Citations

Abstract The extracellular matrix (ECM) plays a critical role in cancer progression, with its biophysical properties influencing cancer behavior. ECM stiffness can induce long-lasting adaptations in cancer cells, promoting sustained invasion through a process known as “mechanical memory” (MM). Glioblastoma (GBM) exhibits spatial heterogeneity in stiffness, with stiffer ECM found at the tumor periphery where invasive cells reside and promote recurrence. We hypothesize that increased stiffness at the tumor periphery primes GBM cells for sustained invasion through MM. METHODS Cell lines were established from image-guided human GBM samples from tumor margin and core (n=10 patients, 20 cell lines). Cells from random locations were conditioned in physiologically relevant extracellular matrices for two weeks. Human organotypic assay (n=3), Migration Assays, Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM), Immunocytochemistry, Western Blot, and RNA-sequencing (n=6) were performed. RESULTS GBM cells at higher stiff surfaces displayed increased migration (p<0.01). Magnetic Resonance Elastography (n=9) confirmed GBM heterogeneity, with softer cores (0.2-0.5kPa) transitioning to stiffer margins (>2kPa). Organotypic scaffolds mimicking the tumor margin promoted enhanced migration of GFP-labeled GBM cells. Margin cells and cells conditioned on stiffer matrices demonstrated higher migratory potential compared to their core and soft-conditioned counterparts (p<0.05). These trends persist over time and across multiple passages. ECM stiffness exposure causes nanomechanical, cytoskeletal, and transcriptional adaptations. AFM shows that cells from the margin (n=6) are softer (p<0.01) and more deformable (p<0.01). RNAseq identified upregulation of MM-specific genes in GBM margin cells. The mechanosensitive transcription factor YAP1 emerged as a key driver of MM. Notably, YAP1 is targetable by the FDA-approved drug Verteporfin. YAP1 expression was elevated in margin and stiff-conditioned cells (p<0.05). Stiff-conditioned cells and margin cells displayed increased sensitivity to Verteporfin treatment (p<0.05), with treatment significantly reducing margin migration compared to the core (p<0.001). CONCLUSION Stiffer GBM margins promote the formation of aggressive phenotypes through MM. Targeting YAP1 with Verteporfin, a readily available drug, presents a promising strategy to halt GBM invasion and improve patient outcomes.

ABSTRACT Medically important pathogenic fungi invade vertebrate tissue and are considered primary when part of their nature life cycle is associated with an animal host and are usually able to infect immunocompetent hosts. Opportunistic fungal pathogens complete their life cycle in environmental habitats or occur as commensals within or on the vertebrate body, but under certain conditions can thrive upon infecting humans. The extent of host damage in opportunistic infections largely depends on the portal and modality of entry as well as on the host’s immune and metabolic status. Diseases caused by primary pathogens and common opportunists, causing the top approximately 80% of fungal diseases [D. W. Denning, Lancet Infect Dis, 24:e428–e438, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(23)00692-8 ], tend to follow a predictive pattern, while those by occasional opportunists are more variable. For this reason, it is recommended that diseases caused by primary pathogens and the common opportunists are named after the etiologic agent, for example, histoplasmosis and aspergillosis, while this should not be done for occasional opportunists that should be named as [causative fungus] [clinical syndrome], for example, Alternaria alternata cutaneous infection. The addition of a descriptor that identifies the location or clinical type of infection is required, as the general name alone may cover widely different clinical syndromes, for example, “rhinocerebral mucormycosis.” A list of major recommended human and animal disease entities (nomenclature) is provided in alignment with their causative agents. Fungal disease names may encompass several genera of etiologic agents, consequently being less susceptible to taxonomic changes of the causative species, for example, mucormycosis covers numerous mucormycetous molds.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This investigation evaluates the safety and efficacy of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) vs observation for Koos grade I vestibular schwannomas (VS). METHODS: In a multicenter study, we retrospectively analyzed data of patients with Koos grade I VS who underwent SRS (SRS group) or were observed (observation group). Propensity score matching was used to equilibrate demographics, tumor size, and audiometric data across groups. The outcome analyzed included tumor control, preservation of serviceable hearing, and neurological function. RESULTS: The study matched 142 patients, providing a median follow-up period of 36 months. SRS significantly enhanced tumor control compared with observation, with a 100% control rate at both 5- and 8-year marks in the SRS group vs 48.6% and 29.5% in the observation group at the same time intervals, respectively ( P < .001). Preservation of serviceable hearing outcomes between groups showed no significant difference at 5 and 8 years, ensuring a comparable quality of auditory function (SRS 70.1% vs observation 53.4% at 5 years; P = .33). Furthermore, SRS was associated with a reduced likelihood of tinnitus (odds ratio [OR] = 0.46, P = .04), vestibular dysfunction (OR = 0.17, P = .002), and overall cranial nerve dysfunction (OR = 0.49, P = .03) at last follow-up. CONCLUSION: SRS management of patients with Koos grade I VS was associated with superior tumor control and reduced odds for cranial nerve dysfunction, while not compromising hearing preservation compared with observation. These findings support the safety and efficacy of SRS as a primary care approach for this patient population.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in comparison with watchful waiting for managing Koos grade II vestibular schwannomas (VS). METHODS: A retrospective, multicentric analysis was conducted, focusing on patients with Koos grade II VS who either received SRS (SRS group) or were observed (observation group). To ensure comparability between groups, propensity score matching was used, including factors such as demographic characteristics, tumor dimensions, and hearing assessments. The primary end points examined were tumor control, maintenance of serviceable hearing, and neurological outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 92 patients were equally matched across both cohorts, with a median follow-up of 37 months for the SRS group and 27.5 months for those observed. The SRS cohort exhibited superior tumor control over observation across 3, 5, and 8 years, achieving a 100% control rate vs 47.9%, 40.1%, and 34.3% for the observation group at these time intervals, respectively ( P < .001). Serviceable hearing preservation rates were comparable between the 2 groups throughout 3, 5, and 7 years (72.9% for SRS vs 65.4% for observation at 3 years; P = .86). Moreover, SRS management correlated with a lower incidence of vestibular symptoms (odds ratio = 0.11, P = .002), with no significant disparity in the deterioration of cranial nerve (CN) V or CN VII functions. Notably, the likelihood of experiencing any CN impairment was significantly diminished in the SRS cohort (odds ratio = 0.47, P = .04). CONCLUSION: For patients with Koos grade II VS, SRS offers superior tumor control rate and a lower risk of CN dysfunction without sacrificing hearing preservation.

