond to checkpoint inhibitors. So that makes some of us feel nervous about using checkpoint inhibitors alone in colorectal cancer, even with MSI-high status. I was curious if you can comment on this and if there is a way we can perhaps sort out who actually is likely to respond and who is likely not going to respond. Dr. Andrea Cercek: I think that's a really important question and an excellent point. And we believe that the difference lies in the fact that in KEYNOTE-177, the patients had metastatic disease, whereas in our neoadjuvant studies that we're discussing, they have early-stage disease. And whether that has to do with the tumor differences, young tumors versus older tumors once they become metastatic, or the microenvironment, remains to be determined. But certainly, there is this pattern of incredible responses with checkpoint inhibitors in early-stage dMMR tumors. And in KEYNOTE-177, as you mentioned, about 30% of patients progressed. And I think we don't know why that is. We are seeing this, about a third of progressors repeatedly in the metastatic setting with checkpoint inhibitors. And so perhaps there is a population. But whether this is driven by genomics or something else, we don't know. Dr. Mohamed Salem: Great. So, along the same lines, especially rectal cancer, obviously, because surgical resection is a key component in the treatment paradigm, do you feel patients who achieve pathological complete response should still go under surgical resection or should go under the ‘watch and wait' approach? Dr. Andrea Cercek: In general, I'm a fan of organ preservation. I think in rectal cancer, the reasons are obvious. It's a challenging surgery. It's very toxic to the patients. It changes their lives forever. In survivorship, 30% of them require a permanent colostomy because of the location of the tumor. So there, the field of rectal cancer, in general, is moving towards non-operative management, even in the MSI-proficient patients, by trying to optimize therapy to increase clinical complete responses and therefore omit surgery. So that's the difference with rectal cancer. In colon cancer, it's a different discussion. I think for many patients, surgery is very straightforward. It's a hemicolectomy. It doesn't alter lifestyle in survivorship, so it's not as morbid as it is in rectal cancer. Of course, I think if a patient is older with MSI-deficient tumor perhaps can undergo surgery, then clinical complete responses become critical because then we can monitor them after just checkpoint blockade, and they don't need surgery.  The challenge there, and I would love to hear Dr. Chalabi's comments on this, too, is just that imaging is challenging. We have a hard time in colon cancer determining whether someone has a clinical complete response or not. It seems to be very different than in rectal cancer, where with endoscopy and with the rectal MRI, we really can't tell whether the tumor is still present or not. This remains a challenge in colon cancer. Dr. Mohamed Salem: Dr. Chalabi, I would like to hear your thoughts and also how you practice in Europe. I don't know if it's the same like here in US or different. Dr. Myriam Chalabi: I completely agree with Dr. Cercek. Well, if we look at the rectal cancer patients, I think this is fantastic. That even though this is a small population achieving this high clinical complete response rate, not having to operate or even give any chemotherapy or radiation therapy to these patients, it is extremely important both in the short term but also in terms of long-term complications and morbidity. When it comes to the colon cancer responses that we're seeing in NICHE, those are all pathologic responses, of course. And we have been evaluating also preoperatively using scans to see whether we can assess these complete responses based on imaging. That doesn't seem to be the case. We do see responses in all patients, so we see these are all very large bulky tumors that we're treating in NICHE-2. And we do see responses in almost all of these patients, but it's not close to complete responses, definitely not in all of the complete responders that we're seeing. So that makes it difficult.  And the question is, what if we would be waiting or treating longer because these bulky tumors need more time to disappear or to be cleared before you're going to see it on the imaging? So that is a question that I don't have an answer to just yet. We may be getting some more data on that with the currently ongoing trials. And as Dr. Cercek pointed out, the endoscopies when you have a right-sided colon tumor are different than doing just a sigmoidoscopy for a rectal tumor. So, we actually do have one patient who hasn't undergone surgery, and that is actually a patient with an MMR-proficient tumor within the NICHE trial who had a complete response. And that patient has a sigmoidal tumor, and he actually had toxicities which prevented him from undergoing timely surgery and now has a complete response after two years, both endoscopically and on imaging. So, he hasn't undergone surgery, and that is a great example of how we may be doing this in the future. It's an interesting case within the trial to follow and see how we can do it in the future. Dr. Mohamed Salem: That's fascinating news. So, was it MMR-proficient? Dr. Myriam Chalabi: Yes, this is an MMR-proficient tumor.  Dr. Mohamed Salem Wow. Any particular biomarkers that you think he or she had to predict that? Dr. Myriam Chalabi: We have treated more patients with MMR-proficient tumors. We have 31 patients, and we have seen actually responses in 9 out of 31 patients in the MMR-proficient tumors with the same combination of two doses of nivolumab and one of ipilimumab. We previously published on half of the cohort approximately on what the possible predictive biomarkers of response could be, and that was a costimulation for CD8 and PD-1. So PD-1 positive CD8 T cells. And we're currently doing the same work for the rest of the cohort. So hopefully, we'll be able to show that soon and see whether this still stands for the completed MMR-proficient cohort. But definitely also very exciting data for the MMR-proficient. Dr. Mohamed Salem: So, this is actually a very good segue to my next question because I know all of us are looking for this. Like, obviously, we're seeing a fascinating response in those patients with MSI-high tumors, but majority of colorectal cancer, as you know, they actually have MSS-proficient tumors. Any thoughts about how we can overcome the primary resistance for this tumor to checkpoint inhibitors? So let me start with you, Dr. Cercek.  Dr. Andrea Cercek: I'm very much looking forward to Dr. Chalabi's data on this because, honestly, we have not seen such amazing responses to immunotherapy in MSS tumors. The initial studies were complete flatline, no responses at all. And here, she just described a patient that had a complete response to just a month of checkpoint inhibitors. So that's phenomenal, and hopefully, we'll learn from the responders.  We believe that there is a subpopulation of MSS colorectal cancer that is more immune sensitive, immune hot, whichever term you like to use. And it's just a matter of appropriately identifying those patients. And personally, I think the answer lies in the neoadjuvant setting in early tumors where they're treatment-naive, not exposed to chemo, not exposed to radiation, younger, have their innate microenvironment. And so, I think it's likely a combination of the above. But obviously, the ultimate goal is to find out who those patients are and then potentially treat them just like this with immunotherapy. And that would be another nice chunk of the pie where we could utilize immunotherapy for our patients. Dr. Mohamed Salem: Very true. Dr. Chalabi, especially with your experience and just showing there is a chance for those people to respond, what are your thoughts about how we can overcome this primary resistance? Dr. Myriam Chalabi: It's great to be here with Dr. Cercek because, obviously, we have very similar interests but it's also good to see that we think the same way because I completely agree with what she just said in terms of neoadjuvant. I think that was one of the most important things that we did here, giving this neoadjuvant treatment in non-metastatic tumors. It's probably a very important driver in the responses that we're seeing. So, we've been seeing data now a bit more in the metastatic disease setting where MSS tumors seem to be responding to new generations of checkpoint blockade. And the question is how those would do in the neoadjuvant setting that would be even different than what we're seeing now. But there's definitely some proof of MSS tumors that can respond to immunotherapy. The question on how to overcome the primary resistance, I think that question is for us: Who are the patients with primary resistant tumors and why are they primarily resistant? And then we can think about how to change that and how to change them into the tumors that are responding. I think these types of data will be key to understand more and know; hopefully, even you said, in the metastatic disease setting, to make these tumors more pliable in response to immunotherapy. Dr. Mohamed Salem: I agree. So, both of you are leading us toward how to choose the right patient with the right target for the right treatment. That's an amazing journey you're taking all of us on.  So, Dr. Cercek, I have to admit that with your data, it created some problems for us in the clinic because all patients the following day came in asking for immunotherapy. We had a hard time trying to explain that maybe this is not the right treatment for them or, like, not the right platform. But I wanted to ask you, if we'll have a patient tomorrow in the clinic with localized rectal cancer and happen to have an MSI-high tumor, what would be your recommendation in terms of how to approach that patient? Dr. Andrea Cercek: I think, ideally, you would discuss clinical trials with the patient. We have opened the study now to not just rectal cancer but colon cancer and, in fact, all solid tumors that are mismatch repair-deficient. So I think at this time, the patients really should be treated on a clinical trial. As we learn more, in particular, until we are more comfortable assessing for a clinical complete response and follow-up. I think the surveillance piece will be critically important. In rectal cancer, it's well established, but it's not in the other tumor types. So my recommendation would be to enroll the patient on a trial. Dr. Mohamed Salem: Just to add to that too, obviously, as you know, there is now the cooperative group trial that's looking at that option and we obviously encourage all centers to participate and open that study to have this option for our patients. Dr. Chalabi, so what do you guys do in Europe for these patients? Dr. Myriam Chalabi: In Europe, it's a very different situation. I would have answered this question differently by saying, well, we don't have that option of treating patients outside of clinical trials. So basically, we have to make sure that we have clinical trials for these patients. And that's something that we've had for colon cancer patients. That is still the case. And we're getting rectal cancer trials also for patients with MMR deficient tumors and have those also for MMR proficient tumors. For us and I agree completely that we should be treating patients within clinical trials, we don't have another option. But still, even if we did, I think it's important to create data within clinical trials to be able to ultimately also show why this should be standard of care and how we can make it standard of care. Because if you're not accumulating that data, then it's going to become very difficult if accrual is lacking. Now, we treat patients either with standard-of-care treatments, but usually, we try to find something within clinical trials.  Dr. Mohamed Salem: I totally agree. And as we always say, the standard of care should be a clinical trial participation. So, I must say, both of you, Dr. Cercek and Dr. Chalabi, you made 2022 a very exciting year for us in GI cancers. You really changed the way we look at how to treat these patients and give them a huge chance of, I would say, actually cure and obviously organ preservation. So, I'm very curious to know what you are both are working on now and what we should expect in 2023 and 2024.  Dr. Andrea Cercek: So, for me, the study is ongoing, as I mentioned, and we've expanded to all mismatch repair-deficient solid tumors with the same approach of six months of dostarlimab and then the option of nonoperative management. And I think that it'll be important for us to learn in terms of responses on the luminal versus some of the other tumor types, like, for example, pancreas cancer, where we don't see these robust responses in the metastatic setting, that will be important to do. We're doing some correlative analysis, as Dr. Chalabi described as well in our patients.  And then, I'm interested in optimizing neoadjuvant approaches to minimize therapy in rectal cancer specifically. So, we have a study now for HER-2 amplified RAS wild-type patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with a similar approach of utilizing HER-2 targeted therapy first and then in combination with chemotherapy. In our case, it's a combination of trastuzumab and tucatinib and then chemotherapy with CAPOX and assessing for response and potential omission of radiation and surgery depending on responders. So, I'm very excited that study is open and actively accruing, and hopefully, we can get similar responses that we did in the MSI population with PD-1 blockade. Dr. Mohamed Salem: Is that only available at MSK? Dr. Andrea Cercek: It is at this time. However, we will likely be expanding, so if there's any interest, let me know. Dr. Mohamed Salem: Great. I'm sure many centers will be. Great. What about you, Dr. Chalabi? Any sneak peek in the future? Dr. Myriam Chalabi: So many sneak peeks, where to begin? I think it's very exciting to be working in this space at this time, and we're very lucky to be in it. So, for NICHE, we're actually accruing now in new cohorts for both MMR-deficient and MMR-proficient tumors. For the patients with MMR-deficient tumors, we're actually testing a new combination of nivolumab plus relatlimab, so anti-LAG-3 plus anti-PD1. And we're testing the same co-formulation in patients with pMMR tumors. In addition to another cohort for the pMMR tumors with nivolumab, all within this window of opportunity, as we did previously in NICHE, and to see if we're going to see more responses if these are going to be different tumors than the ones responding to nivolumab and ipilimumab. And for the MMR deficient tumors, we're treating longer with this combination now. So, we're operating after eight weeks instead of six weeks. We're giving two cycles, four weekly cycles, to see whether we can even improve the PCR rates, even though this is, of course, a different combination treatment. So, very exciting times for NICHE, and we'll have the readout for the DFS at the end of this year, so that's also very exciting. And then, well, it's similar to Dr. Cercek. So again, we're on the same page when it comes to these neoadjuvant treatments. We have actually an ongoing trial for neoadjuvant treatment of patients with MMR proficient rectal cancers, and that is using a combination of radiation therapy followed by a combination of atezolizumab or anti-PDL1 with Bevacizumab with the aim of organ sparing approach in these patients. And we actually presented stage 1 of this trial as a poster at ASCO GI, showing that we achieved 56% complete or near complete responses clinically at 12 weeks. And after at least a year of follow-up for all patients, we have 50% organ preservation. So those are very exciting data as well. Also, in the MMR proficient tumors, I'm very excited to hear about the HER-2-positive tumors and Dr. Cercek's study. So there's definitely a lot going on that we hope to share as soon as the data are available. Dr. Mohamed Salem: We'll be looking forward to your next presentation and seeing that. So again, most of your work showed us that we really have to choose the right patient with the right target for the right treatment to achieve the best possible outcome. So we're getting short on time here. But before we conclude, ASCO Daily News Podcast has a huge audience of oncologists, I wanted to give you the chance to share anything you'd like to share with our audience today before we finish. Dr. Cercek? Dr. Andrea Cercek: I believe this is an incredibly exciting time in colorectal cancer. I think it's finally our turn, which feels really nice, and obviously, we have a lot more work that needs to be done. But my personal belief is to keep trying to chip away at the pie and identify responders and keep working to have better-targeted drugs and better treatment options that will improve responses and improve outcomes for our patients. But I certainly believe that we are well on our way there, and it's very exciting. Dr. Mohamed Salem: I totally agree. Dr. Chalabi, any thoughts? Dr. Myriam Chalabi: I think after 2022 and the data that we've been showing, I think it's important to– and I think by now, maybe it's not even necessary anymore to say it– but I think it's important to really look at the tumors and look at these MMR proteins or MSI, and to make sure that you're treating the patient in the right way, and to consider that. Before, it wasn't as important in the neoadjuvant setting or these localized tumors, but now it's becoming essential.  And I think if you would have looked five years ago and you would say, yeah, these MSI tumors are important to find, it's a very small proportion of patients, in rectal cancer even lower than in colon cancer. But still, it has such a huge impact on what you're doing in these patients and your chances of cure. So I think that would be my most important giveaway to test for MMR deficiency before deciding on a treatment for your patients. And we're working on trials with neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Also in other tumor types, Dr. Cercek is also doing the same. I think those will be very important also outside of the GI field to see whether this approach works for a much larger patient population, despite the low incidence.  Dr. Andrea Cercek: Dr. Chalabi just made a critical point that that is most important is to remember that we do have biomarkers in colorectal cancer that, in the neoadjuvant setting and in the metastatic setting, especially MSI, that we need to test for. And then, just to add from a clinical perspective, in rectal cancer, the large majority of patients that have mismatch-repair deficient or MSI tumors actually have Lynch syndrome. So really, if you identify a patient that's mismatch-repair deficient or MSI-high anywhere, but especially in the rectum, they absolutely should get germline testing. Dr. Mohamed Salem: I echo that and second that. And Dr. Cercek, thank you, and I know you did a lot of work in colorectal cancer in the younger adult population, too, so I think you've had a huge impact on that area too. I would like to thank both of you again for being here today, but more for the great work you and your teams are doing to advance the field. It's really a very exciting time in GI cancers now, and thank you so much for your work and for sharing your insights with us today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Myriam Chalabi: Thank you so much for having me. It's been great. Dr. Andrea Cercek: Thank you for having me. Dr. Mohamed Salem: Of course, and thanks to our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you very much. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers:     Dr. Mohamed Salem @SalemGIOncDoc   Dr. Myriam Chalabi @MyriamChalabi   Dr. Andrea Cercek @AndreaCercek   Learn about other key advances in GI Oncology: SWOG 1815, PARADIGM, and Other Advances at GI23   Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:   Dr. Mohamed Salem: Consulting or Advisory Role: Taiho Pharmaceutical, Exelixis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, QED Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca Speakers' Bureau: Genentech/Roche, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, BMS, Merck Dr. Myriam Chalabi: Consulting or Advisory Role: MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celegne, Numab Research Funding (Institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, MSD Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb Dr. Andrea Cercek: Consulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, GSK, Incyte, Merck, Janssen, Seattle Genetics, G1 Therapeutics Research Funding (Institution): Seattle Genetics, GSK, Rgenix          

