Citations

Background: Anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCLs) represent a heterogeneous group of T-cell lymphomas that currently are classified by the presence or absence of ALK tyrosine kinase (TK) fusion genes (ALK+ or ALK−) and clinical presentation (systemic, cutaneous, or breast implant-associated). Two overarching molecular types of ALCL recently were discovered, defined by the presence (Type I) or absence (Type II) of a gene expression signature highly enriched for JAK-STAT3 activation. Fusions involving non-ALK TK genes occur in some ALK− cases, but the fusion landscape of ALCL remains incompletely characterized. Methods: Expert consensus pathology review was conducted in the Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project (LLMPP). RNAseq was performed and fusions were identified using FusionCatcher. Here, we focused on recurrent in-frame coding fusions. Previously unreported fusions were validated by RT-PCR. Type I/II was assigned using a previously validated gene expression-based model. Genes with adjusted (adj) P<0.05 were considered differentially expressed. Overall survival (OS) was assessed for systemic ALCL, when available. Results: We evaluated 379 ALCLs (229M/150F; mean age, 56 y). Of 199 candidate fusions (excluding reciprocal events), 28 were recurrent and passed quality metrics. At least 1 of these 28 fusions was present in 150 cases (40%). ALK fusions were present in 106 ALK+ ALCLs (all Type I; P<0.0001). Of these, NPM1::ALK was seen in 68/106 (64%). Alternate partners (X::ALK) included ATIC (N=24) and CTLC, COL1A2, MSN, MYH9, RNF213, SATB1, TFH, TPM3, and TRAF1 (1-3 cases each). X::ALK was associated with older age (mean, 52 y) than NPM1::ALK (32 y; P<0.0001) and showed relative overexpression of 49 genes, including multiple activators of small GTPases such as CGNL1 (FC, 5.6; Padj=2.4×10-6), SRGAP1, ALS2, DOCK1, and NCKAP1. ALK expression was similar in cases with NPM1::ALK and X::ALK and there was no significant difference in OS. Non-ALK TK fusions were seen in 17/273 ALK− cases (6%), including TYK2 (N=9); JAK2 (N=6); and ROS1 (N=2). All were Type I ALCLs (P<0.0001). ALK− cases with non-ALK TK fusions overexpressed 38 genes compared to ALK− cases without TK fusions, including cytokines involved in the IL17 signaling pathway such as CXCL6 (FC, 12.5; Padj=4.2×10-3), CXCL1, and CSF3. We then assessed the relationship between ALK− cases with non-ALK TK fusions and ALK+ cases by separately comparing each subset to ALK− cases without TK fusions. FC values for ALK− cases with non-ALK TK fusions were significantly correlated with FC values for ALK+ ALCLs over the set of expressed genes (R=0.54; P<0.0001). At a median follow-up of 32 months, 0/4 systemic ALCL patients with non-ALK TK fusions had died, while 30% of those with ALK− ALCL without TK fusions had died, but this was not statistically significant (P=0.26). The other 13 ALK− cases with non-ALK TK fusions were either localized ALCLs or did not have outcome data available. Of 20 TP63 fusions, 17 (85%) were TBL1XR1::TP63 and 3 were X::TP63. As previously reported, TP63 fusions were associated with poor OS (median OS, 10 months; not reached for other ALK− ALCLs; P=0.007). Four ALCLs had a novel NCL::UBTF fusion involving genes encoding the nucleolar proteins nucleolin and nucleolar (upstream binding) transcription factor-1. Four cases each had PARG::BMS1 and TNK1::GPS2 (the latter seen only in Type I ALCLs). Conclusions: This large consortium-based analysis of coding fusions further elucidates the molecular distinction between Type I and Type II ALCLs. Both ALK and non-ALK TK fusions were seen exclusively in Type I ALCLs, which we have shown previously are enriched for JAK-STAT3 pathway genes and correlate strongly with pSTAT3Y705 positivity by immunohistochemistry. These fusions were not identified in Type II ALCLs, which previous data suggest are associated with epigenetic alterations. ALK+ ALCLs with NPM1::ALK and X::ALK showed differences in gene expression, suggesting biological differences. Furthermore, ALCLs with non-ALK TK fusions shared gene expression features with ALK+ ALCL. Clinical fusion detection could enhance molecular classification of Type I and Type II ALCLs and may guide precision therapy.

