Different Pathological Complete Response Rates According to PAM50 Subtype in HER2+ Breast Cancer Patients Treated With Neoadjuvant Pertuzumab/Trastuzumab vs. Trastuzumab Plus Standard Chemotherapy: An Analysis of Real-World Data.

Background: Double blockade with pertuzumab and trastuzumab combined with chemotherapy is the standard neoadjuvant treatment for HER2-positive early breast cancer. Data derived from clinical trials indicates that the response rates differ among intrinsic subtypes of breast cancer. The aim of this study is to determine if these results are valid in real-world patients. Methods: A total of 259 patients treated in eight Spanish hospitals were included and divided into two cohorts: Cohort A (132 patients) received trastuzumab plus standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), and Cohort B received pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus NAC (122 patients). Pathological complete response (pCR) was defined as the complete disappearance of invasive tumor cells. Assignment of the intrinsic subtype was realized using the research-based PAM50 signature. Results: There were more HER2-enriched tumors in Cohort A (70 vs. 56%) and more basal-like tumors in Cohort B (12 vs. 2%), with similar luminal cases in both cohorts (luminal A 12 vs. 14%; luminal B 14 vs. 18%). The overall pCR rate was 39% in Cohort A and 61% in Cohort B. Better pCR rates with pertuzumab plus trastuzumab than with trastuzumab alone were also observed in all intrinsic subtypes (luminal PAM50 41 vs. 11.4% and HER2-enriched subtype 73.5 vs. 50%) but not in basal-like tumors (53.3 vs. 50%). In multivariate analysis the only significant variables related to pCR in both luminal PAM50 and HER2-enriched subtypes were treatment with pertuzumab plus trastuzumab (Cohort B) and histological grade 3. Conclusions: With data obtained from patients treated in clinical practice, it has been possible to verify that the addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab and neoadjuvant chemotherapy substantially increases the rate of pCR, especially in the HER2-enriched subtype but also in luminal subtypes, with no apparent benefit in basal-like tumors

Current preventive strategies and management of Epstein-Barr virus-related post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease in solid organ transplantation in Europe. Results of the ESGICH Questionnaire-based Cross-sectional Survey

There is limited clinical evidence on the utility of the monitoring of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNAemia in the pre-emptive management of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. We investigated current preventive measures against EBV-related PTLD through a web-based questionnaire sent to 669 SOT programmes in 35 European countries. This study was performed on behalf of the ESGICH study group from the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. A total of 71 SOT programmes from 15 European countries participated in the study. EBV serostatus of the recipient is routinely obtained in 69/71 centres (97%) and 64 (90%) have access to EBV DNAemia assays. EBV monitoring is routinely used in 85.9% of the programmes and 77.4% reported performing pre-emptive treatment for patients with significant EBV DNAemia levels. Pre-emptive treatment for EBV DNAemia included reduction of immunosuppression in 50.9%, switch to mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors in 30.9%, and use of rituximab in 14.5% of programmes. Imaging by whole-body 18-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is used in 60.9% of centres to rule out PTLD and complemented computer tomography is used in 50%. In 10.9% of centres, FDG-PET is included in the first-line diagnostic workup in patients with high-risk EBV DNAemia. Despite the lack of definitive evidence, EBV load measurements are frequently used in Europe to guide diagnostic workup and pre-emptive reduction of immunosuppression. We need prospective and controlled studies to define the impact of EBV monitoring in reducing the risk of PTLD in SOT recipients

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field