In this episode, Hashem Koohy joins us to discuss computational and machine-learning prediction of CD8 T cells' target. Ask the Expert is a ~30 minute digital cafe experience where scientists and grad students can meet and exchange with thought leaders in the field of type 1 diabetes. Link below to sign up for a seat in the cafe!

Link to bioRxiv paper: http://biorxiv.org/cgi/content/short/2023.01.31.525875v1?rss=1 Authors: Rodriguez-Silvestre, P., Laub, M., Davies, A. K., Schessner, J. P., Krawczyk, P. A., Tuck, B. J., McEwan, W. A., Borner, G. H. H., Kozik, P. Abstract: During initiation of antiviral and antitumour T cell-mediated immune responses, dendritic cells (DCs) cross-present exogenous antigens on MHC class I. Cross-presentation relies on the unique leakiness of endocytic compartments in DCs, whereby internalised proteins escape into the cytosol for proteasome-mediated generation of MHC I-binding peptides. Given that type 1 conventional DCs excel at cross-presentation, we searched for cell-type specific effectors of endocytic escape. We devised an escape assay suitable for genetic screening and identified a pore-forming protein, perforin-2, as a dedicated effector exclusive to cross-presenting cells. Perforin-2 is recruited to antigen-containing compartments, where it undergoes maturation, releasing its pore-forming domain. Mpeg1-/- mice fail to efficiently prime CD8+ T cells to cell-associated antigens, revealing an important role of perforin-2 in cytosolic entry of antigens during cross-presentation. Copy rights belong to original authors. Visit the link for more info Podcast created by Paper Player, LLC

Link to bioRxiv paper: http://biorxiv.org/cgi/content/short/2023.01.10.523231v1?rss=1 Authors: Abdelwahab, T., Stadler, D., Knopper, K., Arampatzi, P., Saliba, A.-E., Kastenmuller, W., Martini, R., Groh, J. Abstract: Myelin defects lead to neurological dysfunction in various diseases and in normal aging. Chronic neuroinflammation often contributes to axon-myelin damage in these conditions and can be initiated and/or sustained by perturbed myelinating glia. We have previously shown that distinct mutations in the PLP1 gene result in neurodegeneration that is largely driven by adaptive immune cells. Here we characterize CD8+ CNS-associated T cells in these myelin mutants using single-cell transcriptomics and identify population heterogeneity and disease-associated changes. We demonstrate that early sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulation attenuates the recruitment of T cells and neural damage, while later targeting of CNS-associated T cell populations is inefficient and has no effect on neurodegeneration. Applying bone marrow chimerism and utilizing random X chromosome inactivation, we provide evidence that axonal damage is driven by cytotoxic, antigen specific CD8+ T cells that target mutant myelinating oligodendrocytes. These findings offer insights into neural-immune interactions and are of translational relevance for neurological conditions associated with myelin defects and neuroinflammation. Copy rights belong to original authors. Visit the link for more info Podcast created by Paper Player, LLC

Link to bioRxiv paper: http://biorxiv.org/cgi/content/short/2022.11.29.518257v1?rss=1 Authors: Vargas-Zapata, V., Geiger, K. M., Tran, D., Ma, J., Mao, X., Puschnik, A. S., Coscoy, L. Abstract: Endoplasmic reticulum (ER) aminopeptidase associated with antigen processing (ERAAP) trims peptide precursors in the ER for presentation by major histocompatibility (MHC)-I molecules to surveying CD8+T-cells. This function allows ERAAP to regulate the nature and quality of the peptide repertoire and, accordingly, the resulting immune responses. We recently showed that infection with murine cytomegalovirus leads to a dramatic loss of ERAAP levels in infected cells. In mice, this loss is associated with the activation of QFL T-cells, a subset of T-cells that monitor ERAAP integrity and eliminate cells experiencing ERAAP dysfunction. In this study, we aimed to identify host factors that regulate ERAAP expression level and determine whether these could be manipulated during viral infections. We performed a CRISPR knockout screen and identified ERp44 as a factor promoting ERAAP retention in the ER. ERp44's interaction with ERAAP is dependent on the pH gradient between the ER and Golgi. We hypothesized that viruses that disrupt the pH of the secretory pathway interfere with ERAAP retention. Here, we demonstrate that expression of the Envelope (E) protein from Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) leads to Golgi pH neutralization and consequently decrease of ERAAP intracellular levels. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2-induced ERAAP loss correlates with its release into the extracellular environment. ERAAP's reliance on ERp44 and a functioning ER/Golgi pH gradient for proper localization and function led us to propose that ERAAP serves as a sensor of disturbances in the secretory pathway during infection and disease. Copy rights belong to original authors. Visit the link for more info Podcast created by Paper Player, LLC

Link to bioRxiv paper: http://biorxiv.org/cgi/content/short/2022.10.30.514412v1?rss=1 Authors: Fain, C. E., Zheng, J., Jin, F., Ayasoufi, K., Wu, Y., Lilley, M. T., Dropik, A. R., Wolf, D. M., Rodriguez, R. C., Aibaidula, A., Tritz, Z. P., Bouchal, S. M., Pewe, L. L., Urban, S. L., Chen, Y., Chang, S.-Y., Hansen, M. J., Kachergus, J. M., Shi, J., Thompson, A. A., Harty, J. T., Parney, I. F., Sun, J., Wu, L.-J., Johnson, A. J. Abstract: CD8 T cells are implicated in the neuropathology of human cerebral malaria. Using human data as well as the Plasmodium berghei ANKA (PbA) model of experimental cerebral malaria (ECM), we sought to define contributions of brain endothelial cell MHC class I antigen (Ag) presentation to CD8 T cells in this pathology. We crossed novel H-2Kb and H-2Db LoxP mice to Cdh5-Cre mice to achieve targeted deletion of discrete class I molecules on endothelium. RNA transcriptomes of brains during PbA infection are differential between H-2Kb and H-2Db expressing mice, highlighting differential regulation of neuropathogenesis. Distinct patterns of disease onset, CD8 T cell infiltration, targeted cell death, and regional BBB disruption and vascular leakage are observed. Strikingly, ablation of H-2Kb or H-2Db from brain endothelial cells resulted in diminished interactions of T cells with brain vasculature and lessened infiltration of activated CD8 T cells, resulting in prevention of blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption, CNS vascular leakage and death. Overall, endothelium-specific conditional knockout (cKO) mice were protected from development of ECM resulting in survival of the mice. These data show the first in vivo evidence that interactions of CD8 T cells and cognate peptide:MHC on brain endothelium regulate development of ECM neuropathology. Therefore, targeting MHC class I interactions therapeutically may hold potential for treatment of cases of severe malaria. Copy rights belong to original authors. Visit the link for more info Podcast created by Paper Player, LLC

