Search

Subgrouping of Burkitt lymphoma variants by DNA methylation is driven by an EBV-associated epigenotype B Introduction: b Burkitt lymphoma (BL) is an aggressive mature B-cell lymphoma, which traditionally has been separated into three epidemiologic variants: endemic (eBL), sporadic (sBL) and immunodeficiency-associated BL (iBL). B Methods: b We collected DNAme profiles (Infinium HumanMethylation450 and Infinium MethylationEPIC BeadChip) of 116 BL patients (80 sBL: 7 EBV+; 29 eBL: 27 EBV+; 7 iBL: 4 EBV+), 17 BL cell lines and 6 EBV-transformed LCLs. [Extracted from the article]

LACK OF SMARCB1 EXPRESSION CHARACTERIZES A SUBSET OF PERIPHERAL T-CELL LYMPHOMAS ENRICHED IN CHILDREN AND YOUNG ADULTS B Methods: b SMARCB1 (INI1) gene and protein expression was assessed in 315 patients with diverse mature T cell lymphomas by array-based mRNA profiling, immunohistochemistry and/or Western Blot. Comparison of the DNA methylome of human and murine PTCL-NOS SP Smarcb1- sp showed similar DNA methylation profiles, with hypermethylation of T-cell-related genes and hypomethylation of genes involved in myeloid development. [Extracted from the article]

Peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS) is a heterogeneous group of malignancies with poor outcome. Here, we identify a subgroup, PTCL-NOS SMARCB1- , which is characterized by the lack of the SMARCB1 protein and occurs more frequently in young patients. Human and murine PTCL-NOS SMARCB1- show similar DNA methylation profiles, with hypermethylation of T-cell-related genes and hypomethylation of genes involved in myeloid development. Single-cell analyses of human and murine tumors revealed a rich and complex network of interactions between tumor cells and an immunosuppressive and exhausted tumor microenvironment (TME). In a drug screen, we identified histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) as a class of drugs effective against PTCL-NOS Smarcb1- . In vivo treatment of mouse tumors with SAHA, a pan-HDACi, triggered remodeling of the TME, promoting replenishment of lymphoid compartments and reversal of the exhaustion phenotype. These results provide a rationale for further exploration of HDACi combination therapies targeting PTCL-NOS SMARCB1- within the TME., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Malignant rhabdoid tumors are aggressive malignancies predominantly affecting very young children. The characteristic genetic alteration is biallelic inactivation of SMARCB1. In approximately 30% of patients one SMARCB1 allele is constitutionally altered conferring a particularly unfavourable prognosis. Constitutional mosaicism for pathogenic SMARCB1 mutations has recently been reported in distinct cases of allegedly sporadic rhabdoid tumors. We aimed to systematically investigate the frequency and clinical impact of constitutional mosaicism in patients with sporadic rhabdoid tumors included in the EU-RHAB registry., Methods: We selected 29 patients with rhabdoid tumors displaying at least one pathogenic small variant in SMARCB1 in the tumor DNA and absence of a germline mutation. We re-screened blood-derived patient and control DNA for the respective small variant by PCR with unique molecular identifiers and ultra-deep next generation sequencing. Clinical data in patients with and without mosaicism and 174 EU-RHAB controls were compared., Results: Employing an ultra-deep sequencing approach, we detected tumor-associated SMARCB1 variants in blood-derived DNA in 9/29 patients. In 6/29 patients (21%), whose variant allele frequency (VAF) exceeded 2%, constitutional mosaicism was assumed whereas tumor DNA contamination was documented in 1/3 patients with VAF below 1%. No significant differences were observed between 6 mosaic-positive and 20 -negative patients regarding age at diagnosis, presence of metastases, event-free or overall survival., Conclusion: Constitutional mosaicism for pathogenic small SMARCB1 variants is recurrent in patients with allegedly sporadic rhabdoid tumors. The clinical implications of such variants need to be determined in larger, prospective cohorts also including detection of structural variants of SMARCB1., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Stimulator of interferon genes (STING) is positively correlated with the degrees of liver inflammation in human metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). In addition, STING disruption alleviates MASLD in mice fed a high-fat diet (HFD) for 3 months (3-m-HFD). Here we investigated the role of the duration of dietary feeding in regulating MASLD in mice and explored the involvement of STING in sex differences in MASLD. Both male and female STING-disrupted (STING gt ) and wild-type C57BL/6J mice were fed an HFD for 3 or 7 months (7-m-HFD). Additionally, female STING gt mice upon ovariectomy (OVX) and 3-m-HFD were analyzed for MASLD. Upon 3-m-HFD, STING gt mice exhibited decreased severity of MASLD compared to control. However, upon 7-m-HFD, STING gt mice were comparable with wild-type mice in body weight, fat mass, and