Importance Since 2018, a movement has emerged to define Alzheimer disease (AD) as a purely biological entity based on biomarker findings. The recent revision of the Alzheimer’s Association (AA) criteria for AD furthers this direction. However, concerns about a purely biological definition of AD being applied clinically, the understanding of AD by society at large, and the translation of blood-based biomarkers into clinical practice prompt these International Working Group (IWG) updated recommendations. Objective To consider the revised AA criteria and to offer an alternative definitional view of AD as a clinical-biological construct for clinical use. The recommendations of the 2021 IWG diagnostic criteria are updated for further elaborating at-risk and presymptomatic states. Evidence Review PubMed was searched for articles published between July 1, 2020, and March 1, 2024, using the terms “biomarker” OR “amyloid” OR “tau” OR “neurodegeneration” OR “preclinical” OR “CSF” OR “PET” OR “plasma” AND “Alzheimer’s disease.” The references of relevant articles were also searched. Findings In the new AA diagnostic criteria, AD can be defined clinically as encompassing cognitively normal people having a core 1 AD biomarker. However, recent literature shows that the majority of biomarker-positive cognitively normal individuals will not become symptomatic along a proximate timeline. In the clinical setting, disclosing a diagnosis of AD to cognitively normal people with only core 1 AD biomarkers represents the most problematic implication of a purely biological definition of the disease. Conclusions and Relevance The ultimate aim of the field was to foster effective AD treatments, including preventing symptoms and dementia. The approach of diagnosing AD without a clinical and biological construct would be unwarranted and potentially concerning without a clear knowledge of when or whether symptoms will ever develop. It is recommended that those who are amyloid-positive only and, more generally, most biomarker-positive cognitively normal individuals, should not be labeled as having AD. Rather, they should be considered as being at risk for AD. The expansion of presymptomatic AD is viewed as a better diagnostic construct for those with a specific pattern of biomarkers, indicating that they are proximate to the expression of symptoms in the near future.