Abstract Background: In breast cancer, the spatial relationship between immune and tumor cells is increasingly recognized as critical in determining the efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). This study investigated how the distribution of immune cells, particularly CD8+ T cells, relative to tumor cells affects treatment outcomes. Methods: Biopsies from 104 breast cancer patients were examined, both pre- and post-NAT, using multiplex immunohistochemistry (mIHC). This study focused on the density and distribution of CD8+ T cells, CD68+ macrophages, FoxP3+ regulatory T cells, and other immune markers. Results: The spatial proximity of CD8+ T cells within 20 µm of cancer cells (N20-CD8+T) was strongly correlated with improved clinical outcomes across diverse tumor subtypes and NAT regimens. A significant post-NAT decrease in CD4+, CD68+, and FoxP3+ cells highlights notable shifts in the tumor immune landscape. A noteworthy finding was the positive correlation between CXCL9 expression and N20-CD8+T cells, suggesting a mechanism for immune cell recruitment and interaction within the tumor microenvironment. These results highlight the complex interplay among NAT, immune cell modifications, and patient outcomes. Conclusions: This study revealed that the proximity of N20-CD8+ T cells to tumor cells is consistently associated with favorable NAT outcomes, transcending tumor subtypes, and treatment differences. This highlights the potential of immune cell dynamics, especially CD8+ T cells, as predictive biomarkers for therapeutic responses in breast cancer, underscoring their vital role in tumor immunity.

Ketones are well-known biomarkers of fat oxidation produced in the liver as a result of lipolysis. These biomarkers include acetoacetic acid and β-hydroxybutyric acid in the blood/urine and acetone in our breath and skin. Monitoring ketone production in the body is essential for people who use caloric intake deficit to reduce body weight or use ketogenic diets for wellness or therapeutic treatments. Current methods to monitor ketones include urine dipsticks, capillary blood monitors, and breath analyzers. However, these existing methods have certain disadvantages that preclude them from being used more widely. In this work, we introduce a novel acetone sensor device that can detect acetone levels in breath and overcome the drawbacks of existing sensing approaches. The critical element of the device is a robust sensor with the capability to measure acetone using a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) chip and convenient data analysis from a red, green, and blue deconvolution imaging approach. The acetone sensor device demonstrated sensitivity of detection in the micromolar-concentration range, selectivity for detection of acetone in breath, and a lifetime stability of at least one month. The sensor device utility was probed with real tests on breath samples using an established blood ketone reference method.

Significance Statement Why are there so few biomarkers accepted by health authorities and implemented in clinical practice, despite the high and growing number of biomaker studies in medical research ? In this meta-epidemiological study, including 804 studies that were critically appraised by expert reviewers, the authors have identified all prognostic kidney transplant biomarkers and showed overall suboptimal study designs, methods, results, interpretation, reproducible research standards, and transparency. The authors also demonstrated for the first time that the limited number of studies challenged the added value of their candidate biomarkers against standard-of-care routine patient monitoring parameters. Most biomarker studies tended to be single-center, retrospective studies with a small number of patients and clinical events. Less than 5% of the studies performed an external validation. The authors also showed the poor transparency reporting and identified a data beautification phenomenon. These findings suggest that there is much wasted research effort in transplant biomarker medical research and highlight the need to produce more rigorous studies so that more biomarkers may be validated and successfully implemented in clinical practice. Background Despite the increasing number of biomarker studies published in the transplant literature over the past 20 years, demonstrations of their clinical benefit and their implementation in routine clinical practice are lacking. We hypothesized that suboptimal design, data, methodology, and reporting might contribute to this phenomenon. Methods We formed a consortium of experts in systematic reviews, nephrologists, methodologists, and epidemiologists. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library between January 1, 2005, and November 12, 2022 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020154747). All English language, original studies investigating the association between a biomarker and kidney allograft outcome were included. The final set of publications was assessed by expert reviewers. After data collection, two independent reviewers randomly evaluated the inconsistencies for 30% of the references for each reviewer. If more than 5% of inconsistencies were observed for one given reviewer, a re-evaluation was conducted for all the references of the reviewer. The biomarkers were categorized according to their type and the biological milieu from which they were measured. The study characteristics related to the design, methods, results, and their interpretation were assessed, as well as reproducible research practices and transparency indicators. Results A total of 7372 publications were screened and 804 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1143 biomarkers were assessed among the included studies from blood ( n =821, 71.8%), intragraft ( n =169, 14.8%), or urine ( n =81, 7.1%) compartments. The number of studies significantly increased, with a median, yearly number of 31.5 studies (interquartile range [IQR], 23.8–35.5) between 2005 and 2012 and 57.5 (IQR, 53.3–59.8) between 2013 and 2022 ( P < 0.001). A total of 655 studies (81.5%) were retrospective, while 595 (74.0%) used data from a single center. The median number of patients included was 232 (IQR, 96–629) with a median follow-up post-transplant of 4.8 years (IQR, 3.0–6.2). Only 4.7% of studies were externally validated. A total of 346 studies (43.0%) did not adjust their biomarker for key prognostic factors, while only 3.1% of studies adjusted the biomarker for standard-of-care patient monitoring factors. Data sharing, code sharing, and registration occurred in 8.8%, 1.1%, and 4.6% of studies, respectively. A total of 158 studies (20.0%) emphasized the clinical relevance of the biomarker, despite the reported nonsignificant association of the biomarker with the outcome measure. A total of 288 studies assessed rejection as an outcome. We showed that these rejection studies shared the same characteristics as other studies. Conclusions Biomarker studies in kidney transplantation lack validation, rigorous design and methodology, accurate interpretation, and transparency. Higher standards are needed in biomarker research to prove the clinical utility and support clinical use.