MASLD. Regarding regulating the liver RNA transcriptome, 7-m-HFD increased the expression of genes indicating proinflammatory activation of various liver cells. Interestingly, the severity of MASLD in female mice was much lighter than in male mice, regardless of STING disruption. Upon OVX, female STING gt mice showed significantly increased severity of MASLD relative to sham control but were comparable with male STING gt mice. Upon treatment with 17-beta estradiol (E2), hepatocytes revealed decreased fat deposition while macrophages displayed decreases in lipopolysaccharide-induced phosphorylation of Nfkb p65 and Jnk p46 independent of STING. These results suggest that 7-m-HFD, without altering female sex-based protection, abolishes STING disruption-driven protection of MASLD, likely through causing proinflammatory activation of multiple types of liver cells to offset the effect of STING disruption., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This phase 1b/2 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of capmatinib plus nazartinib in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: In phase 1b, patients with progression on first-/second-generation EGFR-TKIs received escalating doses of capmatinib 200-400 mg bid plus nazartinib 50-150 mg qd. Once the MTD/RP2D was declared, phase 2 commenced with patient enrollment into groups according to mutation status and prior lines of treatment: group 1 (fasted; EGFR-TKI resistant; 1-3 prior lines; EGFR L858R/ex19del ; any T790M/MET); group 2 (fasted; EGFR-TKI naïve; 0-2 prior lines; de novo T790M+; any MET); group 3 (fasted; treatment-naïve; EGFR L858R/ex19del ; T790M-; any MET); group 4 (with food; 0-2 prior lines; EGFR L858R/ex19del ; any T790M/MET). Primary endpoints in phase 2 were investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 (groups 1-3), safety, and tolerability of the combination with food (group 4). Efficacy was assessed by T790M and MET status for a subgroup of patients., Results: The RP2D was capmatinib 400 mg bid plus nazartinib 100 mg qd. In phase 2 (n = 144), the ORR was 28.8 %, 33.3 %, 61.7 %, and 42.9 % in groups 1 (n = 52), 2 (n = 3), 3 (n = 47), and 4 (n = 42), respectively. In group 1 +phase 1b RP2D, the ORR was 45.8 %, 26.2 %, 37.9 %, and 32.4 % in MET+ (n = 24), MET- (n = 42), T790M+ (n = 29), and T790M- (n = 34) patients. Most common any-grade treatment-related adverse events (≥25 %; n = 144) were peripheral edema (54.9 %), nausea (41.7 %), diarrhea (34.0 %), and maculopapular rash (25.0 %)., Conclusion: Capmatinib plus nazartinib showed antitumor activity in patients with EGFR-TKI-resistant, EGFR-mutated NSCLC. The overall safety profile was acceptable., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02335944., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Enriqueta Felip: Consulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Roche, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, Turning Point Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo. Speakers' Bureau: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Roche, Genentech, Janssen, Medical Trends, Medscape, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Peervoice, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, Touch Oncology. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Janssen, Roche. Other Relationship: Grifols. Uncompensated Relationships: Member of the Scientific Advisory Committee Hospital Universitari Parc Taulí , SEOM (Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica), President from 2021–2023, “ETOP IBCSG Partners” Member of the Scientific Committee. Giulio Metro: Consultants fee from Amgen, Pfizer, Takeda, and AstraZeneca. Ross A. Soo: Advisory Board: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lily, Merck, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma, Roche, Taiho, Takeda, Thermo Fisher, Yuhan. Research grant: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim. Jürgen Wolf: Advisory boards and lecture fees: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Lilly, Loxo, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Nuvalent, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda; Research Support (to institution): BMS, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Novartis, Pfizer. Benjamin J. Solomon: Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Roche/Genentech, Pfizer (Inst), Amgen (Inst). Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Amgen, Lilly, BeiGene, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Janssen (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline. Research Funding: Sanofi (Inst). Daniel SW Tan: Honoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer. Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Merck, Loxo, AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, C4 Therapeutics. Research Funding: Novartis (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche. Andrea Ardizzoni: Honoraria: AstraZeneca, BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Abbvie, Roche. Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, BMS, Lilly, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen Oncology, Roche, Sanofi. Dae Ho Lee: Honoraria: Abbvie; AstraZeneca/MedImmune; BC World Pharm; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; ChongKeunDang Healthcare; Lilly; Menarini; MSD; Novartis; Ono Pharmaceutical; Pfizer; Roche/Genentech; Samyang; ST Cube; Takeda; Yuhan. Consulting or Advisory Role: ST Cube. Lecia V. Sequist: Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca; Genentech/Roche; Takeda. Research Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst); Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst); Delfi Diagnostics (Inst); Novartis (Inst). Fabrice Barlesi: Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Eisai Europe (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Mirati Therapeutics (Inst). Research Funding: Roche/Genentech (Inst), AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Pierre Fabre (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Innate Pharma (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Sanofi/Aventis (Inst), Takeda (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech. Santiago Ponce-Aix: No conflicts of interest. Delvys Rodriguez Abreu: Consulting/advisory role from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca Spain, Novartis; Speaker fees from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and MSD; Travel expense from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and Novartis. Maria Rosario Garcia Campelo: Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Oncology. Speakers' Bureau: Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD Oncology, Sanofi/Aventis, Janssen Oncology, Amgen, Lilly. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, MSD Oncology, Pfizer. Mette Sprauten: No conflicts of interest. Leslie O’Sullivan Djentuh: Employee of Novartis. Nathalie Smith: Employee of Novartis. Aline Jary: Employee of Novartis. Riccardo Belli: Employee of Novartis. Sabine Glaser: Employee of Novartis and stockholder of Novartis, Alcon, Sandoz. Mike Zou: Employee of Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. Xiaoming Cui: Employee and stockholder - Novartis. Monica Giovannini: Employee of Novartis. James Chih-Hsin Yang: Honoraria: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ono Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Lilly, Pfizer. Consulting or Advisory Role: Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Merck Serono, Celgene, Bayer, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Yuhan, Hansoh, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo, G1 Therapeutics, AbbVie, Takeda, Amgen, Incyte, Merck Serono (Inst), Janssen (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Trimodality treatment for bladder cancer, consisting of maximal transurethral resection of the tumor followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy, is an attractive management option with curative and organ-sparing intent. However, such treatment can be associated with acute toxicities related to the large treatment margins required due to daily variation in bladder filling, with resultant bladder, bowel, and rectal toxicity. Adaptive radiation, which accounts for inter-fraction variations in bladder size, allows the confident delivery of radiation to bladder cancer with smaller margins, with the potential to reduce toxicities without the associated risk of compromising the target coverage. Herein, we present a case series of two patients with primary bladder cancer who were treated with computed tomography (CT)-based online adaptive hypofractionated radiotherapy using the Ethos system (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA). The first is an 83-year-old male with a remote history of prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy, who received adaptive radiotherapy as a means of decreasing the required margin size and optimizing planning based on adjacent bowel to reduce the risk of re-irradiation. The second patient is a 78-year-old male with node-positive bladder cancer, which necessitated whole pelvis radiotherapy, who underwent adaptive treatment (25 fractions) as a means of sparing cumulative dose to the bowel while ensuring suitable target coverage. In both cases, the clinical target volume consisted of the entire bladder (± nodes) with a planning target volume expansion of 7 mm. During treatment, daily cone-beam CT scans were acquired and used to generate adapted plans. These plans were compared to the original plans, with attention to target coverage and dose to organs at risk. For all 45 fractions, the adaptive plan was selected, primarily as a means of improving target coverage. This case series demonstrates that the adaptive Ethos system effectively delivers treatment for primary bladder cancer. Further data are needed for clinical toxicity outcomes and the efficacy of this approach., Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Davis et al.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None.