In this JCO Precision Oncology Conversations podcast, JCO PO author Dr. Thanh Dellinger of City of Hope National Medical Center shares insights into the research published in her article, “Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy–Induced Molecular Changes in Humans Validate Preclinical Data in Ovarian Cancer.” Podcast host Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash talks with Dr. Dellinger about hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and the various challenges of the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). The study described in this JCO PO article discusses protein expression, RNAseq alterations and signature, and whole-transcriptome sequencing and signatures. Read here  https://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/PO.21.00239   TRANSCRIPT Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Welcome to ASCO's Precision Oncology Conversations where we bring you the highlights and overview of precision oncology. This podcast is here to provide interactive dialogue focusing on the excellent research published in the JCO Precision Oncology. Our episodes will feature engaging conversations regarding precision oncology with the authors of a clinically relevant and highly significant JCO Precision Oncology article. You can find all our shows including this one at asco.org/podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hello, I am Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash. I'm a medical oncologist and a phase one clinical trialist at the OU Stephenson Cancer Center. You're listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. I have no conflicts of interest related to this podcast. A complete list of disclosures is available at the end of each episode. Today, I will be talking with Dr. Thanh Dellinger from the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, who's a gynecological oncologist, and we'll be talking about her JCO Precision Oncology article, ‘Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy-Induced Molecular Changes in Humans Validate Preclinical Data in Ovarian Cancer.' Dr. Dellinger does not have any conflicts of interest. Hi, Dr. Dellinger, welcome to our podcast! Dr. Thanh Dellinger: Hi, Dr. Naqash! It's such a pleasure to be on with you. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: We recently saw your paper published. It's one of those interesting, clinical translational papers that we felt needed to be highlighted in our Precision Oncology Podcast series. So, we're really excited to have you here today to take a deeper dive into the findings and some of the novel approaches that you used in your recent publication. So, for starters, could you give our listeners a brief idea of what HIPEC is, where it's used, and when it's used in ovarian cancer? Dr. Thanh Dellinger: Right! Thank you very much for this great introduction. So, HIPEC or Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy has been used in ovarian cancer for quite some time. The most relevant data giving us an indication for ovarian cancer was published by Dr. van Driel in the OVHIPEC-1 randomized trial several years ago in the New England Journal of Medicine, which demonstrated that in stage 3 ovarian cancer patients who undergo an interval tumor debulking with HIPEC, that those patients appear to enjoy both progression-free and overall survival benefit. In fact, the overall survival benefit is nearly 12 months for those patients. So, with this in mind and a number of other data, the HIPEC treatment for those patients that interval debulking has been incorporated into the NCCN guidelines. Nonetheless, there have been some criticisms of HIPEC and it still remains to be seen who those patients are, the ovarian cancer patients who really best benefit from HIPEC, given the morbidity of HIPEC. We now know also that HIPEC is probably equivalent to just cytoreductive surgery alone in terms of morbidity. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for that explanation. And especially for people like myself, who are not surgeons or gynecological oncologists, that was very helpful. So, my next question, and you probably partly answered it, but I'm going to still ask the question is: what is the reason you think that intraperitoneal chemotherapy overall, has not been as widely adopted? Dr. Thanh Dellinger: You touch on a very good point there. As many of the listeners may understand, IP chemotherapy has demonstrated a lot of efficacies in multiple clinical trials over the last decade or two decades even. And part of why, despite its benefit, it has not been taken up in the overall community may really be the difficulty and the complexity of doing IP chemotherapy in the community, especially the side effects are difficult sometimes to take care of. There's increased abdominal pain and there are catheter issues. And so, especially with more recent data, that with the presence of Avastin, IP chemotherapy may not necessarily be as beneficial. Unfortunately, IP chemotherapy hasn't been really taken up in daily oncologic care with ovarian cancer. Nonetheless, we know that there are a lot of theoretical benefits because of the peritoneal metastasis not being as best treated with intravenous chemotherapy as with regional therapy. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Thank you! So, now going to the data that you published. I was very intrigued with some of the findings. And from what I understood, your main aim was to understand predictive biomarkers to identify patients or basically identify molecular characteristics for patients' selection for HIPEC. So, could you tell us more about why you initiated this study? And I understand this is one of the, I believe the first study in humans to evaluate some of these interesting biomarkers, both pre- and post-. So, what was the background of doing this trial? And what led to this interesting study? Dr. Thanh Dellinger: Thank you for pointing out this aim. There's a lot of criticism of HIPEC and part of it is that we may not exactly understand the mechanisms of HIPEC, why is it that it works so well in some patients? There's a lot of preclinical data supporting hyperthermia, especially with cisplatin. There's synergy between cisplatin and hyperthermia, and improving the DNA adduct formation. There's increased cytotoxicity seen when the temperature increases up to 43 degrees. And there's also a T-cell activation and immune response that occurs during hyperthermia. So, a lot of this, however, has been done in preclinical studies, in vitro data as well as preclinical mouse models. There hasn't been much or really anything published that, as far as I know, has been done in humans. And so, this particular study looked at both pre-treatments, pre-HIPEC specimens, peritoneal biopsies, as well as immediate post-operative peritoneal biopsies, tumors, and normal samples, and we wanted to look both at the whole transcriptomic sequencing profile, but also at the tumor microenvironment. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: From a logistic standpoint, from a trial design standpoint, was this a phase 1 study? I know you use the term pilot in the publication. So, were you trying to look at safety also, or was this primarily I would say, a biomarker, pharmacodynamic biomarker-driven study that you were trying to evaluate? Dr. Thanh Dellinger: You're correct. This was essentially a feasibility study. But we additionally looked at safety and feasibility with HIPEC at our institution. And in some respects, we also looked at the feasibility of giving intraperitoneal chemotherapy normothermically early after HIPEC, and so it was also an endpoint to look at safety. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Understand! I believe there was some difference in the dose for the cisplatin, I believe, is the chemotherapy that you use. What was the rationale for the difference in the dose for 75 milligrams per meter square that you use in your study? Dr. Thanh Dellinger: The study was initiated at a time before the OVHIPEC-1 trial was published. And so, at that time, the HIPEC dose for cisplatin was still not established. 75 milligrams per meter square for cisplatin was actually used in other trials, and has been noted to be effective in other clinical trials. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Thank you! Now going to the patient population for this trial. What type of patients were you enrolling? Was it just epithelial ovarian cancer patients, did these patients need to have peritoneal metastases when you were doing this cytoreductive surgery? What was the patient population that you were targeting in this trial? Dr. Thanh Dellinger: The majority of the patients did have epithelial ovarian cancer. We did enroll a few, actually 5, uterine cancer patients as well, which were not included in this specific publication. But the majority of them were epithelial ovarian cancer patients. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Going to the interesting translational analysis. So, you had three subsets of patients based on the biopsy collection. What were your hypotheses, and what drove some of those translational studies to understand the biomarkers? Dr. Thanh Dellinger: The first translational analysis we conducted was the whole transcriptomic sequencing, and specifically, we wanted to look, one, for any potential transcriptomic signatures that may correlate with survival or improved response to HIPEC. The second one was to look at whole exome sequencing. Thirdly, we looked at whole transcriptomic sequencing differences before and after HIPEC treatment. And lastly, we looked at the tumor microenvironment through multiplexing of certain markers associated with T-cell response. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: From a clinical outcome standpoint - and we'll discuss the biomarkers in more detail - from a clinical standpoint, when I briefly looked over the PFS curves, were the results, as far as expected outcomes, were they similar to what you see with the current standard? Or were there any unusual safety signals? Or would you attribute any of the adverse events that you saw to intraperitoneal chemotherapy specifically? Because I believe some patients did have some chemotherapy pre-surgery, neoadjuvant if I'm correct. So, how would you attribute some of those AEs, and if at all, did you see any interesting safety signals of concern and outcomes as far as PFS is concerned? Dr. Thanh Dellinger: So, one of the major toxicities that we saw in the first half of our trial were actually renal toxicities. In fact, there were actually two patients who could not go on to adjuvant chemotherapy because they suffered chronic renal failure. And because of that, halfway through the trial, we did actually add a nephro protectant called sodium thiosulfate. And this actually dramatically improved those renal toxicities. And for the second half of our study, no patients suffered grade three or grade four renal adverse events. And so, that did change significantly. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: From a genomic standpoint, it's very interesting that you were able to do all these very cool and interesting translational biomarker studies, including multiplex immunofluorescence. From a genomic standpoint, though, would you say it's fair to say that there was no significant correlation based on the baseline genomics for some of the patients and their outcomes? Is that a fair assessment? Dr. Thanh Dellinger: Yes, that is a very fair assessment. I think that our cohort was really too small to make those kinds of assessments. I don't know whether you saw there recently was a paper published by the OVHIPEC-1 group looking at their cohort of over 200 patients that underwent the interval cytoreductive surgery in HIPEC and they did actually demonstrate benefit in patients who are HIV-positive but BRCA wild-type, but not necessarily in BRCA mutated patients. So, I think that I would point to that study to look for genomic effects with HIPEC patients. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Understand. Now, again, going to the biomarkers that your team evaluated, it seems from among good responders especially, you saw an increase in tumor necrosis factor, alpha signaling, NF-kappa B signaling, KRAS signaling, and then you also saw some pathways that were downregulated, especially the G2-M checkpoint, and Myc targets. What would you say the correlation of these is in terms of future drug development in this specific setting? Dr. Thanh Dellinger: I think that we did see some increase in immune pathways in patients who did better in the end. And also, our multiplex results did demonstrate that E1 expression was increased in patients who had better responses after HIPEC. So, our hypothesis is that potentially, there's an activation of T-cell response with HIPEC and that potentially PD-1 inhibitor could be added in the future. This is a hypothesis that certainly would need to have more work, but it's something that is interesting enough to really look at in ways of how to improve HIPEC. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Going to your point on the PD-1, I found really intriguing that you were able to see an increase in PD-1 expression on CD8+ T cells but no actual increase in the number of CD8+ T cells suggesting there's some sort of activation of this marker and this may not necessarily be a marker for T-cell exhaustion. So, would you interpret it in a way that in a different setting, perhaps a new adjuvant approach with immunotherapy, would perhaps somehow augment this and then you could see more upregulation? Is there any work being done in that field? How would you put this in the context of your findings? Dr. Thanh Dellinger: You bring up a really great point because to date HIPEC has been demonstrated to have benefit in the interval setting. But there was a more recent study done by, well not recent, a more recently published study by a Korean group that demonstrated no benefit in the adjuvant setting for HIPEC and still some benefit in the interval setting. And the question is, are these really two different types of cohorts who respond differently because of potential differences in immune response and tumor microenvironment? I think that that would be a great way of delving further into this. What are really the differences in tumor microenvironment changes in those two different settings? Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Definitely! It's very exciting. You've also shown upregulation of, as you mentioned earlier, immune pathways, as well as upregulation of genes related to heat shock proteins. Does that play into future drug development as far as HSP Inhibitors are concerned? Dr. Thanh Dellinger: That is a really great question. Certainly, in preclinical models, heat shock proteins are known to be elevated and they do activate dendritic cells and result in T-cell activation. Now, whether that can be spelled out into actually some future drug therapy definitely remains to be seen. To date, there hasn't been any success in using heat shock types of agents or inhibitors, unfortunately. So, I think while this is of great interest, I'm not entirely sure that this will translate into any drug therapy in the future. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: And I totally connect with you there as a phase 1 trialist. I completely agree that we see a lot of translational data, more often than not, going into the phase 1 site because many of these targets are not actionable. Now, from a DNA repair standpoint, you did see that there was interference with DNA repair, as far as some of the analyses that you did, but I did not specifically see any markers for DNA damage that were assessed on the biopsies such as Gamma-H2AX, RAD 51, or Phospho-NBS. Was there a reason why that was not looked at? Dr. Thanh Dellinger: I think that we did look at that and there weren't really any significant results. We did put some of the data into the supplementary data. I think that in the end, our cohort was really too small to really make any meaningful data. But I absolutely agree with you looking at HSP and DNA repair is really important. And as I mentioned that most recently published paper does address that. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Excellent! Do you think that there could be any confounders in this analysis that could have led to the upregulation of some of these pathways and may not necessarily have been the intraperitoneal chemotherapy? Could you think of some other reasons that this could have been a confounding factor? Or would it primarily be attributed to the intraperitoneal chemotherapy that you guys have looked at in this interesting paper? Dr. Thanh Dellinger: Yeah, it is a rather small cohort. So, I think that more data is required to potentially repeat this in the larger cohort. But what is interesting is that we did have paired analysis. So, we had matched peritoneal samples from the same patients looking before the HIPEC and after the HIPEC, which is very unique and hasn't really been done in the setting before. And while you couldn't necessarily repeat the same exact peritoneal tumor it was very close. And so, in the best setting, I think that we did have a good paired analysis. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: That was one of the very interesting aspects of this study that I very much appreciated, that you were able to get some of those paired biopsies and do the analyses on samples and look at all these markers. So, this was all excellent work and definitely intrigues the mind into what other ways one could use some of these findings to develop future combination-based approaches, whether it's the neoadjuvant or the adjuvant setting for patients with ovarian cancer. Are there any next steps as part of this project that you are excited about that you can share? Dr. Thanh Dellinger: Right! I'm definitely very excited about trying to build on this and essentially developing a much larger predictive study using hundreds of ovarian cancer HIPEC-treated tumors in collaboration with others. We have definitely developed a great community of HIPEC investigators who are very interested in developing somewhat of a predictive signature for ovarian cancer undergoing HIPEC. So, I'm very excited to hopefully be able to develop this consortium of HIPEC transcriptomic research. And so, I'm looking forward to collaborating with my co-investigators on that. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: It was definitely exciting to talk to you about your work. Now, I want to ask you about you as an investigator or as a researcher. How did you end up in this field? What was your background while you were pursuing science and medicine? How did you end up in this field and how are you mentoring the next generation? Dr. Thanh Dellinger: When I was a fellow at UCI, my mentor Robert Bristow introduced me to HIPEC and that has really stuck. As a GYN oncologist, it is hard to really do both chemo and be a good surgeon. And in many ways, I have really specialized in surgical oncology more than in medical oncology. And HIPEC is really a very nice blend of the two. It allows you to do clinical trials while still doing surgery and giving some chemotherapy. Really, it was for the introduction of my more recent mentor, Elena Rodriguez, who really introduced me to genomics and applying this to HIPEC samples that this all came about. And so, I think that there are a lot of opportunities for surgical oncologists who do not give chemo and may think that clinical research is not for them, but there are a lot of translational opportunities and clinical trial opportunities for those who don't give chemotherapy, but are surgical oncologists. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much. We are really excited for all the work that you're doing and will continue to do and hopefully, we'll see more of this evolve as time progresses. Dr. Thanh Dellinger: Thank you so much, Dr. Naqash. It was such a pleasure meeting you and talking to you. Dr. Abdul Rafeh Naqash: Same here. Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. To listen to more, visit asco.org/podcasts, or find them on Google Play Spotify and Apple podcasts. To stay up to date, be sure to follow and share JCO Precision Oncology content on Twitter. The Twitter handle is @JCOPO_ASCO. All JCO PO articles and series can be found at ascopubs.org/journals/PO. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  Guest Bio Dr. Thanh Dellinger, MD, is a gynecologic oncologist and physician-scientist who specializes in ovarian and uterine cancer. She is an expert in hyperthermic (HIPEC) and pressurized aerosolized intraperitoneal chemotherapy (PIPAC), and is the primary investigator of clinical and translational studies focusing on these therapies. She received her medical degree at University of California Irvine, where she also completed a gynecologic oncology fellowship. She is leading the first U.S. clinical trial in PIPAC (pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy), a novel therapy using pressurized aerosolized chemotherapy for ovarian cancer. Her current research focuses on innovative therapies for ovarian cancer using intraoperative chemotherapy, and novel antibody and nanoparticle therapies.

Link to bioRxiv paper: http://biorxiv.org/cgi/content/short/2022.10.17.512526v1?rss=1 Authors: Ferreira, S. A., Li, C., Klaestrup, I. H., Toft, G. U., Betzer, C., Svedsen, P., Jensen, P. H., Luo, Y., Etzerodt, A., Moestrup, S. K., Romero-Ramos, M. Abstract: The aggregation of alpha-synuclein (-syn) and immune activation are both pathological events related to the neurodegenerative process in Parkinsons disease (PD). The PD-associated immune response involves both brain and peripheral immune cells, although little is known about the immune proteins relevant for such response. CD163 is a scavenger receptor specifically expressed in the monocytic lineage, but normally not in microglia. Therefore, the presence of CD163 positive cells into the brain in PD rodent models and in PD patients suggest a monocytic infiltration or otherwise ectopic CD163 expression. In addition, changes in CD163 expression profiles observed in PD patients might indicate a role for CD163-expressing cells in the disease. To elucidate the relevance of the CD163 receptor in the -syn-induced immune events in PD and associated degeneration we injected murine -syn pre-formed fibrils (PFF), or monomeric -syn into the striatum of CD163 knockout (KO) mice and wild-type (WT) littermates. Injection of -syn PFF in CD163KO females led to impaired early immune responses as revealed by the lack of ability to upregulate MHCII, CD68, GFAP, and promote CD4 and CD8 T cell infiltration after -syn PFF injection. An early and long-lasting sensorimotor impairment was observed in -syn PFF CD163KO males but not in the females. Transcriptomic analysis revealed that CD163 deletion induced phenotypic changes of macrophages and microglia in the brain that potentially impact the motor behavior and neuronal health induced by -syn in a sex-dependent manner. After 6 months, CD163KO females showed an exacerbated immune response and -syn pathology associated with autophagic defects, which ultimately led to increased dopaminergic neurodegeneration. Overall, our results support a novel sex-dimorphic neuroprotective role for CD163 in the -syn-induced neuropathology and immune response. Copy rights belong to original authors. Visit the link for more info Podcast created by Paper Player, LLC

Dr. Henrique Borges da Silva is an Assistant Professor at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona. His main research focus is determining how extracellular nucleotides affect transcriptional, metabolic, and functional mechanisms of CD8+ T cells in response to viral infections and cancer. He talks about where extracellular ATP comes from, and how there could be a link between ATP and ADP immunological signaling and the powers of caffeine.

Link to bioRxiv paper: http://biorxiv.org/cgi/content/short/2022.09.30.510367v1?rss=1 Authors: Sutter, P. A., Menoret, A., Jellison, E. R., Nicaise, A. M., Bradbury, A. M., Vella, A. T., Bongarzone, E. R., Crocker, S. J. Abstract: Globoid cell leukodystrophy (GLD) or Krabbes disease is a fatal genetic demyelinating disease of the central nervous system caused by loss-of-function mutations in the galactosylceramidase (galc) gene. While the metabolic basis for disease is known, the understanding of how this results in neuropathology is not well understood. Herein we report that the rapid and protracted elevation of CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes occurs coincident with clinical disease in a mouse model of GLD. Administration of a function blocking antibody against CD8a effectively prevented disease onset, reduced morbidity and mortality and prevented CNS demyelination in mice. These data indicate that subsequent to the genetic cause of disease, neuropathology is driven by pathogenic CD8+ T cells, thus offering novel therapeutic potential for treatment of GLD. Copy rights belong to original authors. Visit the link for more info Podcast created by PaperPlayer

 Several recent reports have postulated a link between autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) following SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. This EASL Studio JHEP Live discuss the potential links between COVID-19 and AIH.ℹ️ More information on the topic can be found in these articles:Autoimmune hepatitis and COVID-19: No increased risk for AIH after vaccination but reduced care, Rüther et al., J Hepatol. 2022 Jul; 77(1): 250–251SARS-CoV-2 vaccination can elicit a CD8 T-cell dominant hepatitis, Böttler et al., J Hepatol. 2022 Apr 21All EASL Studio Podcasts are available on EASL Campus.

How can we develop new treatments to tackle antibiotic resistance and tumors. Antibiotics were the miracle of public health in the 20th century, but how can we establish new treatments into the 21st. Find the right protein and you can stop bacteria in its tracks by splitting it in two. New treatments can tackle antibiotic resistant bacteria by using proteins to break them in two. Cancer vaccines are benefiting from the mRNA revolution. A challenge with vaccines is that they can end up in the liver, so how do you get them to  deliver their instructions more effectively. Using special lipid nano particles, cancer mRNA vaccines can target the lymph nodes making for more powerful vaccines. Shouya Feng, Daniel Enosi Tuipulotu, Abhimanu Pandey, Weidong Jing, Cheng Shen, Chinh Ngo, Melkamu B. Tessema, Fei-Ju Li, Daniel Fox, Anukriti Mathur, Anyang Zhao, Runli Wang, Klaus Pfeffer, Daniel Degrandi, Masahiro Yamamoto, Patrick C. Reading, Gaetan Burgio, Si Ming Man. Pathogen-selective killing by guanylate-binding proteins as a molecular mechanism leading to inflammasome signaling. Nature Communications, 2022; 13 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-32127-0 Jinjin Chen, Zhongfeng Ye, Changfeng Huang, Min Qiu, Donghui Song, Yamin Li, Qiaobing Xu. Lipid nanoparticle-mediated lymph node–targeting delivery of mRNA cancer vaccine elicits robust CD8 + T cell response. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2022; 119 (34) DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2207841119

In this week's episode we first review new work revealing the critical role of the tension-sensitive cation channel PIEZO1 in the transendothelial migration of leukocytes. We'll also review new research suggesting that CD8+ T-cells dimly expressing the CD4 antigen are increased in patients with various forms of secondary HLH, a finding that may have diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic significance. Finally, we'll review a large, genome-wide association study identifying the ABO O blood group as a novel risk factor for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia—a finding that could have implications for prediction of this syndrome and for the management of related conditions.

