Citations

AbstractLeishmaniasis is considered a tropical neglected disease, which is caused by an intramacrophagic parasite, Leishmania. It is endemic in 89 different countries. Autophagy‐related protein 8 (Ldatg8) is responsible for the transformation of parasites from promastigote to amastigote differentiation. Ldatg8 is one of the key drug targets of Leishmania donovani (L. donovani) responsible for the defense of parasites during stress conditions. Virtual screening of natural ligand library had been performed against Ldatg8 to identify novel and potent inhibitors. Molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation studies showed that urolithin A stably blocked Ldatg8. Urolithins are combinations of coumarin and isocoumarin. Further, we evaluated the antileishmanial effects of urolithin A by antileishmanial assays. Urolithin A inhibited the growth and proliferation of L. donovani promastigotes with an IC50 value of 90.3 ± 6.014 μM. It also inhibited the intramacrophagic parasite significantly with an IC50 value of 78.67 ± 4.62 μM. It showed limited cytotoxicity to the human THP‐1 differentiated macrophages with a CC50 value of 190.80 ± 16.89 μM. Further, we assayed reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation and annexin V/PI staining upon urolithin A treatment of parasites to have an insight into the mechanism of its action. It induced ROS significantly in a dose‐dependent manner, which caused apoptosis partially in parasites. The potential inhibitors for Ldatg8, identified in this study, would provide the platform for the development of an effective and affordable antileishmanial drug.

Abstract Background Diffuse Midline Glioma (DMG) with the H3K27M mutation is a lethal childhood brain cancer, with patients rarely surviving 2 years from diagnosis. Methods We conducted a multi-site Phase 1 trial of the imipridone ONC201 for children with H3K27M-mutant glioma (NCT03416530). Patients enrolled on Arm D of the trial (n = 24) underwent serial lumbar puncture for cell-free tumor DNA (cf-tDNA) analysis and patients on all arms at the University of Michigan underwent serial plasma collection. We performed digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) analysis of cf-tDNA samples and compared variant allele fraction (VAF) to radiographic change (maximal 2D tumor area on MRI). Results Change in H3.3K27M VAF over time (“VAF delta”) correlated with prolonged PFS in both CSF and plasma samples. Nonrecurrent patients that had a decrease in CSF VAF displayed a longer progression free survival (P = .0042). Decrease in plasma VAF displayed a similar trend (P = .085). VAF “spikes” (increase of at least 25%) preceded tumor progression in 8/16 cases (50%) in plasma and 5/11 cases (45.4%) in CSF. In individual cases, early reduction in H3K27M VAF predicted long-term clinical response (>1 year) to ONC201, and did not increase in cases of later-defined pseudo-progression. Conclusion Our work demonstrates the feasibility and potential utility of serial cf-tDNA in both plasma and CSF of DMG patients to supplement radiographic monitoring. Patterns of change in H3K27M VAF over time demonstrate clinical utility in terms of predicting progression and sustained response and possible differentiation of pseudo-progression and pseudo-response.

AbstractGilteritinib is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with an FLT3‐mutation (FLT3mut+). However, the gilteritinib phase 3 ADMIRAL study (Perl et al NEJM 2019) was conducted prior to widespread adoption of either midostaurin as a component of standard intensive induction and consolidation or posttransplant FLT3 inhibitor maintenance. We performed a retrospective analysis using data from 11 US centers and where we identified 113 patients who received gilteritinib alone or as combination therapy for the treatment of R/R FLT3mut+ AML. The composite complete remission (CR) rate (CRc, defined as CR + CRi + CR with incomplete platelet recovery [CRp]) was 48.7% (n = 55). The CRc rate after treatment with gilteritinib in patients who were treated with only prior 7+3 and midostaurin with or without consolidation was 58% with a median survival of 7.8 months. Survival was longest in patients who obtained a CR, particularly a cMRD (clinical minimal or measurable residual disease) negative response; this remained significant after censoring at the time of stem cell transplant. The mitogen‐activated protein kinase pathway activating mutations that are known for gilteritinib resistance (NRAS, KRAS, and PTPN11) had lower CRc (35% vs. 60.5%) and lower median overall survival than patients' whose leukemia did not express these mutations (4.9 months vs. 7.8 months) (HR 2.4; 95% CI 1. 5.4) p value <.01.

