Search

Immune checkpoints (ICPs) consist of paired receptor-ligand molecules that exert inhibitory or stimulatory effects on immune defense, surveillance, regulation, and self-tolerance. ICPs exist in both membrane and soluble forms in vivo and in vitro. Imbalances between inhibitory and stimulatory membrane-bound ICPs (mICPs) in malignant cells and immune cells in the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) have been well documented. Blockades of inhibitory mICPs have emerged as an immense breakthrough in cancer therapeutics. However, the origin, structure, production regulation, and biological significance of soluble ICPs (sICPs) in health and disease largely remains elusive. Soluble ICPs can be generated through either alternative mRNA splicing and secretion or protease-mediated shedding from mICPs. Since sICPs are found in the bloodstream, they likely form a circulating immune regulatory system. In fact, there is increasing evidence that sICPs exhibit biological functions including (1) regulation of antibacterial immunity, (2) interaction with their mICP compartments to positively or negatively regulate immune responses, and (3) competition with their mICP compartments for binding to the ICP blocking antibodies, thereby reducing the efficacy of ICP blockade therapies. Here, we summarize current data of sICPs in cancer and infectious diseases. We particularly focus on sICPs in COVID-19 and HIV infection as they are the two ongoing global pandemics and have created the world's most serious public health challenges. A "storm" of sICPs occurs in the peripheral circulation of COVID-19 patients and is associated with the severity of COVID-19. Similarly, sICPs are highly dysregulated in people living with HIV (PLHIV) and some sICPs remain dysregulated in PLHIV on antiretroviral therapy (ART), indicating these sICPs may serve as biomarkers of incomplete immune reconstitution in PLHIV on ART. We reveal that HIV infection in the setting of alcohol misuse exacerbates sICP dysregulation as PLHIV with heavy alcohol consumption have significantly elevated plasma levels of many sICPs. Thus, both stimulatory and inhibitory sICPs are present in the bloodstream of healthy people and their balance can be disrupted under pathophysiological conditions such as cancer, COVID-19, HIV infection, and alcohol misuse. There is an urgent need to study the role of sICPs in immune regulation in health and disease.

Subclinical varicocele represents an abnormality of veins of the pampiniform plexus on scrotal ultrasound (US) without a clinically palpable varicocele. Its significance remains unclear. While guidelines do not recommend surgical intervention, clinical management is variable. As there is limited information on long-term outcome of subclinical varicoceles due to challenges in diagnosis and management, we performed a single-institution, retrospective review of patients from October 1999 to October 2014 with subclinical varicocele and with available US studies reviewed by a single radiologist. Subclinical varicocele was defined as dilation of the pampiniform venous plexus on US involving ≥2 vessels with diameter >2.5 mm, without clinical varicocele on physical examination or prior inguinal surgery. Thirty-six of 98 patients identified were confirmed as having a subclinical varicocele and analyzed. The mean age at initial visit was 15.5 years, with a mean follow-up of 26.5 months. The majority were right-sided (69.4%, n = 25), usually with a contralateral clinical varicocele. Testicular asymmetry (>20% volume difference of the affected side by testicular atrophy index formula) was assessed in 9 patients with unilateral subclinical varicocele without contralateral clinical or subclinical varicocele and observed in 1 patient. Of 17 patients with follow-up, 3 (17.6%) progressed to clinical varicocele without asymmetric testicular volume, as most remained subclinical or resolved without surgery. In our experience, subclinical varicoceles appeared unlikely to progress to clinical varicoceles, to affect testicular volume, or to lead to surgery. Although our study is limited in numbers and follow-up, this information may aid clinical management strategies and guide future prospective studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fertility preservation (FP) is an important aspect of the care of transgender patients in whom Gender Affirming Medical Treatment (GAT) may begin before puberty is completed. While there are overall few studies that can be used to guide conversations about long-term effects of GAT, there are concerns that GAT could negatively impact fertility. Prior studies have shown low utilization of FP in this population, with avoidance of delay in starting GAT cited as one of the most common reasons for foregoing FP. It is possible that strategies to mitigate delay in commencement of GAT can facilitate higher FP utilization, maintaining options for future family building. To describe our institution's experience with Testicular Sperm Extraction (TESE) for FP and Histrelin Acetate (Supprelin) Subcutaneous Implantation for GAT commencement. A retrospective review of transfeminine adolescents at our institution from 2010 to 2022 who underwent TESE for FP at the time of Supprelin placement for GAT (FP/SP). Outcomes of interest included successful sperm retrieval, age at first visit to our institution's Transgender Multispecialty Service Health clinic (GeMS), age at time of FP/SP, testicular volume, and Tanner stage at time of FP/SP, and age when GnRH agonist (GnRHa) therapy was prescribed. Testosterone, LH, FSH, and Inhibin B values prior to combination FP/SP were also obtained. Ten patients from 2017 to 2022 underwent FP/SP after prescription of GnRHa based on Endocrine Society Guidelines. Successful sperm retrieval and storage was achieved in all patients. Median age at FP/SP was fourteen years 5.5 months (range 12y5m-16y8m). Median time from GnRHa prescription to FP/SP was two months (range 2–5 m). Mean testicular volume at time of FP/SP was 13.2 cc (SD 3.38 cc, range 8–17 cc), and median Tanner Stage was IV (range III-V). Average testosterone level was 301.60 (SD 173.04), LH 3.00 (SD 1.25), FSH 3.33 (SD 1.71), Inhibin B 208.50 (SD 87.44). Performing TESE for FP is feasible for transgender youth undergoing Histrelin implant placement, leading to short delays in starting GAT. Testicular volume and endocrine markers can provide preoperative insight into likelihood of successful sperm retrieval during TESE, are needed to identify which patients will have successful sperm retrieval to ensure optimal counseling and informed decision making for providers, patients and families. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the standard treatment for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, the optimal radiotherapy regimen, particularly in terms of total dose and planned range of irradiation field, remains unclear. This phase III clinical trial aimed to compare the survival benefits between different radiation doses and different target fields., Methods: This trial compared two aspects of radiation treatment, total dose and field, using a two-by-two factorial design. The high-dose (HD) group received 59.4 Gy radiation, and the standard-dose (SD) group received 50.4 Gy. The involved field irradiation (IFI) group and elective nodal irradiation (ENI) group adopted different irradiation ranges. The participants were assigned to one of the four groups (HD+ENI, HD+IFI, SD+ENI and SD+IFI). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS). The synergy indexwas used to measure the interaction effect between dose and field., Results: The interaction analysis did not reveal significant synergistic effects between the dose and irradiation field. In comparison to the target field, patients in IFI or ENI showed similar OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.80-1.23, p = 0.930) and PFS (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.82-1.25). The HD treatment did not show significantly prolonged OS compared with SD (HR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.72-1.11, p = 0.318), but it suggested improved PFS (25.2 months to 18.0 months). Among the four groups, the HD+IFI group presented the best survival, while the SD+IFI group had the worst prognosis. No significant difference in the occurrence of severe adverse events was found in dose or field comparisons., Conclusions: IFI demonstrated similar treatment efficacy to ENI in CCRT of ESCC. The HD demonstrated improved PFS, but did not significantly improve OS. The dose escalation based on IFI (HD+IFI) showed better therapeutic efficacy than the current recommendation (SD+ENI) and is worth further validation., (© 2024 The Author(s). Cancer Communications published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center.)