Dr. Diwakar Davar and Dr. Jason Luke, both of the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center, highlight key advances in early phase therapeutics and immunotherapy that were featured at the 2022 ASCO Annual Meeting and also address toxicities, including immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated myocarditis. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Diwakar Davar: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. My name is Dr. Diwakar Davar, and I'm an assistant professor of Medical Oncology, specializing in melanoma and phase 1 therapeutics at the University of Pittsburgh's Hillman Cancer Center. I am the guest host of today's podcast. My guest today is Dr. Jason Luke, a colleague and the director of the Cancer Immunotherapeutics Center at the UPMC Hillman Cancer Center here.  Today, we'll be discussing advances in early-phase therapeutics and immunotherapy that were featured at the 2022 ASCO Annual Meeting.   You'll find our full disclosures in the show notes, and the disclosures of all guests on the podcast are available on our transcripts at asco.org/podcasts.  Jason, thank you for coming on the podcast today.  Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks so much for the invitation. It was a great ASCO, and I hope everyone had a good time.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: So, onto our abstracts. So, the first one that we'll be discussing, and Jason as you know we've done this before. We'll be rapidly transitioning between phase 1 therapeutics, melanoma, and advanced phase 2 and 3 trials, but you know this is something you do very well. So Abstract 2504, it's a phase 1 trial of TIM-3 inhibitor cobomilab immunotherapy and in combination with PD-1 inhibitors nivolumab and dostarlimab. The AMBER Trial that was presented recently, and in full disclosure, both you and I actually are on this abstract. So, what do you think of this abstract? What do you think of the data that is discussed, and how do we contextualize this in relation to what needs to be done in this space?  Dr. Jason Luke: So, I think this is an exciting abstract because it brings forward what may be the next high-priority immune checkpoint to try to target in clinical oncology. To level-set, I think everybody listening will know about PD-1 and CTLA-4 as immune checkpoints. In the last year, we've had LAG-3 come forward as now a standard of care element of armamentarium in melanoma, and we look forward to further studies of LAG-3 and other tumor types as we think it should be a good partner where PD-1 is otherwise approved.  So here now, we hear about TIM-3, which is another negative regulatory checkpoint on a number of different immune subsets. And in this abstract, the antibody targeting TIM-3 was cobolimab. So, TIM-3 is a very interesting molecule. It has, what you might call, pleiotropic effects in the immune system. So, while in the context of this abstract, it was being targeted as another immune checkpoint on T cells, it's important to point out that TIM-3 has other regulatory roles in other immune subsets such as myeloid cells and very particularly dendritic cells, and that's important because it might bring in another element of the innate immune system to try to drive anti-tumor responses. So, it's an exciting target because it might be able to expand the groups of patients who could benefit from immune checkpoint blockade.  So, in this abstract, we see initially the phase 1 data of combining cobolimab, anti-TIM-3 with anti-PD-1 of a couple of different flavors. And what you could take from this abstract is that in the phase 1 setting, the drug was well-tolerated and combined well, and had pharmacokinetic properties that would be consistent with what we'd expect for this kind of a monoclonal antibody. I think we have to marry this abstract, which is really the phase 1 data about safety in pharmacokinetic (PK) to another abstract presented in the melanoma session, which showed an expansion cohort of patients who got cobolimab plus nivolumab or dostarlimab.  And there we did see a 50% response rate, albeit that there was heterogeneity of patients being treatment naïve versus treatment-experienced. So, what I would say to this on a high level is that I think these data are preliminarily exciting, suggesting that further investigation into TIM-3 may be valuable in terms of expanding the population of patients initially in melanoma, but there will data coming soon in lung cancer and in other tumor types with another novel checkpoint. And I think if we think ahead into the future, the question is probably going to end up being, which combinations of checkpoints for which patients. That's pretty exciting to think about. We've seen a lot of data of PD-1 plus other molecules, and I think some future biomarker stratification really will be necessary to know which patient would benefit the most from which of these combos, but for the time being, this is exciting data to see where the field is going to go over the next couple of years.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: Great. And I guess, to your point, one important thing to highlight from the abstract is your point about the role of the different compartments. There was actually a very interesting dose-response relationship with the highest dose of the drug not necessarily being the most effective dose, suggesting that yes, as you escalate, you may have different effects in different compartments, and maybe therefore a broad selection of doses might be required to ensure that you have optimal engagement of the optimal target.  So, the next abstract is Abstract 3007. This is the tumor-agnostic efficacy and safety of erdafitinib. So, we now know that FGFR pathway aberrations are found from 77% of all malignancies, FGFR targets are now U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in cholangiocarcinoma with pemigatinib, infigratinib, and as well with erdafitinib metastatic urothelial cancer. We know that these agents are not necessarily effective tests in 1 tumor type because these alterations have risen in multiple tumor types. So, the RAGNAR trial, looking at this across multiple tumor types, what do you make of the interim analysis result presented by Dr. Loriot?  Dr. Jason Luke: So, I'd say that this is probably the future of targeted therapy. And so, I think that where we have activity in 1 disease, it's very likely we would have activity in others. So, the author has described this as the largest basket trial of a molecularly defined subset that's been pursued to date. There are upwards of more than 200 patients in the study. I think it's really important, as we think about the data, to realize, though, that all FGFR alterations are not exactly the same thing. And so, in this study, they gave erdafitinib to patients with solid tumors of any FGFR altered status. And so that's FGFR1, 2, 3, 4 mutations or gene fusions. And that's a lot of heterogeneity in there actually.  And in this study, there were two-thirds fusions and one-third mutations, mostly in FGFR2 and 3. That will become relevant as we start to think about the results. On a high level, I have to say that it is impressive in pan-cancer fashion, just selecting by FGFR alteration, there's about a 30% response rate observed. I think that no matter what, that's going to be valuable considering these were patients with refractory tumors with 3 lines of prior therapy on median. I think what we need to know more is the breakdown of which specific molecular alteration and FGFR in which tumor types drove most of the benefit.  So, for example, in bladder cancer where erdafitinib is already approved, that's almost entirely an FGFR3 fusion setting. So we know the drug is effective there. And so I think there will be a further breakdown of the data. As it matures more, you really start to tease out, is it really the case that any FGFR alteration can be treated or there are some that really ought to be the high priorities that we really ought to be going after. I think it would be remiss not to also note, however, that while there's excitement about this sort of pan-cancer approach, the current generation of FGFR inhibitors are not exactly the easiest drugs to take.  And so, the in-class, hypophosphatemia and stomatitis really does lead to dose reductions in a lot of the patients. And I think that that's probably really important to emphasize is that despite the pan-tumor activity, there's still a lot of potential in this field to refine further because it's almost certainly the case that if we had less off-target toxicity, so to say, we could improve the efficacy beyond that 30% that we saw here.  All the same, I think this is exciting for the concept of a pan-cancer tumor agnostic sort of approach, and we'll really look forward to more data to come from this study over the next, hopefully, few months.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: And I guess 1 corollary to that is that we now need to start looking for FGFR alterations in multiple tumor types. So, tests, tests, tests. All right, Abstract 3004, phase 1a/1b dose escalation and expansion study of the MDM2-p53 antagonist BI 907828 in patients with multiple solid tumors including advanced, metastatic, liposarcoma. So, we've recently had data of the previously undruggable KRAS, and now we've got previously undruggable p53, for which we now have targets. So, Jason, what do you make of the p53 targeting approach, in this case, using MDM2 and this particular drug from Boehringer Ingelheim?  Dr. Jason Luke: So, I think that this is an exciting abstract exactly for the reason that you mentioned, which is that p53 has been, and unfortunately, to some degree, still remains, one of those holy grails but undruggable targets in oncology. So MDM2, for those who are listening but might not be aware, is a negative regulator of p53. So, the concept here then is if you drug it, you might release p53 to reactivate activity in that pathway, and then p53 being the guardian of the genome, so to say, potentially leading to apoptosis of cancer cells.  And so, this drug binds MDM2 and MDM2 can be amplified as a resistance mechanism in p53 and several tumor types. And so here, they showed data for the early part of a clinical trial investigating the small molecule, BI 907828, but then they focus specifically in liposarcoma, which is a disease known to be an MDM2 amplified. And so, the results were pretty interesting. The toxicity of this kind of an approach, just to note, is really in class. It leads to some gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities as well as hematologic problems, and this goes again for most regulators of the cell cycle will have these effects, whether they're CDK inhibitors or MDM2 or p53 modulators.  But I think what was very interesting, this is a disease liposarcoma where chemotherapy, functionally speaking, has no role. We, unfortunately, give it to some patients sometimes, but it has almost no activity, and they observe that in poorly differentiated liposarcomas, the response rate was about 12%, but the stable disease was quite durable. And so, I think that really is potentially a big deal because this is an orphan disease. It really lacks any other treatment. But as you zoom out from that, if you start to think about targeting amplified MDM2 in other settings, I think the activity that we see here is intriguing, and potentially suggests that we may be coming to a future where we'll have multiple, sort of, orthogonal approaches after reactivating p53. There were actually other abstracts at ASCO Annual Meeting of other molecules that were less mature also along this line.  So, I think, very exciting to take away from this, one, a potential treatment for liposarcoma for all of those patients that anybody listening actually sees, but secondarily this concept of targeting p53, which I think we'll see a lot more of over the next couple of years.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: Excellent. Moving on to the Abstract 3002, this is a phase 1, two-part multicenter, first-in-human study of DS-6000a of an antibody-drug conjugate comprising the anti-CDH6 IgG1 monoclonal antibody that is attached to a topoisomerase I inhibitor payload via a cleavable linker. And so basically, a way in which you can give topoisomerase: (1) TOP1 inhibitor, (2) CDH6-expressing cells. This was studied in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and advanced ovarian cancer in this abstract presented by Dr. Hamilton. Jason, what do you think of the results and what do you think of this approach in general, this antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) approach using novel targets as well as novel payloads?  Dr. Jason Luke: I think this is one of those that you can't help but be pretty excited about, and I think in the context of the data shown at the plenary session in breast cancer for antibody-drug conjugates (LBA3), I think this is really where the field is going to start to go. So, you mentioned that this is an antibody-drug conjugate that targets cadherin 6 or CDH6, which people will remember from biochemistry class and medical school, or something is a cell-cell adhesion molecule, really a basement membrane protein. So, the concept of targeting it really is just to go after a latch mechanism to get the molecule into the tumor where you want. And CDH expression is very high in renal cell carcinoma, upwards of 80% of samples, also high in ovarian cancer, which is why they chose those 2 tumors to go after.  So, the ADCC, and you described its structure just a little bit, but it's essentially the same backbone as trastuzumab deruxtecan, which we saw this outstanding activity for HER2 and breast cancer on the plenary, with these 8 chemotherapies moieties attached to it, but here now, targeting it instead to HER2, with this molecule now to CDH6. And I think, again, you can't help but be impressed. There were treatment responses on almost every dose level of the dose escalation in this study. There's in fact only 1 patient whose tumor was not, at least, stable disease or a PR, and I think that that just goes to show the power of truly bringing the chemotherapy in a targeted manner into the tumor microenvironment. Responses were heterogeneous. They were not super deep responses per se, but the stable disease was quite durable in the study, and the patients were going out more than 7 months. And again, realizing this is at the lower dose levels as we're increasing the dose and move this in their earlier lives of therapy is likely to be even more effective.  They did show a waterfall plot of the reduction in CA 125 for the patients with ovarian cancer that really looked quite impressive. And given that that's our clinical biomarker that we commonly follow, it may actually even more indicative of the benefit we would see as opposed to resist.  Now, again, there is some toxicity. It is a chemotherapy moiety that's conjugated to the ADCs. So, the most common toxicities were nausea, vomiting, and low platelet counts, but these are kind of toxicities that we're quite accustomed to with chemotherapy. Just to summarize, I think there's a lot of promise for this kind of antibody-drug conjugate targeting, and I think it can only be impressive that they had this amount of activity in the dose escalation of the study. [I] very much look forward to the expansion cohorts in renal and ovarian, which we'll presumably expect to see later this year, early in the next year.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: And as you alluded to, this really was parallel that ASCO, by the standing ovation given to Dr. Modi when she presented the DESTINY04 data of trastuzumab deruxtecan in HER2-low breast cancer, basically now redefining breast cancer from 4 camps, now we have to think of not just HER2 amplified or HER2-high, but also HER2-low. So yes, really have to now rethink how we classify these diseases (LBA3).  So Abstract 2509, the efficacy of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy in non–small cell lung cancer dependent based on CD8 and PD-L1 status. So really Dr. Galon taking us into what he has now described as the immunoscore—really a way of characterizing tumors. A way of thinking about tumors that you've also championed, Jason, in terms of this T cell-inflamed and uninflamed hypothesis. So, tell us a little bit about how these jives with your work and how you would think about lung cancer patients responding and not responding to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) therapy in this context?  Dr. Jason Luke: Yeah. I think the focus quickly here on the immunoscore, so the people are aware of that, I think is really important for diving into these specific results. You have to realize our fundamental underlying predicate for immune checkpoint blockade inhibitor response is that patients have mounted an adaptive immune response. So, CD8 T-cells have gone into the tumor where they elaborate chemokines and cytokines like interferon gamma, which upregulates the expression of PD-L1 in the tumor but also in the surrounding immune cells.  So, you realize that even though antibodies are targeting PD-1, it's really that we're targeting that tumor microenvironment. So, the more robustly we can measure that, and we understand it, the more likely we are to know whether or not the patient is going to benefit. So, this is where the immunoscore comes in. The immunoscore is actually a fairly simple test. It's one slide, immunohistochemistry slide where they can stain jointly for CD8 and PD-L1 on the same slide. And that allows them to do a number of different things beyond just testing the total level of PD-L1. They can test the CD8 density, the PD-L1 expression, but then also the interaction between CD8 T-cells, their distance from each other, from PD-L1 expressing cells, and so on and so forth.  And so really [this] can give us a much more robust analysis of what all is going on in the tumor microenvironment again, off of a single slide. So here then, in this abstract, for patients with non–small cell lung cancer receiving anti-PD-1, they then compared the utility of only PD-L1 testing versus doing the immunoscore. And so, it was actually quite a large set. They had about 250 patients in their analytical set and then split about 150 or 180 or something into the training and validation sets, and they compared the immunoscore against 2 different standard PD-L1 antibodies, the 22C3 as well as the SP263. And what they saw was a high concordance for expression between PD-L1 and the immunoscore.  That's good, because, again, they're measuring PD-L1 in both of those. And so that was a good, sort of, level set. The immunoscore, however, allows them to look to 7 different parameters, again, beyond just PD-L1, as I mentioned. So, CD8 density, interaction, distance, and this kind of thing. Then in these test and training cohorts, they were able to actually split out patients who are PD-L1 positive into further groups, those that were immunoscore low and that were high. And in so doing, they were actually able to sort of dramatically predict the likely progression-free survival on PD-1 checkpoint blockade in those different non–small cell lung cancer groups.  So why is this important? Selection of patients by PD-1 has been very useful in the field of non–small cell lung cancer, but it's hardly a panacea. You're not at all assured your patient is going to do well just because they're PD-L1. And here comes a second assay that can be done in a standard of care setting. So, the immunoscore is a test. You could just order it, and that really does give you much more predictive power about who's likely to do well and who isn't. And I think this test and more broadly multi-spectral imaging is really going to become a core component to how we risk stratify and predict outcomes to checkpoint blockade and lung cancer, but broadly in other tumor types over the next couple of years.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: Okay. Now, moving on from a biomarker for PD-L1 and PD-1 to a setting in which PD-1 was just recently U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved, so I'll give a brief background to the trial that you've actually developed and led. And so, this is KEYNOTE-716, the abstract in question is LBA9500 (late-breaking abstract) 9500, but this is the distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) data readout. The DMFS, distant metastasis-free survival with pembrolizumab versus placebo in the adjuvant setting for patients with stage IIB or IIC, that is high-risk node-negative melanoma and the data from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-716 study.  So, this data, at least the recurrence-free survival (RFS) data was actually earlier published, you had presented it earlier last year and also more recently this year, but it was published recently in Lancet. And we know that 716 is a study in which, for the first time ever, we have an immune checkpoint inhibitor PD-1 that was studied against placebo with the high-risk node-negative setting in stage IIB and C melanoma, demonstrated a significant RFS benefit in the setting against placebo. And now we have the DMFS readout.  Maybe you could tell us a little bit about both the RFS and the DMFS data, and why this is such an important advance for these patients.  Dr. Jason Luke: Thanks. And I agree this really is a sea change in how we thought about stratification of patients with melanoma, but I think this broadly has implications for other tumor types as well. So, in melanoma, we've historically thought of its involvement of the lymph nodes—stage III as being the high-risk disease, but we also, if you look at the outcomes from the AJCC, we see the patients with stage IIB and IIC, so deep primary lesions, actually have similar bad outcomes as those patients with stage IIIA and IIIB. And so anti-PD1 and adjuvant therapy and melanoma were originally proved for stage III, but having understood that about 5 years ago actually, started to think, well, why not also treat the patients with stage II if they're at similar risk.  And we pursued KEYNOTE-716 as you mentioned, and it read out last year as a positive trial for recurrence-free survival. And the abstract here then was to look at the impact on distant metastasis-free survival. So, while the regulatory consideration for approval, and it is approved and it's available for patients now, was based on relapse, what we really want to be preventing is the development of metastatic disease because presumably that would correlate with the eventual death of the patient from cancer.  So, in the abstract here, we see the first update for DMFS, which also was positive on its first analysis, the hazard ratio at 0.64. And so, again, very similar to the RFS benefit, showing about a 35-36% reduction in distant metastasis-free survival. And this is a theme that we've seen across adjuvant studies in melanoma, all the adjuvant studies in fact, is that the RFS improvement, the relapse-free survival hazard ratio mirrors very closely the distant metastasis-free survival ratio. We saw that again here. I think it just emphasizes that anti-PD-1 immunotherapy is highly effective in melanoma no matter what stage it's in, but rather related to the risk of death for melanoma.  And so this really has a practice changing in the field of melanoma oncology. Patients need to be referred to medical oncology early for discussion around risk stratification and consideration of adjuvant therapy—I think even at the same time that they're having resection of their primary lesion, and it even calls into  question of whether or not we should even fully be doing procedures like sentinel lymph node biopsies any longer, considering we can make the decision to give adjuvant therapy now based on the primary—albeit that's a controversial area of discussion.  And I would just love for this to start to penetrate into other disease settings. We've seen more recently, approval for neoadjuvant therapy in lung cancer and we see in kidney cancer, bladder cancer. We see adjuvant therapy in—I think we're going to see immunotherapy starting to become an important part of the armamentarium in these hard-to-treat cancers, even at the time that perioperatively before or after surgery.  So definitely a major change in the way we're thinking about stratifying patients and emphasizes that you need to get those patients with melanoma in to have that discussion around adjuvant therapy probably at the time of the primary lesion resection.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: And finally, Abstract 2507, single-cell profiling of human heart and blood in patients with checkpoint inhibitor-associated myocarditis. So, this is data from the NGH Group, Dr. Villani and colleagues are presented by Dr. Blum. We know that myocarditis is an uncommon but very serious immune related adverse event (irAE), and here in this particular dataset, this group which has done a lot of underlying work to really uncover the role of certain key phenotypes, cellular phenotypes, in the development of myocarditis it's presenting the data in the context of ICI-related myocarditis. So, what do you think of this data, what do you think of the use of checkpoint inhibitors are now, as you've said, migrated linear in the lifecycle of the patient, what do we need to be thinking about and how does this improve our understanding of both the use of the drug and what we need to be worried about?  Dr. Jason Luke: I think the toxicities of immunotherapy, while, less frequent than, say, chemotherapy, can actually be more disastrous. In the rare patients, we have extreme immune-related adverse events, there is an incidence of actually life-threatening and fatal events. And so, myocarditis, associated with checkpoint blockade, is one of those things that could be seen, and here at ASCO Annual Meeting, we saw a couple of abstracts summarizing the experience from the National Cancer Institute following myocarditis events, and then this abstract in a translational level trying to better understand what is actually going on in terms of the immune response in those myocarditis cases.  And so, I thought this was actually a very interesting abstract. There was only a small number of patients. They had 13 samples from patients who had had endomyocardial biopsies in the context of immune-related myocarditis, and you might say, well, only 13 samples, but fortunately, this is quite a rare event, less than 1% of patients who get immune checkpoint inhibitors. And what they saw was relatively unsurprising, which is that in patients who were having myocarditis, they saw an increase in T cells and in K-cells, as well as activated CD8 and CD4 T-cells.  I think what was very interesting was when they started to dig into what were the phenotypes of the cells and what were the pathways that were turned on. Again, it was not especially surprising to see that they saw increased levels of interferon signaling and immune-receptor signaling as well as motility and adhesion, but this really, I think emphasizes that there are potentially interventions beyond just the general immune-suppression approaches that we give. They could be more nuanced but perhaps more efficacious because sadly, patients do pass away when they develop this. And in their cohort of 13 patients, 3 of those patients died. And specifically, in looking in those 3 patients, they actually saw that all 3 patients had a shared T cell cluster. And they can't exactly say what it is exactly yet, but I think it's very interesting to see that because it suggests that there's probably something about the T cell response in those patients that disproportionately triggered a fatal event.  And if we can understand that better, we then may be able to really tailor our interventions in a way that is more useful. Because, frankly, the way these patients usually present is they show up in the emergency room (ER), and they're seen by an ER doctor who thinks they're having acute coronary. They ship them off to the catheterization (cath) lab. They open him up, and then they get in there, and there's nothing going on. There's no plaque. And so now, all of a sudden, everyone is quite confused. And so, if we had better ways to search for that ahead of time to be aware of it, we might have better interventions because usually what happens right at that moment is everybody gets very confused and starts calling the oncologist, and we start slapping on steroids and other immunomodulatory agents, but sometimes it's late.  So, I think this is a great abstract. It's really starting to preliminary give us an idea of what is the actual biology that underpins these terrible events, and we can hope that we can build off that over time hopefully to eventually come up with better predictors and then obviously better interventions to try to avoid these outcomes in a small but real number of patients.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: Excellent. One other point is you and I are both involved in drug development, and as we start thinking of side effects. Side effects are really on the flip side of responses in drug development. So really 1 point to make of this is that when people start developing side effects rather than, as you say, putting your hands up in the air and waving them around, 1 of the things that we should be doing in drug development is possibly biopsying these patients because we could get new PD insights into how these drugs work, why they work, and particularly which sub-populations themselves they work on, particularly in the early-drug development setting when you oftentimes don't have that many responses.  With that, thank you, Jason, for sharing your insights with us today.  Dr. Jason Luke: Thank you.  Dr. Diwakar Davar: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. So, thank you for your attention, and we will sign out.      Disclosures:  Dr. Diwakar Davar:   Honoraria: Merck, Tesaro, Array BioPharma, Immunocore, Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences  Consulting or Advisory Role: Instil Bio, Vedanta Biosciences  Consulting or Advisory Role (Immediate family member): Shionogi  Research Funding: Merck, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CellSight Technologies, GSK, Merck, Arvus Biosciences, Arcus Biosciences  Research Funding (Inst.): Zucero Therapeutics  Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Application No.: 63/124,231 Title: COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATING CANCER Applicant: University of Pittsburgh–Of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education Inventors: Diwakar Davar Filing Date: December 11, 2020 Country: United States MCC Reference: 10504-059PV1 Your Reference: 05545; and Application No.: 63/208,719 Enteric Microbiotype Signatures of Immune-related Adverse Events and Response in Relation to Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy  Dr. Jason Luke:   Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Actym Therapeutics, Mavu Pharmaceutical , Pyxis, Alphamab Oncology, Tempest Therapeutics, Kanaph Therapeutics, Onc.AI, Arch Oncology, Stipe, NeoTX  Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, 7 Hills Pharma, Janssen, Reflexion Medical, Tempest Therapeutics, Alphamab Oncology, Spring Bank, Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Mersana, Partner Therapeutics, Synlogic, Eisai, Werewolf, Ribon Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Regeneron, Rubius, Tesaro, Xilio, Xencor, Alnylam, Crown Bioscience, Flame Biosciences, Genentech, Kadmon, KSQ Therapeutics, Immunocore, Inzen, Pfizer, Silicon Therapeutics, TRex Bio, Bright Peak, Onc.AI, STipe, Codiak Biosciences, Day One Therapeutics, Endeavor, Gilead Sciences, Hotspot Therapeutics, SERVIER, STINGthera, Synthekine  Research Funding (Inst.): Merck , Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, Macrogenics, Xencor, Array BioPharma, Agios, Astellas Pharma , EMD Serono, Immatics, Kadmon, Moderna Therapeutics, Nektar, Spring bank, Trishula, KAHR Medical, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena Oncology, Numab, Replimmune, Rubius Therapeutics, Synlogic, Takeda, Tizona Therapeutics, Inc., BioNTech AG, Scholar Rock, Next Cure  Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Serial #15/612,657 (Cancer Immunotherapy), and Serial #PCT/US18/36052 (Microbiome Biomarkers for Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Responsiveness: Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Uses Thereof)  Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Reflexion Medical, Mersana, Pyxis, Xilio  Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.     