BACKGROUND Despite an overall poor prognosis, about 15% of patients with advanced-stage tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) survive 10 or more years after standard treatment. METHODS We evaluated the tumor microenvironment of this exceptional, understudied group using a large international cohort enriched for long-term survivors (LTS; 10+ years; n = 374) compared with mid-term (MTS; 5–7.99 years; n = 433) and short-term survivors (STS; 2–4.99 years; n = 416). Primary tumor samples were immunostained and scored for intraepithelial and intrastromal densities of 10 immune-cell subsets (including T cells, B cells, plasma cells, myeloid cells, PD-1 + cells, and PD-L1 + cells) and epithelial content. RESULTS Positive associations with LTS compared with STS were seen for 9 of 10 immune-cell subsets. In particular, the combination of intraepithelial CD8 + T cells and intrastromal B cells showed near 5-fold increased odds of LTS compared with STS. All of these associations were stronger in tumors with high epithelial content and/or the C4/Differentiated molecular subtype, despite immune-cell densities generally being higher in tumors with low epithelial content and/or the C2/Immunoreactive molecular subtype. CONCLUSION The tumor microenvironment of HGSC LTS is distinguished by the intersection of T and B cell coinfiltration, high epithelial content, and C4/differentiated molecular subtype, features which may inspire new approaches to immunotherapy. FUNDING Ovarian Cancer Research Program (OCRP) of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP), U.S. Department of Defense (DOD); American Cancer Society; BC Cancer Foundation; Canada’s Networks of Centres of Excellence; Canadian Cancer Society; Canadian Institutes of Health Research; Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and Tasmania, Cancer Foundation of Western Australia; Cancer Institute NSW; Cancer Research UK; Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft; ELAN Funds of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg; Fred C. and Katherine B. Andersen Foundation; Genome BC; German Cancer Research Center; German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Programme of Clinical Biomedical Research; Instituto de Salud Carlos III; Mayo Foundation; Minnesota Ovarian Cancer Alliance; Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad; Medical Research Council (MRC); National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC); Ovarian Cancer Australia; Peter MacCallum Foundation; Sydney West Translational Cancer Research Centre; Terry Fox Research Institute; The Eve Appeal (The Oak Foundation); UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres at the University of Cambridge; University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine; U.S. National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health; VGH & UBC Hospital Foundation; Victorian Cancer Agency.

Abstract Background NT-proBNP levels are associated with disease severity and outcomes in patients with HF across the spectrum of LVEF. Recently, it has been suggested that the effectiveness of certain treatments may vary by NT-proBNP level with greater benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, and smaller benefit from vericiguat, in patients with higher NT-proBNP levels. We examined the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan on outcomes across the range of NT-proBNP levels in patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF/HFpEF. Purpose To evaluate clinical outcomes, and the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan, according to NT-proBNP levels, in patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF/HFpEF, using the pooled dataset of participants in the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials. Methods The PARADIGM-HF (n=8399) and PARAGON-HF (n=4822) trials enrolled patients with HF, functional limitation, and elevated NT-proBNP levels. Patients with LVEF ≤40% were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily or enalapril 10mg twice daily in PARADIGM-HF, and those with LVEF ≥45% to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily or valsartan 160mg twice daily in PARAGON-HF. Patients were categorized by quintiles of NT-proBNP level and using NT-proBNP as a continuous variable, analysed using restricted cubic splines. The primary outcome in the present study was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Results Among the 13195 patients in the pooled PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF dataset, 13142 (99.6%) patients with baseline NT-proBNP were analysed. Patients with higher NT-proBNP levels were more often male, had lower body mass index and LVEF, worse New York Heart Association functional class, worse kidney function, and more atrial fibrillation, while age was similar across NT-proBNP levels. The rate of the primary outcome (per 100 person-years) increased with NT-proBNP level: quintile 1, 5.9 (95%CI 5.3-6.5); quintile 2, 7.5 (95%CI 6.9-8.2); quintile 3, 9.0 (95%CI 8.2-9.7); quintile 4, 12.0 (95%CI 11.1-12.9); and quintile 5, 20.8 (95%CI 19.6-22.2) (Figure 1). Similar trends were observed for other outcomes. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across NT-proBNP levels: the hazard ratio for the primary outcome in NT-proBNP quintile 1 was 0.79 (95%CI 0.65-0.96); quintile 2, 0.87 (95%CI 0.72-1.04); quintile 3, 0.79 (95%CI 0.66-0.93); quintile 4, 0.85 (95%CI 0.73-0.99); and quintile 5, 0.86 (95%CI 0.76-0.97), P-interaction=0.86. The consistent benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was also seen when NT-proBNP was analysed as a continuous variable (Figure 2). The absolute benefit was greatest in quintile 5 of NT-proBNP; the number needed to treat for quintile 5 was 16 versus 37 for the quintile 1 for the primary endpoint. Conclusions Patients with higher NT-proBNP had worse outcomes, but the benefits of sacubitril valsartan were consistent across the range of NT-proBNP levels of participants in PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF.Kaplan-Meier curvesEffect of sac/val across NT-proBNP range