Background: Anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCLs) are CD30-positive T-cell lymphomas that share pathologic features but differ in clinical presentation, outcome, and molecular features. The World Health Organization (WHO) and International Consensus Classification (ICC) classify ALCLs by presence or absence of ALK rearrangements (R) and clinical presentation (systemic, cutaneous [c], or breast implant-associated [BIA]). ICC, but not WHO, recognizes DUSP22-R as defining a new genetic subtype of ALK- ALCL. The classifications otherwise do not reflect additional molecular heterogeneity in genetics (e.g., TP63-R) or therapeutic vulnerabilities (e.g., JAK-STAT3 pathway activation). Methods: ALCLs (N=689) underwent expert consensus review (WHO/ICC) through the Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project (LLMPP). All cases also underwent genetic subtyping (ALK, DUSP22, TP63, and triple-negative [TN]) using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC), as well as IHC for phospho-STAT3 Tyr705 (pSTAT3). RNAseq was performed and evaluable in 393 cases; the remaining cases had insufficient tissue, tumor content, RNA yield or quality, and/or sequencing data quality. Sequenced and non-sequenced sub-cohorts had similar demographics and subtype distribution. Results: Unsupervised gene expression profiling (GEP) identified 2 main molecular types of ALCL. Type I ALCLs predominantly included ALK+ ALCLs, BIA-ALCLs, and a subset of TN ALCLs (designated TN-I), whereas Type II ALCLs predominantly included ALCLs with DUSP22-R, TP63-R, or both (double-hit; DH), and the remaining TN ALCLs (TN-II). Type I ALCLs were strongly associated with pSTAT3 expression (74.2±26.4% positive malignant cells vs 9.9±22.7% for Type II; P&lt;0.0001). An independently derived pSTAT3 staining threshold of 30% assigned Type I vs II with 91% accuracy. A third cluster of ALCLs, mostly cALCL, showed an epithelial GEP signature rather than a lymphoma signature; these cases were assigned to Types I or II based on pSTAT3 IHC. Distinct sub-signatures were identified for ALK+, DUSP22-R, TP63-R, and BIA ALCL (Fig. 1), but not ALK- ALCL or cALCL. Gene set enrichment analysis showed Type I ALCLs to be enriched for JAK-STAT3 signaling genes (normalized enrichment score [NES], 2.22; FDR&lt;0.0001) and related pathways, such as TNFα-NFκB signaling (NES, 2.21; FDR&lt;0.0001). In contrast, Type II ALCLs were enriched for cell cycle, DNA repair, epigenetic, and metabolic pathway genes, but not for major tyrosine kinase-mediated signaling pathway genes. Enriched epigenetic pathways included chromatin modifying enzymes (NES, -1.86; FDR=0.002) and histone methylation (NES, -1.71; FDR=0.002). EZH2 was the most overexpressed gene in Type II ALCLs (fold-change, 7.74; FDR=8.84×10 -306). At the protein level, EZH2 IHC H-scores were 275±45 in Type II and 168±70 in Type I ALCLs (P&lt;0.0001); H3K27me3 H-scores were 170±81 and 76±63, respectively (P&lt;0.001). The top metabolic gene set involved cholesterol biosynthesis (NES, -1.88; FDR=0.002). Overall survival (OS) data were available in 257 systemic ALCL patients (145 sequenced and 112 non-sequenced; cALCL and BIA-ALCL were excluded). Non-sequenced TN ALCLs were assigned to TN-I or TN-II using pSTAT3 IHC. The results supported earlier data indicating favorable prognosis of DUSP22-R ALCL (5 y OS, 95%) and ALK+ ALCL (87%), intermediate prognosis of TN ALCL (TN-I, 52% and TN-II, 38%; P=NS), and poor prognosis of TP63-R/DH ALCL (0%)(P&lt;0.0001; Fig. 2). Conclusions: Two overarching molecular types of ALCL exist, predominantly associated with the presence (Type I) or absence (Type II) of the JAK-STAT3 signaling program. Distinct GEP signatures exist for ALK+ ALCL and BIA-ALCL (predominantly Type I), and DUSP22-R ALCL and TP63-R ALCL (predominantly Type II). TN ALCLs lacking ALK-R, DUSP22-R, and TP63-R can be stratified into TN-I and TN-II subtypes. pSTAT3 IHC has &gt;90% accuracy as a surrogate for GEP-based subtyping. ALK- ALCL and cALCL cluster by molecular subtype rather than by defining GEP signatures. Type II ALCLs are enriched for targetable epigenetic and metabolic pathways, including EZH2/histone methylation and cholesterol biosynthesis. This molecular classification is diagnostically, prognostically, and potentially therapeutically relevant, and can be applied using FISH and IHC in routine practice and in the clinical trial setting.