Videos: 1.  World Economic Forum – Hackable Humans – Yuval Noah Harari, 2.  Introducing The Reset: The Great Reset Docuseries (start @ 11:00) 3. Lara Logan Rapid Fires Truth Bombs On Ukraine Propaganda & The Democrat Narratives Of The Day (2:57) 4 .Kissinger: China, US Should Work Together to Understand, Respect Each Other's Core Interests (3:14) 5. Tipping Point – The Risks of Pfizer's Vaccine to Unborn Babies – with Naomi Wolf (start at 1.48) 6.  Good news! WHO Pandemic ‘Treaty' voted down (6:09) 7. Gravitas: Is climate activism becoming a nuisance to society? (4:32) 8. Why Asia Pacific Chose China (You Won't Believe What America Did) – Cyrus Janssen (10:37) Study confirms benefit of supplements for slowing age-related macular degeneration National Eye Institute, June 2 The Age-Related Eye Disease Studies (AREDS and AREDS2) established that dietary supplements can slow progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the most common cause of blindness in older Americans. In a new report, scientists analyzed 10 years of AREDS2 data. They show that the AREDS2 formula, which substituted antioxidants lutein and zeaxanthin for beta-carotene, not only reduces risk of lung cancer due to beta-carotene, but is also more effective at reducing risk of AMD progression, compared to the original formula. “Because beta-carotene increased the risk of lung cancer for current smokers in two NIH-supported studies, our goal with AREDS2 was to create an equally effective supplement formula that could be used by anyone, whether or not they smoke,” said Emily Chew, M.D., at the National Eye Institute (NEI).” In AREDS2, begun in 2006, Chew and colleagues compared the beta-carotene formulation to one with 10 mg lutein and 2 mg zeaxanthin instead. Like beta-carotene, lutein and zeaxanthin are antioxidants with activity in the retina. The beta-carotene-containing formation was only given to participants who had never smoked or who had quit smoking. At the end of the five-year AREDS2 study period, the researchers concluded that lutein and zeaxanthin did not increase risk for lung cancer, and that the new formation could reduce the risk of AMD progression by about 26%. (NEXT) Exercise amplifies immune attack on pancreatic cancer New York University Langone Health, June 2 Aerobic exercise reprograms the immune system to reduce pancreatic tumor growth and amplify the effects of immunotherapy, a new study finds. Published online in Cancer Cell, the study provides new insight into how the mammalian immune system, designed to attack foreign invaders like bacteria, can also recognize cancer cells as abnormal. Exercise-induced increases in levels of the hormone adrenalin cause changes to the immune system, say the study authors, including in the activity of cells that respond to signaling protein interleukin-15 (IL-15). The current study found that exercise promotes the survival of CD8 T cells sensitive to IL-15, and doubles the number of them homing to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) tumors in mice. Such “effector” T cells have been shown by other studies to be capable of killing cancer cells. Other tests found that aerobic exercise for 30 minutes five times a week reduced the rate of cancer formation by 50 percent in one mouse model of PDAC, and reduced tumor weight by 25 percent in another model, in which mice ran on treadmills for three weeks. Our findings show, for the first time, how aerobic exercise affects the immune microenvironment within pancreatic tumors,” says first author Emma Kurz, MD, Ph.D., at NYU Grossman School of Medicine's Vilcek Institute of Graduate Biomedical Sciences. (NEXT) Antibiotics wreak havoc on athletic performance University of California at Riverside, June 1 New research demonstrates that by killing essential gut bacteria, antibiotics ravage athletes' motivation and endurance. The UC Riverside-led mouse study suggests the microbiome is a big factor separating athletes from couch potatoes. Other studies have examined the way that exercise affects the microbiome, but this study is one of few to examine the reverse — how gut bacteria also impact voluntary exercise behaviors. Voluntary exercise involves both motivation and athletic ability. Researchers confirmed through fecal samples that after 10 days of antibiotics, gut bacteria were reduced in two groups of mice: some bred for high levels of running, and some that were not. So, when wheel running in the athletic mice was reduced by 21 percent, researchers were certain the microbiome damage was responsible. In addition, the high runner mice did not recover their running behavior even 12 days after the antibiotic treatment stopped. (NEXT) Study: Trans Fat Hides in at Least a Quarter of Supermarket Foods Environmental Working Group, May 22 A new analysis  by Environmental Working Group has found that harmful artificial trans fatty acids lurk in more than 27 percent of more than 84,000 processed foods common in American supermarkets.  Another 10 percent contain ingredients likely to contain trans fat. EWG analysts used information from EWG's Food Scores database and mobile app  to determine which foods contained partially hydrogenated oils and other trans fat containing-ingredients. The interactive, searchable tool rates more than 84,000 foods and 5,000 ingredients based on nutrition, ingredient and processing concerns. In most cases, the products' trans fat content on the nutrition label doesn't add up. The reason: an obscure loophole in federal food labeling regulations that allows food processors to round off less than half a gram of trans fat per serving to zero. A single serving of more than 400 foods in the Food Scores database contained enough trans fat to exceed the World Health Organization's recommended limit of less than 2 grams per day for an adult who consumed a 2,000 calorie diet, the analysis said. (NEXT) Coffee drinking again linked with longer life Jinan University (China), June 1 2022.  Yet another study has found an association between coffee drinking and a lower risk of premature mortality. The research was reported n the Annals of Internal Medicine. The investigation included 171,616 men and women who did not have cancer or heart disease upon enrollment between 2006 to 2010 in the UK Biobank prospective cohort study. Participants were 37 to 73 years old at recruitment. During a 7-year median follow-up period, participants who consumed unsweetened coffee had up to a 29% lower risk of death (which was associated with drinking 2.5 to 4.5 cups per day) compared to those who did not drink coffee. Participants who drank sugar-sweetened coffee had up to a 31% lower risk, associated with consuming 1.5 to 2.5 cups per day. The association between artificially sweetened coffee and mortality risk was inconclusive. “This prospective analysis found that moderate consumption of unsweetened coffee and that of sugar-sweetened coffee were associated with similar reductions in risk for all-cause, cancer-related, and cardiovascular disease-related mortality,” authors Dan Liu, MD, of Jinan University and colleagues concluded.

Dr. Alice Long is an Associate Member of the Center for Translational Immunology at Benaroya Research Institute at Virginia Mason. The Long lab is focused on understanding how tolerance is lost in autoimmunity, specifically as it related to type 1 diabetes. Dr. Long discusses the work she presented at the American Association of Immunologists' annual meeting, IMMUNOLOGY2022, on CD8 T cell exhaustion and Treg modulation.

Alex Berenson Substack Article China's CoronaVac shot caused people to make far more T-cells targeting the coronavirus than those who received Pfizer's mRNA shot, scientists in Hong Kong have found. Though it is only one datapoint, the study hints the Chinese shot - which is based on older, well understood principles of vaccinology - may ultimately provide longer-lasting protection than the hastily developed mRNA jabs from Pfizer and Moderna. The study was published in a peer-reviewed journal called Respirology in November, but has (unsurprisingly) received no attention. It offers a rare head-to-head look at the immune-system effects of the Chinese and Pfizer Covid vaccines, which work in very different ways. “Humoral responses” are antibodies, the body's first-line defense against infection; the mRNA vaccines are known to produce supra-natural levels of antibodies, giving rise to short-term protection that fades within months. T-cells are a part of the immune system crucial for producing long-term immunity and reducing severe disease in people who are infected. The mRNA jabs have been shown to produce relatively limited T-cell protection, but this study appears to have been the first time anyone directly compared them to the Chinese vaccine. As expected, they found very high levels of anti-spike protein antibodies in people who received the mRNA shot. The mRNA jabs force our cells to make large amounts of the spike protein that sticks out of the shell of the coronavirus. Those proteins then cause the immune system to produce antibodies against it. The CoronaVac recipients had lower levels of anti-spike protein antibodies. But they also had antibodies to other parts of the coronavirus. Even more importantly, when the scientists ran further tests on a smaller group of about 100 people, they found the CoronaVac shot had sharply increased the level of their coronavirus-targeting T-cells, which last far longer than antibodies. The new T-cells targeted both the spike protein and another important part of the virus. They included both CD4+ T-cells - which stimulate the overall immune response to infection - and CD8+ T-cells - which directly attack infected cells. Meanwhile, the mRNA jab produced an equally good response in only one of those four types of T-cell. “The average magnitude of post-vaccination responses was higher in CoronaVac subjects for structural and S-specific T-cell responses,” the researchers explain. CoronaVac's advantage in producing a T-cell response probably occurs because it presents the body with an invader that is far more like the actual coronavirus than the mRNA shots do. The CoronaVac shot is a traditional “inactivated virus” vaccine. It contains whole Sars-Cov-2 particles grown in kidney cells and chemically treated so they cannot reproduce. They are then injected alongside an “adujvant” meant to boost the immune response. In short-term trials, the mRNA vaccines reduced infections far more than the CoronaVac and a second Chinese vaccine called Sinopharm BIBP, which is also an inactivated virus vaccine. The early results led to considerable chest-pounding about the superiority of Western vaccines and biotechnology in general. But the real-world data from the last year has made clear that the mRNA shots lose their protective effect quickly. Because they focus the body's immune response on a small part of the coronavirus, they are also very vulnerable to new variants such as Omicron, even after a third “booster” dose. J Fallon Apple Music J Fallon Spotify --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/jason-fallon/message