Abstract Background Concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of use and safety of beta-blockers (BBs) in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, randomized trial evidence is still lacking. Purpose To perform an observational analysis of the association between BB use and clinical outcomes in a large dataset of patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. Methods We pooled individual patient data from four large HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (I-Preserve, TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF, and DELIVER). The associations between baseline BB use and outcomes were analyzed. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Results Among the 16,951 patients included, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 56.8%, and 13,400 (79.1%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%). Overall, 12,812 patients (75.6%) received a BB. The median bisoprolol-equivalent dose of BB was 5.0 (Q1-Q3: 2.5-5.0) mg with BB continuation rates of 95.1% at 1 year and 93.1% at 2 years (in patients who survived more than 1 and 2 years, respectively). Overall, the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not differ between BB users and non-users (HR: 0.98 [95% CI: 0.91-1.05]) but among patients with HFmrEF, BB users had a lower HR (0.84 [95% CI 0.71-0.98]), whereas in HFpEF the HR was similar BB users and non-users (0.99 [95% CI 0.92-1.08]). However, after comprehensive adjustment for known prognostic variables, including NT-proBNP, BB use was associated with a better outcome in the overall cohort (HR 0.81 [0.74-0.88]), and this association was maintained across the range of LVEF (Figure 1). In subgroup analyses, the risk of the primary outcome was similar in BB users and non-users with or without a history of myocardial infarction, with or without a history of hypertension, or with or without a baseline heart rate &lt;70 bpm. By contrast, a better outcome with BB use was seen in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those without atrial fibrillation (Figure 2). Conclusions Although this is an observational analysis of non-randomized treatment, there was no suggestion that BB use was associated with worse HF outcomes even after extensive adjustment for other prognostic variables. Figure Legends Figure 1. Association between beta-blocker use and outcomes across the range of LVEF. Risk in beta-blocker users versus non-users is shown as an adjusted continuous hazard ratio Figure 2. Association between beta-blocker use and non-use in the overall population and clinically relevant patient subgroups, shown as an adjusted hazard ratio (HR). The outcome analyzed was the composite of CV death or HF hospitalization (primary outcome)Figure 1Figure 2

Abstract Background/Introduction Patients with ATTR-CM can have lower circulating TTR levels, which is associated with worsening of cardiac function and increased risk of cardiovascular mortality.[1] Acoramidis has been shown to reduce cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization, while increasing circulating TTR levels, in the ATTRibute-CM phase 3 study.[2] Purpose I. Evaluate serum TTR levels in participants (pts) receiving acoramidis vs those who received tafamidis in the placebo group in ATTRibute-CM at Month 30. II. Evaluate serum TTR levels in pts who transitioned from placebo+tafamidis to acoramidis in the open-label long term extension (OLE) study. Methods ATTRibute-CM study: Eligible pts with ATTR-CM were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive acoramidis or placebo for 30 months. Pts in both groups had the option of initiating open-label, commercially available tafamidis after 12 months in the study. Upon completion of Month 30, pts were invited to participate in the OLE study. In OLE, pts who had previously received acoramidis continued acoramidis, and those who had previously received placebo+tafamidis were switched to acoramidis-only treatment. All pts in the OLE study received acoramidis only. Change in serum TTR levels in ATTRibute-CM and OLE at data cutoff (Oct 9, 2023) are summarised using descriptive statistics. Results In the phase 3 study, efficacy analyses were performed in 611 pts, of which 61 of 409 (14.9%) and 46 of 202 (22.8%) received tafamidis in acoramidis and placebo groups, respectively. The median time until tafamidis initiation was 17.8 and 16.1 months, respectively; median exposure duration was 11.6 and 10.5 months, for acoramidis and placebo groups, respectively.[3] Change from baseline (CFB) in serum TTR levels remained unchanged at Month 30 in the placebo-only group (mean [SD] = –0.4 [4.92] mg/dL). Characteristics of pts analysed are described in Fig. 1. A total of 380/611 pts (62.2%) entered the OLE study (229 pts continued acoramidis only, and 23 switched from placebo+tafamidis to acoramidis). At the time of data cutoff, 214 pts who had received acoramidis only completed Month 6 in OLE versus 18 who switched from placebo+tafamidis to acoramidis. At Month 30 in ATTRibute-CM, CFB in serum TTR levels were higher for patients who received acoramidis only than those receiving placebo+tafamidis (Fig 2A). Serum TTR levels increased further in pts who switched from placebo+tafamidis to acoramidis in OLE (Fig. 2B). The OLE study is ongoing, and this analysis includes pts who completed the Month 6 visit at time of data-cut. Conclusion(s) CFB in serum TTR levels were higher in pts receiving acoramidis only than those receiving placebo+tafamidis at Month 30 in the double-blind study. A further significant increase in serum TTR levels was observed in those who received placebo+tafamidis and switched to acoramidis in OLE.