CpG Island Methylator Phenotype—A Hope for the Future or a Road to Nowhere?

The CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) can be regarded as the most notable emanation of epigenetic instability in cancer. Since its discovery in the late 1990s, CIMP has been extensively studied, mainly in colorectal cancers (CRC) and gliomas. Consequently, knowledge on molecular and pathological characteristics of CIMP in CRC and other tumour types has rapidly expanded. Concordant and widespread hypermethylation of multiple CpG islands observed in CIMP in multiple cancers raised hopes for future epigenetically based diagnostics and treatments of solid tumours. However, studies on CIMP in solid tumours were hampered by a lack of generalisability and reproducibility of epigenetic markers. Moreover, CIMP was not a satisfactory marker in predicting clinical outcomes. The idea of targeting epigenetic abnormalities such as CIMP for cancer therapy has not been implemented for solid tumours, either. Twenty-one years after its discovery, we aim to cover both the fundamental and new aspects of CIMP and its future application as a diagnostic marker and target in anticancer therapies.

Twenty Years On: RECIST as a Biomarker of Response in Solid Tumours an EORTC Imaging Group – ESOI Joint Paper

Response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) v1.1 are currently the reference standard for evaluating efficacy of therapies in patients with solid tumours who are included in clinical trials, and they are widely used and accepted by regulatory agencies. This expert statement discusses the principles underlying RECIST, as well as their reproducibility and limitations. While the RECIST framework may not be perfect, the scientific bases for the anticancer drugs that have been approved using a RECIST-based surrogate endpoint remain valid. Importantly, changes in measurement have to meet thresholds defined by RECIST for response classification within thus partly circumventing the problems of measurement variability. The RECIST framework also applies to clinical patients in individual settings even though the relationship between tumour size changes and outcome from cohort studies is not necessarily translatable to individual cases. As reproducibility of RECIST measurements is impacted by reader experience, choice of target lesions and detection/interpretation of new lesions, it can result in patients changing response categories when measurements are near threshold values or if new lesions are missed or incorrectly interpreted. There are several situations where RECIST will fail to evaluate treatment-induced changes correctly; knowledge and understanding of these is crucial for correct interpretation. Also, some patterns of response/progression cannot be correctly documented by RECIST, particularly in relation to organ-site (e.g. bone without associated soft-tissue lesion) and treatment type (e.g. focal therapies). These require specialist reader experience and communication with oncologists to determine the actual impact of the therapy and best evaluation strategy. In such situations, alternative imaging markers for tumour response may be used but the sources of variability of individual imaging techniques need to be known and accounted for. Communication between imaging experts and oncologists regarding the level of confidence in a biomarker is essential for the correct interpretation of a biomarker and its application to clinical decision-making. Though measurement automation is desirable and potentially reduces the variability of results, associated technical difficulties must be overcome, and human adjudications may be required.

Management of herpesvirus reactivations in patients with solid tumours and hematologic malignancies: update of the Guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) on herpes simplex virus type 1, herpes simplex virus type 2, and varicella zoster virus

Clinical reactivations of herpes simplex virus or varicella zoster virus occur frequently among patients with malignancies and manifest particularly as herpes simplex stomatitis in patients with acute leukaemia treated with intensive chemotherapy and as herpes zoster in patients with lymphoma or multiple myeloma. In recent years, knowledge on reactivation rates and clinical manifestations has increased for conventional chemotherapeutics as well as for many new antineoplastic agents. This guideline summarizes current evidence on herpesvirus reactivation in patients with solid tumours and hematological malignancies not undergoing allogeneic or autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or other cellular therapy including diagnostic, prophylactic, and therapeutic aspects. Particularly, strategies of risk adapted pharmacological prophylaxis and vaccination are outlined for different patient groups. This guideline updates the guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) from 2015 “Antiviral prophylaxis in patients with solid tumours and haematological malignancies” focusing on herpes simplex virus and varicella zoster virus.

Cooperative phagocytosis underlies macrophage immunotherapy of solid tumours and initiates a broad anti-tumour IgG response

Macrophages are abundant in solid tumours and typically associate with poor prognosis, but macrophage clusters in tumour nests have also been reported as beneficial even though dispersed macrophages would have more contacts with cancer cells. Here, by maximizing both phagocytic activity and macrophage numbers, we discover cooperative phagocytosis by low entropy clusters in rapidly growing engineered immuno-tumouroids. The results fit the calculus of proliferation-versus-engulfment, and rheological measurements and molecular perturbations provide a basis for understanding phagocytic disruption of a tumour's cohesive forces in soft cellular phases. The perturbations underscore the utility of suppressing a macrophage checkpoint in combination with an otherwise ineffective tumour-opsonizing monoclonal antibody, and the approach translates in vivo to tumour elimination that durably protects mice from re-challenge and metastasis. Adoptive transfer of engineered macrophages increases the fraction of mice that eliminate tumours and potentially overcomes checkpoint blockade challenges in solid tumours like insufficient permeation of blocking antibodies and on-target, off-tumour binding. Finally, anti-cancer IgG induced in vivo are tumour-specific but multi-epitope and contribute to a phagocytic feedback that drives macrophage clustering in vitro. Given that solid tumours remain challenging for immunotherapies, durable anti-tumour responses here illustrate unexpected advantages in maximizing net phagocytic activity.

The Role of the CREB Protein Family Members and the Related Transcription Factors in Radioresistance Mechanisms

In the framework of space flight, the risk of radiation carcinogenesis is considered a “red” risk due to the high likelihood of occurrence as well as the high potential impact on the quality of life in terms of disease-free survival after space missions. The cyclic AMP response element-binding protein (CREB) is overexpressed both in haematological malignancies and solid tumours and its expression and function are modulated following irradiation. The CREB protein is a transcription factor and member of the CREB/activating transcription factor (ATF) family. As such, it has an essential role in a wide range of cell processes, including cell survival, proliferation, and differentiation. Among the CREB-related nuclear transcription factors, NF-κB and p53 have a relevant role in cell response to ionising radiation. Their expression and function can decide the fate of the cell by choosing between death or survival. The aim of this review was to define the role of the CREB/ATF family members and the related transcription factors in the response to ionising radiation of human haematological malignancies and solid tumours.