Somatostatin receptor 2 expression in nasopharyngeal cancer is induced by Epstein Barr virus infection: impact on prognosis, imaging and therapy

Nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), endemic in Southeast Asia, lacks effective diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Even in high-income countries the 5-year survival rate for stage IV NPC is less than 40%. Here we report high somatostatin receptor 2 (SSTR2) expression in multiple clinical cohorts comprising 402 primary, locally recurrent and metastatic NPCs. We show that SSTR2 expression is induced by the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) latent membrane protein 1 (LMP1) via the NF-kappa B pathway. Using cell-based and preclinical rodent models, we demonstrate the therapeutic potential of SSTR2 targeting using a cytotoxic drug conjugate, PEN-221, which is found to be superior to FDA-approved SSTR2-binding cytostatic agents. Furthermore, we reveal significant correlation of SSTR expression with increased rates of survival and report in vivo uptake of the SSTR2-binding Ga-68-DOTA-peptide radioconjugate in PET-CT scanning in a clinical trial of NPC patients (NCT03670342). These findings reveal a key role in EBV-associated NPC for SSTR2 in infection, imaging, targeted therapy and survival. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) lacks effective diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, in particular at advanced stages. Here, the authors show that expression of the somatostatin receptor 2 is induced by Epstein-Barr virus in NPC and has a key role in the diagnosis, imaging, targeted therapies and prognosis of NPC

Non-Standard Errors

In statistics, samples are drawn from a population in a data-generating process (DGP). Standard errors measure the uncertainty in sample estimates of population parameters. In science, evidence is generated to test hypotheses in an evidence-generating process (EGP). We claim that EGP variation across researchers adds uncertainty: non-standard errors. To study them, we let 164 teams test six hypotheses on the same sample. We find that non-standard errors are sizeable, on par with standard errors. Their size (i) co-varies only weakly with team merits, reproducibility, or peer rating, (ii) declines significantly after peer-feedback, and (iii) is underestimated by participants