A three-feature prediction model for metastasis-free survival after surgery of localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma

After surgery of localized renal cell carcinoma, over 20% of the patients will develop distant metastases. Our aim was to develop an easy-to-use prognostic model for predicting metastasis-free survival after radical or partial nephrectomy of localized clear cell RCC. Model training was performed on 196 patients. Right-censored metastasis-free survival was analysed using LASSO-regularized Cox regression, which identified three key prediction features. The model was validated in an external cohort of 714 patients. 55 (28%) and 134 (19%) patients developed distant metastases during the median postoperative follow-up of 6.3 years (interquartile range 3.4-8.6) and 5.4 years (4.0-7.6) in the training and validation cohort, respectively. Patients were stratified into clinically meaningful risk categories using only three features: tumor size, tumor grade and microvascular invasion, and a representative nomogram and a visual prediction surface were constructed using these features in Cox proportional hazards model. Concordance indices in the training and validation cohorts were 0.755 +/- 0.029 and 0.836 +/- 0.015 for our novel model, which were comparable to the C-indices of the original Leibovich prediction model (0.734 +/- 0.035 and 0.848 +/- 0.017, respectively). Thus, the presented model retains high accuracy while requiring only three features that are routinely collected and widely available.Peer reviewe

A three-feature prediction model for metastasis-free survival after surgery of localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma

After surgery of localized renal cell carcinoma, over 20% of the patients will develop distant metastases. Our aim was to develop an easy-to-use prognostic model for predicting metastasis-free survival after radical or partial nephrectomy of localized clear cell RCC. Model training was performed on 196 patients. Right-censored metastasis-free survival was analysed using LASSO-regularized Cox regression, which identified three key prediction features. The model was validated in an external cohort of 714 patients. 55 (28%) and 134 (19%) patients developed distant metastases during the median postoperative follow-up of 6.3 years (interquartile range 3.4-8.6) and 5.4 years (4.0-7.6) in the training and validation cohort, respectively. Patients were stratified into clinically meaningful risk categories using only three features: tumor size, tumor grade and microvascular invasion, and a representative nomogram and a visual prediction surface were constructed using these features in Cox proportional hazards model. Concordance indices in the training and validation cohorts were 0.755 +/- 0.029 and 0.836 +/- 0.015 for our novel model, which were comparable to the C-indices of the original Leibovich prediction model (0.734 +/- 0.035 and 0.848 +/- 0.017, respectively). Thus, the presented model retains high accuracy while requiring only three features that are routinely collected and widely available

Bexmarilimab-induced macrophage activation leads to treatment benefit in solid tumors:The phase I/II first-in-human MATINS trial

Macrophage Clever-1 contributes to impaired antigen presentation and suppression of anti-tumor immunity. This first-in-human trial investigates the safety and tolerability of Clever-1 blockade with bexmarilimab in patients with treatment-refractory solid tumors and assesses preliminary anti-tumor efficacy, pharmacodynamics, and immunologic correlates. Bexmarilimab shows no dose-limiting toxicities in part I (n = 30) and no additional safety signals in part II (n = 108). Disease control (DC) rates of 25%–40% are observed in cutaneous melanoma, gastric, hepatocellular, estrogen receptor-positive breast, and biliary tract cancers. DC associates with improved survival in a landmark analysis and correlates with high pre-treatment intratumoral Clever-1 positivity and increasing on-treatment serum interferon γ (IFNγ) levels. Spatial transcriptomics profiling of DC and non-DC tumors demonstrates bexmarilimab-induced macrophage activation and stimulation of IFNγ and T cell receptor signaling selectively in DC patients. These data suggest that bexmarilimab therapy is well tolerated and show that macrophage targeting can promote immune activation and tumor control in late-stage cancer

Systemic blockade of clever-1 elicits lymphocyte activation alongside checkpoint molecule downregulation in patients with solid tumors:results from a phase I/II clinical trial

Abstract Purpose:: Macrophages are critical in driving an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that counteracts the efficacy of T-cell–targeting therapies. Thus, agents able to reprogram macrophages toward a proinflammatory state hold promise as novel immunotherapies for solid cancers. Inhibition of the macrophage scavenger receptor Clever-1 has shown benefit in inducing CD8⁺ T-cell–mediated antitumor responses in mouse models of cancer, which supports the clinical development of Clever-1–targeting antibodies for cancer treatment. Patients and Methods:: In this study, we analyzed the mode of action of a humanized IgG4 anti–Clever-1 antibody, FP-1305 (bexmarilimab), both in vitro and in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic cancer (n = 30) participating in part 1 (dose-finding) of a phase I/II open-label trial (NCT03733990). We studied the Clever-1 interactome in primary human macrophages in antibody pull-down assays and utilized mass cytometry, RNA sequencing, and cytokine profiling to evaluate FP-1305–induced systemic immune activation in patients with cancer. Results: Our pull-down assays and functional studies indicated that FP-1305 impaired multiprotein vacuolar ATPase–mediated endosomal acidification and improved the ability of macrophages to activate CD8⁺ T-cells. In patients with cancer, FP-1305 administration led to suppression of nuclear lipid signaling pathways and a proinflammatory phenotypic switch in blood monocytes. These effects were accompanied by a significant increase and activation of peripheral T-cells with indications of antitumor responses in some patients. Conclusions: Our results reveal a nonredundant role played by the receptor Clever-1 in suppressing adaptive immune cells in humans. We provide evidence that targeting macrophage scavenging activity can promote an immune switch, potentially leading to intratumoral proinflammatory responses in patients with metastatic cancer

Prolyl Hydroxylase PHD3 Activates Oxygen-dependent Protein Aggregation

The HIF prolyl hydroxylases (PHDs/EGLNs) are central regulators of the molecular responses to oxygen availability. One isoform, PHD3, is expressed in response to hypoxia and causes apoptosis in oxygenated conditions in neural cells. Here we show that PHD3 forms subcellular aggregates in an oxygen-dependent manner. The aggregation of PHD3 was seen under normoxia and was strongly reduced under hypoxia or by the inactivation of the PHD3 hydroxylase activity. The PHD3 aggregates were dependent on microtubular integrity and contained components of the 26S proteasome, chaperones, and ubiquitin, thus demonstrating features that are characteristic for aggresome-like structures. Forced expression of the active PHD3 induced the aggregation of proteasomal components and activated apoptosis under normoxia in HeLa cells. The apoptosis was seen in cells prone to PHD3 aggregation and the PHD3 aggregation preceded apoptosis. The data demonstrates the cellular oxygen sensor PHD3 as a regulator of protein aggregation in response to varying oxygen availability

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field