FDA 批准靶向IL-23的单克隆抗体治疗银屑病Arthritis & Rheumatol 替格瑞洛治疗后骨关节炎风险的降低JAMA 生物力学鞋对膝骨关节炎患者膝关节疼痛的影响LANCET 非布司他与别嘌醇在痛风患者中的长期心血管安全性Nature子刊 抑制MEK使CD8+ T淋巴细胞重新编码为具有潜在抗肿瘤特性的记忆干细胞替达珠单抗（tildrakizumab）替达珠单抗（tildrakizumab）是人源化IgG1x单克隆抗体，靶向IL-23的p19亚基并阻断其与IL-23受体结合，抑制细胞因子与趋化因子释放。2018年3月FDA批准替达珠单抗用于治疗成人中重度斑块型银屑病。《reSURFACE1和reSURFACE2研究52周的综合分析：替达珠单抗治疗中重度银屑病52周的疗效的3期临床研究》Journal of European Academy of Dermatology & Venereology，2019年12月 (1) reSURFACE1和reSURFACE2研究的目的是观察替达珠单抗治疗中重度银屑病的疗效，前28周的结果已经证实了替达珠单抗的疗效，这篇文章报告了随访52周的结果，旨在评价治疗对患者皮肤科生活质量评分（DLQI）和银屑病面积和严重程度指数（PASI）评分的影响。两项研究中使用替达珠单抗100 mg或200 mg治疗的1156位患者，在第28周合并，然后根据第28周时的PASI评分改善程度分为5组：0-49分、50-74分、75-89分、90-99分和100分。第28周，替达珠单抗100 mg组和200 mg组根据PASI评分改善程度分组后的患者比例分别为8.3%、14.3%、23.8%、30.4%、23.1%，和4.0%、18.1%、19.6%、29.1%、29.3%。第28周疗效较差的、PASI改善50的患者中，持续使用相同剂量的替达珠单抗至第52周，PASI评分持续改善。两种剂量都观察到了类似的结果。28周时PASI改善较好的患者中，DLQI 0/1的比例较高，且维持或改善至52周。然而，并不是所有PASI改善100患者的DLQI都为0/1。结论：替达珠单抗疗效较差的患者可在第8周确定，疗效好、PASI评分改善≥90的患者通常可在第4周确定。第28周PASI改善水平与生活质量改善相关。骨关节炎骨关节炎（osteoarthritis，OA）是最常见的关节炎。发病机制中有很多重要的因素，包括生物力学因素、促炎因子和蛋白酶等。症状主要是特征性关节组织病理改变所引起的疼痛和关节功能改变，所有的OA患者都存在关节软骨、骨骼、滑膜和软组织的病理表现。《回顾性分析：与氯吡格雷相比，替格瑞洛治疗后骨关节炎风险的降低》Arthritis & Rheumatol，2020年11月 (2)细胞外腺苷具有抗炎作用，在动物模型中可预防和治疗骨关节炎。替格瑞洛和氯吡格雷都用于冠心病患者，但只有替格瑞洛增加了细胞外腺苷水平。这项研究是为了确定治疗替格瑞洛是否与降低骨关节炎风险有关。研究纳入替格瑞洛或氯吡格雷治疗≥90天的、没有关节炎病史的、21000例患者。平均治疗天数分别为287天和284天。两组患者的平均年龄均为64岁，73%为男性。多变量Cox回归分析估计，与氯吡格雷相比，替格瑞洛治疗后发生OA的危险比为0.71(95%可信区间0.64-0.79)(P < 0.001)。结论：在5年的随访中，与氯吡格雷治疗相比，替格瑞洛治疗降低了骨关节炎发病风险达29%，这可能与我们假设接受替格瑞洛的患者中OA的减少可能部分是由于细胞外腺苷水平的增加。《软骨缺失会导致骨关节炎疼痛吗？如果会，疼痛程度是多少?》Annals of Rheumatic Disease，2020年9月 (3)虽然骨关节炎的治疗重点是软骨保护，但目前尚不清楚预防软骨损失能在多大程度上减轻关节疼痛。研究量化了骨髓病变和滑膜炎后软骨损失、和膝关节疼痛恶化之间的关系，并检查了这些因素在多大程度上介导了这种关联。研究人员在基线、12个月和24个月时，对600例膝关节MRI定量、半定量测量骨关节炎的结构特征。定量的计算了内侧软骨厚度的变化、软骨损失情况、使用西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数疼痛评分（WOMAC疼痛评分）评价疼痛程度。随访24个月，软骨厚度的减少与疼痛的轻微恶化显著相关。例如，两年内软骨厚度减少0.1mm，WOMAC疼痛增加0.32。软骨厚度的减少与疼痛的关系是通过滑膜炎的改变，而不是骨髓病变的改变。亚分析结果相似。结论：软骨厚度的减少只与少量的膝关节疼痛恶化有关，这种关联部分是由滑膜炎恶化引起的。通过软骨保护减少膝盖疼痛可能是难以实现的。骨关节炎的治疗膝关节骨性关节炎的治疗方法包括非药物治疗、药物治疗和手术，旨在缓解疼痛、改善关节功能以及改变骨关节炎进展的危险因素。尽管研究很多，但改变疾病病程的疗法效果欠佳。轻度骨性关节炎着重体重管理、镇痛、局部物理治疗；中重度骨性关节炎着重情绪疏导、镇痛、关节内注射类固醇、运动（建议水中锻炼，耐受性比地面锻炼好）和手术。《VITAL研究：补充维生素D和ω-3脂肪酸对老年慢性膝盖疼痛的影响》Arthritis & Rheumatol，2020年11月 (4)膝痛是成人骨关节炎的常见病因。该研究的目的是评价维生素D、ω-3脂肪酸治疗膝关节疼痛的效果。这项双盲、安慰剂对照的研究纳入25,871名参与者，按照2x2设计随机接受维生素D或ω-3脂肪酸，随机化之前，确定了一个膝盖疼痛的亚组，这组人群共1398人，平均年龄67岁，66%为女性，根据WOMAC评分评价关节疼痛程度。基线时，WOMAC疼痛评分平均值为37，平均随访时间为5.3年后，WOMAC疼痛评分在维生素D组、ω-3脂肪酸组和安慰剂组之间没有差异。随着时间的推移，补充维生素D和ω-3脂肪酸对WOMAC功能或僵硬评分也没有显著影响。结论：在慢性膝关节疼痛的大样本中，补充维生素D和ω-3脂肪酸持续5.3年并不能减轻膝关节疼痛、或改善关节功能或僵硬。《随机、双盲、安慰剂对照试验：白细胞介素-1β抑制对髋关节和膝关节置换术发生率的影响》Annals of Internal Medicine，2020年10月 (5) 研究的目的是确定IL-1抑制卡那单抗是否减少全髋关节或膝关节置换术的发生率。研究纳入1061例CANTOS研究的参与者，随机给予安慰剂、或卡那单抗50mg、150mg或300mg ip 三个月一次。平均随访3.7年，与安慰剂相比，卡那单抗组的关节置换的风险比分别为：50mg组为0.60，150mg组为0.53，300 mg组为0.60，均有统计学意义。将治疗组数据合并，关节置换发生率为0.31/100人年，安慰剂组为0.54例/100人年（风险比 0.58，P=0.001）。结论：该随机对照试验的探索性分析结果支持进一步研究IL-1抑制治疗大型关节骨性关节炎。《随机对照研究：膝关节骨性关节炎的物理治疗与糖皮质激素注射比较》New England Journal of Medicine，2020年4月 (6)物理治疗和关节内注射糖皮质激素已被证明对膝骨关节炎有临床疗效。该研究的目的是评价这两种疗法在缓解疼痛、改善身体功能方面的短期和长期效果。这项随机试验纳入单膝或双膝骨关节炎患者共156人，平均年龄56岁，随机接受糖皮质激素注射或接受物理治疗。基线WOMAC功能或僵硬度评分平均值，糖皮质激素注射组为108.8分，物理治疗组为107.1分；1年时的平均值分别为55.8分和37.0分。组间平均差异为18.8分，物理治疗更好。结论：与接受关节内糖皮质激素注射的膝关节骨性关节炎患者相比，接受物理治疗的膝关节骨性关节炎患者在1年的疼痛和功能残疾更少。《BIOTOK研究：生物力学鞋对膝骨关节炎患者膝关节疼痛的影响》JAMA，2020年5月 (7)研究的目的是评价个体化校准的生物力学鞋疗法是否可能改善有症状性的、膝骨关节炎患者的疼痛和功能。这项随机临床试验纳入症状性膝关节骨关节炎患者220名，平均年龄65.2岁，给予生物力学鞋治疗或安慰剂治疗，随访24周。随访24周时，生物力学鞋组的标准化WOMAC疼痛评分平均值从4.3提高到1.3，对照组鞋组从4.0提高到2.6（P 50岁的、膝关节骨关节炎和软骨下骨髓病变的223名成年患者，平均年龄62岁，女性52%。随机分组，分别在试验开始时和12个月的时候静脉滴注一次5mg唑来膦酸组或100ml生理盐水作为安慰剂。随访24个月，唑来膦酸组和安慰剂组的胫股软骨体积变化无显著差异（P = 0.50）。次要结果的组间差异均无统计学意义，包括膝关节疼痛评分、WOMAC骨关节炎指数、骨髓病灶大小变化。唑来膦酸的不良事件比安慰剂更常见。结论：症状性膝骨关节炎和骨髓病变患者中，每年注射唑来膦酸并没有显著减少软骨体积损失。这些发现不支持使用唑来膦酸治疗膝骨关节炎。《随机对照研究：姜黄提取物治疗膝关节骨关节炎症状及渗出性滑膜炎的疗效观察》Annals of Internal Medicine，2020年12月 (9)研究的目的是探讨姜黄提取物对症状性、膝关节骨性关节炎和膝关节渗出性滑膜炎的疗效。这项单中心研究招募了70名参与者，连续12周，每天2粒姜黄提取物或安慰剂。12周后，与安慰剂相比，姜黄提取物改善视觉模拟疼痛（VAS）评分的幅度为-9.1mm（P = 0.039），但没有改变渗出性滑膜炎体积（3.2mL）。姜黄提取物还可改善WOMAC膝关节疼痛评分（P = 0.006），但没有改善MRI腓骨外侧软骨T2松弛时间（−0.4 ms）。两组不良事件发生率相似（P = 0.16）结论：对于膝关节疼痛，姜黄提取物比安慰剂更有效，但不影响膝关节渗出性滑膜炎或软骨成分。需要更大样本量的多中心试验来评估这些发现的临床意义。痛风痛风是尿酸单钠结晶沉积病，其生化特点是细胞外液尿酸盐浓度达到饱和，血液中表现为高尿酸血症，即血尿酸盐浓度超过400μmol/L，该水平接近于尿酸盐的溶解度极限。痛风的临床表现包括：炎症性关节炎的反复发作、慢性关节病、尿酸盐结晶累积形成痛风石沉积、尿酸性肾结石等。急性期止痛，可以使用全身或关节内糖皮质激素、NSAID、秋水仙碱，难治性痛风发作可尝试使用抑制IL-1β的生物制剂（欧盟已批准卡那单抗治疗难治性痛风发作）。缓解期降尿酸，可以使用别嘌醇、非布司他、丙磺舒、苯溴马龙或聚乙二醇重组尿酸酶。《FAST研究：非布司他与别嘌醇在痛风患者中的长期心血管安全性》LANCET，2020年11月 (10)这项前瞻性、随机、开放、非劣效研究，纳入≥60岁、已经接受别嘌醇治疗的、合并心血管危险因素的患者，共6128人。患者平均年龄71岁，85%为男性，33.4%有心血管疾病病史。被随机分配别嘌醇或非布司他治疗，中位随访时间为1467天。在非致死性心梗或急性冠脉综合征住院的发生率方面，非布司他为1·72次/100人年，低于别嘌醇2·05次/100人年（风险比 0·85，p

During the American Association of Cancer Research (AACR) Virtual Annual Meeting I, the MM Hub was pleased to speak to Christine Spencer, Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, San-Francisco, US and Diwakar Davar, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Pittsburgh, US. We asked: how can we use the microbiome to improve cancer immunotherapy and alleviate side effects such as graft-versus-host-disease?In this podcast, Dr Davar starts by providing a background on the importance of the microbiome in adaptive and innate immunity, while Dr Spencer states the importance of the cross-talk between the microbiome and immune system through microbial products, peptides, and metabolites. Dr Davar then explains the concept of immunosurveillance, immunoediting, and checkpoint inhibitors. Dr Spencer describes fecal microbiome transplant studies that showed features of the microbiome can predict response to immunotherapy and effect T-cell expression. Dr Davar then describes some of the studies that are looking at fecal microbiome transplant in combination with checkpoint inhibitors. He goes on to discuss studies investigating the use of live bacterial products to elicit the same effects as fecal microbiome transplant, particularly the mediation of CD8 T cells. Dr Spencer also talks about probiotics, antibiotics, and diet and explains how this can affect the gut microbiome and describes studies looking at these features in terms of response to immunotherapies. She also describes the microbiome research related to graft-versus-host-disease and the impact of higher alpha diversity on post-transplant survival, while Dr Davar explains how the microbiome may also affect toxicity and side-effects of cancer immunotherapies. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

During the American Association of Cancer Research (AACR) Virtual Annual Meeting I, the MPN Hub was pleased to speak to Christine Spencer, Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, San-Francisco, US and Diwakar Davar, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Pittsburgh, US. We asked: how can we use the microbiome to improve cancer immunotherapy and alleviate side effects such as graft-versus-host-disease?In this podcast, Dr Davar starts by providing a background on the importance of the microbiome in adaptive and innate immunity, while Dr Spencer states the importance of the cross-talk between the microbiome and immune system through microbial products, peptides, and metabolites. Dr Davar then explains the concept of immunosurveillance, immunoediting, and checkpoint inhibitors. Dr Spencer describes fecal microbiome transplant studies that showed features of the microbiome can predict response to immunotherapy and effect T-cell expression. Dr Davar then describes some of the studies that are looking at fecal microbiome transplant in combination with checkpoint inhibitors. He goes on to discuss studies investigating the use of live bacterial products to elicit the same effects as fecal microbiome transplant, particularly the mediation of CD8 T cells. Dr Spencer also talks about probiotics, antibiotics, and diet and explains how this can affect the gut microbiome and describes studies looking at these features in terms of response to immunotherapies. She also describes the microbiome research related to graft-versus-host-disease and the impact of higher alpha diversity on post-transplant survival, while Dr Davar explains how the microbiome may also affect toxicity and side-effects of cancer immunotherapies. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.