In the last few decades, carcinogenesis has been extensively explored and substantial research has identified immunogenic involvement in various types of cancers. As a result, immune checkpoint blockers and other immune-based therapies were developed as novel immunotherapeutic strategies. However, despite being a promising therapeutic option, immunotherapy has significant constraints such as a high cost of treatment, unpredictable toxicity, and clinical outcomes. miRNAs are non-coding, small RNAs actively involved in modulating the immune system’s multiple signalling pathways by binding to the 3′-UTR of target genes. miRNAs possess a unique advantage in modulating multiple targets of either the same or different signalling pathways. Therefore, miRNA follows a ‘one drug multiple target’ hypothesis. Attempts are made to explore the therapeutic promise of miRNAs in cancer so that it can be transported from bench to bedside for successful immunotherapeutic results. Therefore, in the current manuscript, we discussed, in detail, the mechanism and role of miRNAs in different types of cancers relating to the immune system, its diagnostic and therapeutic aspect, the effect on immune escape, immune-checkpoint molecules, and the tumour microenvironment. We have also discussed the existing limitations, clinical success and the prospective use of miRNAs in cancer.

Abstract Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a complex hematological malignancy with the heterogenous immune bone marrow (BM) environment contributing to tumor growth, drug resistance, and immune escape. T-Cells play a critical role in the clearance of malignant plasma cells from the tumor environment. However, T-Cells in multiple myeloma demonstrate impaired cytotoxicity, proliferation, and cytokine production due to the activation of immune inhibitory receptors from ligands produced by the myeloma cells. In this study, we investigate the behavior of T-Cells in MM patients by using single-cell RNA-Seq (scRNA-Seq) to compare the transcriptomic profiles of BM T-Cells of patients with rapid progressing (FP; PFS &lt; 18mo) and non-progressing (NP; PFS &gt; 4yrs) disease. Methods: Newly diagnosed MM patients (n=18) from the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation (MMRF) CoMMpass study (NCT01454297) were identified as either rapid progressors or non-progressors based on their progression free survival since diagnosis. To capture transcriptomic data, scRNA-Seq was performed on 48 aliquots of frozen CD138-negative BM cells at three medical centers/universities (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Washington University in St. Louis, and Mount Sinai School of Medicine, NYC). Samples were collected at diagnosis prior to treatment. Surface marker expression for 29 proteins was captured for at least one sample per patient using CITE-Seq. After integration and batch correction, clustering was performed to identify cells of T or NK lineage. Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) and differential expression were used to identify T-Lymphoid subtypes, and differences in NP and FP samples. Results: In this study, single cell transcriptomic profiles were identified for ~102,207 cells from 48 samples of 18 MM patients. 40,328 T (CD3+) and NK (CD3-, NKG7+) cells were isolated, and subclustered for further analysis (Fig 1A). Using differentially expressed markers for each cluster, the T-Lymphoid subset was refined into seven subtypes, consisting of various CD4+ T-Cells, CD8+ T-Cells, and NK cells (Fig 1B). The CD8+ cells were divided into three distinct phenotypes, namely a GZMK-, GZMB- CD8+ T-Cell cluster, a GZMK+ CD8+ Exhausted T-Cell cluster enriched in TIGIT and multiple chemokines (CCL3, CCL4, XCL2), and a GZMB+ NkT cluster enriched in cytolytic markers (PRF1, GNLY, NKG7) (Fig 1C). Differential expression between NP and FP samples in this CD8+ subset showed enrichment of the NkT cytotoxic markers in NP samples, while FP samples were enriched in the CD8+ Exhausted chemokine markers (Fig 1D). Furthermore, the proportion of CD8+ Exhausted T-Cells was enriched in FP samples (p.val &lt; 0.05) (Fig 1E). Exhaustion markers were measured through both RNA and surface marker levels. In RNA, TIGIT was uniquely associated with the FP-enriched CD8+ Exhausted T-Cell cluster, and CD160 was uniquely expressed in FP samples (Fig 1F). CITE-Seq surface marker expression confirms enrichment of both TIGIT and PD1 in the CD8+ Exhausted T-Cell cluster, and along with more exhaustion in FP samples (p.val &lt; 0.01). Conclusion: In this study, we have identified significant differences in T-Cell activity in patients with non-progressing and rapid-progressing multiple myeloma. T-Cells in rapid progressing patients appear to be in a suppressed state, with low cytolytic activity and enriched exhaustion markers. This GZMK+ T-Cell population shows strong similarities with an aging-associated subtype of effector memory T-Cells found to be enriched in older populations (Mogilenko et al, Immunity 54, 2021). These findings will be further validated in an expanded study, consisting both of a larger number of samples, and multiple samples at different timepoints from the same patient. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Jayasinghe: MMRF: Consultancy; WUGEN: Consultancy. Vij: BMS: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; CareDx: Honoraria; Legend: Honoraria; Biegene: Honoraria; Adaptive: Honoraria; Harpoon: Honoraria. Kumar: Carsgen: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Avigan: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Partner Tx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aviv MedTech Ltd: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Legend Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Parexcel: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: trALL is an important secondary primary malignancy (SPM) that has recently been appreciated. While patients (pts) with MM have an 8%-17% risk of developing an SPM while on lenalidomide (R) maintenance following autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), trALL has been rarely observed. Little is known about the characteristics of trALL in pts with MM compared to pts who had other malignancies prior to the development of trALL. We define tALL as any prior exposure to cytotoxic chemotherapy and/or radiation for another malignancy, and herein, we report a comparative analysis of characteristics and outcomes of pts with trALL with and without MM from the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center (MCCC). Methods: We performed a systematic search in the 3-site MCCC registry and included all pts diagnosed and received at least 1 cycle of ALL-directed therapy and/or underwent allogeneic transplantation (AlloHCT) for ALL between 2007-2020. All cases of trALL in this series are B-ALL. Comparisons of characteristics between trALL patients with and without MM were made using a Wilcoxon rank sum test (continuous variables) or Fisher's exact test (categorical variables). Time-to-event variables were compared using unadjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: 70 trALL pts (14 MM [20%], 56 non-MM [80%]) were identified during the study period. The median age at trALL diagnosis was 63.9 (range 47-71) for MM pts and 63.1 (range 18.2-84) for non-MM pts. Median follow-up from trALL diagnosis was 1.42 years (range 0.02-10.6 years). The most common prior non-MM malignancies among tALL pts were breast (28.6%), lymphoma (17.9%), myeloid (17.9%), and GU/GYN (14.3%). Amongst the 14 MM pts, 100% (n=10) had ISS-I disease, 8 (57%) had IgG K MM, 1 (n=10) had high risk cytogenetics, 8 (57.1%) received R-based induction , 4 (28.6%) received CyBorD induction, 4(28.6%) received VRD induction, 3 (21.4%) received RD induction. 10 (71.4%) pts were actively on R when they developed trALL, 8 (57.1%) pts received prior ASCT. The median time to develop trALL following ASCT for MM was 46.3 months (m), (95% CI 20.4-67.6), 12 (85.7%) pts received R maintenance with a median duration of 53m (95% CI 16.9-121). The median time to develop trALL after initiation of R maintenance was 61.2m (95% CI 16.9-123.4). The most common trALL induction regimen received was HyperCVAD which was used in 71.4% of MM pts and 51.8% of non-MM pts. In comparison to non-MM pts, MM patients had a significantly lower WBC at diagnosis (Median: 2.0 vs. 5.8, P=0.005),no t(9;22) BCR/ABL1 cytogenetics (0.0% vs. 35.7%, P=0.008), a higher frequency of hypodiploid/near-triploid (Ho-Tri) cytogenetics (42.9% vs. 12.5%, P=0.009), and a lower frequency of prior radiation therapy (7.1% vs. 44.6%, P=0.012). MM pts had a higher frequency of AlloHCT for trALL (71.4% vs. 42.9%, P=0.075) and were more commonly in complete response (CR) at transplant (100.0% vs. 70.8%, P=0.078). No trALL in MM pts were Ph-like ALL. There was a statistically significant difference in time to development of trALL between previous malignancy locations (P=0.018), with GU/GYN (Median: 9 years) having the longest time and myeloid (Median: 3 years) having the shortest time; MM was 6 years. In the overall pt cohort, 56 (80%) pts achieved a complete response after induction and 60% (n=25) were minimal residual disease (MRD)+ after induction. Pts with MM had a significantly lower likelihood of being MRD+ after induction (OR=0.09, P=0.015). Overall, 24.3% of pts relapsed after induction therapy for trALL; 39 (55.5%) died after trALL diagnosis including 43% (n=35) who died after AlloHCT. Although pts with MM tended to have better outcomes compared to non-MM trALL pts in terms of overall survival after trALL diagnosis (Figure 1A), survival after AlloHCT (Figure 1B), relapse rate after trALL diagnosis and non-relapse mortality after AlloHCT, none of these findings were statistically significant in this small cohort (Figure 1C). Conclusion: trALL is a unique SPM that can occur in pts with MM. It is associated with Ho-Tri cytogenetics and is BCR/ABL1 negative. The majority of MM pts that developed trALL had undergone prior ASCT and were on R maintenance when they developed trALL. Despite being more likely to have adverse cytogenetics features, MM-associated trALL has similar survival compared to non-MM-associated trALL which speaks to the poor survival outcomes of this SPM. Further research on trALL in MM pts is merited. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Litzow: Amgen: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Bergsagel: Janssen: Consultancy. Fonseca: Scientific Advisory Board: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caris Life Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Patent: Prognosticaton of myeloma via FISH: Patents & Royalties; Bayer: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Mayo Clinic in Arizona: Current Employment; Juno: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Dispenzieri: Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Ailawadhi: GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Medimmune: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Ascentage: Research Funding. Foran: actinium: Research Funding; taiho: Honoraria; bms: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; OncLive: Honoraria; abbvie: Research Funding; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; takeda: Research Funding; trillium: Research Funding; aptose: Research Funding; revolution medicine: Honoraria; syros: Honoraria; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; certara: Honoraria; gamida: Honoraria; kura: Research Funding; h3bioscience: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding.