Search

Filgrastim is approved for several indications, including reduction of the incidence and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and for stem cell mobilization. The filgrastim biosimilar, EP2006, has been available in Europe since 2009, and in the United States since 2015. In this time, preclinical and clinical data used to support the approval of EP2006 have been published. These data established the biosimilarity of EP2006 to reference filgrastim in terms of structure, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Additional real-world evidence studies have also demonstrated equivalent efficacy and safety of EP2006 compared with reference filgrastim, both in the reduction of neutropenia and in stem cell mobilization in clinical practice. This review summarizes these preclinical, clinical, and real-world data, as well as the available cost-effectiveness data, for EP2006 since its approval 15 years ago., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest PG has received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from Amgen, Pfizer, and Sandoz. NH has received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and Seagen. IB and SH are employees of Sandoz Group AG. BLR has received research grants and support from Gilead Sciences and Roche South Africa, and consulting/advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, OBI Pharma, and Roche South Africa . RA has no conflicts of interest to declare. MA has received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from Amgen, Bayer Schering, BMS, Celgene, Cephalon, Chugai, Clinigen, Eisai, Genomic Health, GSK, G1 Therapeutics, Helsinn, Hospira, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Merck Serono, Mundipharma, Novartis, OrthoBiotech, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Taiho, Tesaro, Teva, and Vifor., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The current study compared the levels and possible associations between systemic soluble immune checkpoints (sICPs, n = 17) and a group of humoral modulators of immune suppressor cells (n = 7) in a cohort of patients with basal cell carcinoma (BCC, n = 40) and a group of healthy control subjects (n = 20). The seven humoral modulators of immunosuppressor cells were represented by the enzymes, arginase 1 and fibroblast activation protein (FAP), the chemokine, RANTES (CCL5) and the cytokines, interleukin-10 and transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1), as well as the M2-type macrophage markers, soluble CD163 (sCD163) and sCD206. The plasma levels of six co-inhibitory sICPs, sCTLA-4, sLAG-3, sPD-1, sPD-L1, sTIM-3 and sPD-L2 were significantly elevated in the cohort of BCC patients (p<0.001-p<0.00001), while that of sBTLA was significantly decreased (p<0.006). Of the co-stimulatory sICPs, sCD27 and sGITR were significantly increased (p<0.0002 and p<0.0538) in the cohort of BCC patients, while the others were essentially comparable with those of the control participants; of the dual active sICPs, sHVEM was significantly elevated (p<0.00001) and TLR2 comparable with the control group. A correlation heat map revealed selective, strong associations of TGF-β1 with seven co-stimulatory (z = 0.618468-0.768131) and four co-inhibitory (z = 0.674040-0.808365) sICPs, as well as with sTLR2 (z = 0.696431). Notwithstanding the association of BCC with selective elevations in the levels of a large group of co-inhibitory sICPs, our novel findings also imply the probable involvement of TGF-β1 in driving immunosuppression in this malignancy, possibly via activation of regulatory T cells. Notably, these abnormalities were present in patients with either newly diagnosed or recurrent disease., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None of the authors has a conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Recent advances in the field of immuno-oncology have brought transformative changes in the management of cancer patients. The immune profile of tumours has been found to have key value in predicting disease prognosis and treatment response in various cancers. Multiplex immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence have emerged as potent tools for the simultaneous detection of multiple protein biomarkers in a single tissue section, thereby expanding opportunities for molecular and immune profiling while preserving tissue samples. By establishing the phenotype of individual tumour cells when distributed within a mixed cell population, the identification of clinically relevant biomarkers with high-throughput multiplex immunophenotyping of tumour samples has great potential to guide appropriate treatment choices. Moreover, the emergence of novel multi-marker imaging approaches can now provide unprecedented insights into the tumour microenvironment, including the potential interplay between various cell types. However, there are significant challenges to widespread integration of these technologies in daily research and clinical practice. This review addresses the challenges and potential solutions within a structured framework of action from a regulatory and clinical trial perspective. New developments within the field of immunophenotyping using multiplexed tissue imaging platforms and associated digital pathology are also described, with a specific focus on translational implications across different subtypes of cancer. © 2024 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland., (© 2024 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Purpose: This paper aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the need for continued development of symptom monitoring (SM) implementation, utilization, and data usage at the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels., Methods: Discussions from a patient-reported SM workshop at the MASCC/ISSO 2022 annual meeting were analyzed using a macro-meso-micro analytical framework of cancer care delivery. The workshop categories "initiation and implementation, barriers to adoption and utilization, and data usage" were integrated for each level., Results: At the macro-level, policy development could encourage data sharing and international collaboration, including the exchange of SM methods, supportive care models, and self-management modules. At the meso-level, institutions should adjust clinical workflow and service delivery and promote a thorough technical and clinical integration of SM. At the micro-level, SM should be individualized, with timely feedback for patients, and should foster trust and understanding of AI decision support tools amongst clinicians to improve supportive care., Conclusions: The workshop reached a consensus among international experts on providing guidance on SM implementation, utilization, and (big) data usage pathways in cancer survivors across the cancer continuum and on macro-meso-micro levels., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)