Abstract: SRY-related HMG-box gene 11 (SOX11) is a transcription factor overexpressed in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), a subset of Burkitt lymphomas (BL) and precursor lymphoid cell neoplasms but is absent in normal B cells and other B-cell lymphomas. SOX11 has an oncogenic role in MCL but its contribution to BL pathogenesis remains uncertain. Here, we observed that the presence of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and SOX11 expression were mutually exclusive in BL. SOX11 expression in EBV-negative (EVB-) BL was associated with an IG∷MYC translocation generated by aberrant class switch recombination, whereas in EBV-negative (EBV-)/SOX11-negative (SOX11-) tumors the IG∷MYC translocation was mediated by mistaken somatic hypermutations. Interestingly, EBV- SOX11-expressing BL showed higher frequency of SMARCA4 and ID3 mutations than EBV-/SOX11- cases. By RNA sequencing, we identified a SOX11-associated gene expression profile, with functional annotations showing partial overlap with the SOX11 transcriptional program of MCL. Contrary to MCL, no differences on cell migration or B-cell receptor signaling were found between SOX11- and SOX11-positive (SOX11+) BL cells. However, SOX11+ BL showed higher adhesion to vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1) than SOX11- BL cell lines. Here, we demonstrate that EBV- BL comprises 2 subsets of cases based on SOX11 expression. The mutual exclusion of SOX11 and EBV, and the association of SOX11 with a specific genetic landscape suggest a role of SOX11 in the early pathogenesis of BL., (© 2024 American Society of Hematology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Exposure to radiation oncology (RO), which is a small and highly subspecialized field of oncology, during undergraduate or medical education is often limited. Coupled with reduced elective exposures during the COVID-19 pandemic, unsubstantiated concerns regarding the RO job market have led to a noticeable decline in residency applications and medical students who express an interest in the field. Here, we describe a summer education program piloted in our RO department at a comprehensive cancer center to provide premedical school students (ranging from high school to postbaccalaureate) early exposure to the specialty through clinical shadowing, research opportunities, journal club, and formal didactic lectures. Pre- and postprogram surveys were administered to these students to evaluate the change in knowledge in RO. A total of 8 students participated in the program. We found an increase in understanding of the specialty, high levels of interest in considering RO as a career, and positive feedback regarding the program overall. This study supports the role of early exposure and education in stimulating interest in future medical students to pursue RO as a career. Future efforts are needed to further develop and evaluate these education programs as well as disseminate the program more broadly., Competing Interests: Disclosures Arya Amini receives research support from RefleXion, Varian, and Genentech, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Sanofi/Regeneron, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Yun Rose Li receives research support from NIH (High Risk-High Reward 1 DP5 OD033424-01) and honoraria from RadOnc Questions and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board (City of Hope CPRMC). Artifical intelligence (AI) or AI-assisted technologies were not used in creation or preparation of this work., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Randomized clinical trials demonstrate that lumpectomy + hormone therapy (HT) without radiation therapy (RT) yields equivalent survival and acceptable local-regional outcomes in elderly women with early-stage, node-negative, hormone-receptor positive (HR +) breast cancer. Whether these data apply to men with the same inclusion criteria remains unknown., Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried for male patients ≥ 65 years with pathologic T1-2N0 (≤ 3 cm) HR + breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery with negative margins from 2004 to 2019. Adjuvant treatment was classified as HT alone, RT alone, or HT + RT. Male patients were matched with female patients for OS comparison. Survival analysis was performed using Cox regression and Kaplan - Meier method. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied to adjust for confounding., Results: A total of 523 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 24.4% receiving HT, 16.3% receiving RT, and 59.2% receiving HT + RT. The median follow-up was 6.9 years (IQR: 5.0-9.4 years). IPTW-adjusted 5-yr OS rates in the HT, RT, and HT + RT cohorts were 84.0% (95% CI 77.1-91.5%), 81.1% (95% CI 71.1-92.5%), and 93.0% (95% CI 90.0-96.2%), respectively. On IPTW-adjusted MVA, relative to HT, receipt of HT + RT was associated with improvements in OS (HR: 0.641; p = 0.042). RT alone was not associated with improved OS (HR: 1.264; p = 0.420)., Conclusion: Among men ≥ 65 years old with T1-2N0 HR + breast cancer, RT alone did not confer an OS benefit over HT alone. Combination of RT + HT demonstrated significant improvements in OS. De-escalation of treatment through omission of either RT or HT at this point should be done with caution., (© 2024. The Author(s).)