Broadband double-layered coplanar patch antennas with adjustable CPW feeding structure

In this paper, we have presented the double-layered coplanar patch antennas of enhanced impedance bandwidth and adjustable conductor-backed coplanar waveguide feed lines. The proposed structure retains the advantage of laying the coplanar patch and coplanar waveguide (CPW) feed line on the same surface, which makes direct integration with other devices easier. In addition, the substrate thickness of the radiating patch can be adjusted to achieve a wider impedance bandwidth while the dimensions of the CPW feed line are kept unchanged. Simulation has been done by using commercial electromagnetic (EM) simulation software. Four testing antennas, which have centre frequency at about 10 GHz, were designed. The four testing antennas had the same total thickness, but different thickness combinations. From the measured return loss, gain, and radiation patterns of the antennas, it was demonstrated that different thickness combinations do not affect the characteristics of the antennas seriously. Therefore, the dimensions of the CPW feed structure of the antennas can be adjusted individually and can be selected for different applications

Intermolecular interaction in the benzene-benzyl alcohol hetero-dimer ion

第16回化学反応討論会, 2000年6月1日-3日, サタケ講堂(東広島

Activation of RHOA–VAV1 signaling in angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma

Somatic G17V RHOA mutations were found in 50–70% of angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL). The mutant RHOA lacks GTP binding capacity, suggesting defects in the classical RHOA signaling. Here, we discovered the novel function of the G17V RHOA: VAV1 was identified as a G17V RHOA-specific binding partner via high-throughput screening. We found that binding of G17V RHOA to VAV1 augmented its adaptor function through phosphorylation of 174Tyr, resulting in acceleration of T-cell receptor (TCR) signaling. Enrichment of cytokine and chemokine-related pathways was also evident by the expression of G17V RHOA. We further identified VAV1 mutations and a new translocation, VAV1–STAP2, in seven of the 85 RHOA mutation-negative samples (8.2%), whereas none of the 41 RHOA mutation-positive samples exhibited VAV1 mutations. Augmentation of 174Tyr phosphorylation was also demonstrated in VAV1–STAP2. Dasatinib, a multikinase inhibitor, efficiently blocked the accelerated VAV1 phosphorylation and the associating TCR signaling by both G17V RHOA and VAV1–STAP2 expression. Phospho-VAV1 staining was demonstrated in the clinical specimens harboring G17V RHOA and VAV1 mutations at a higher frequency than those without. Our findings indicate that the G17V RHOA–VAV1 axis may provide a new therapeutic target in AITL

Plain language summary of the TRANSFORM study primary analysis results:liso-cell as a second treatment regimen for large B-cell lymphoma following failure of the first treatment regimen

What is this summary about?People diagnosed with a disease called large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) may experience return, or early relapse, of their disease within the first year after receiving and responding to their first (first-line) treatment regimen. Others may have primary refractory disease, meaning that the disease either did not respond to first-line treatment at all or only responded for a very brief period. Second (second-line) treatment includes immunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT, which has the potential to cure LBCL. However, if the disease does not respond to immunotherapy, people cannot receive ASCT, and less than 30% of people are cured.Therefore, new second-line treatment options are required, such as CAR T cell therapy, which uses a person's own genetically engineered lymphocytes, also called T cells, to fight their lymphoma. In this article, we summarize the key results of the phase 3 TRANSFORM clinical study that tested if liso-cel, a CAR T cell treatment, can safely and effectively be used as a second-line treatment for people with early relapsed or primary refractory (relapsed/refractory) LBCL.A total of 184 adults with relapsed/refractory LBCL who were able to receive ASCT were randomly treated with either liso-cel or standard of care (SOC) as second-line treatment. SOC included immunochemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT.What were the key takeaways?Almost all (97%) people in the liso-cel group completed treatment, whereas 53% of people in the SOC group did not complete treatment, mostly due to their disease not responding or relapsing, and therefore they were not able to receive ASCT. People who received liso-cel as a second-line treatment lived longer without the occurrence of an unfavorable medical event or worsening of the disease and had a better response to treatment than those who received SOC as second-line treatment. People who received liso-cel reported side effects that researchers considered to be manageable, and that were known to occur with CAR T cell treatment.What were the main conclusions reported by the researchers?Results from the TRANSFORM study support the use of liso-cel as a more effective second-line treatment compared with SOC that is safe for people with relapsed/refractory LBCL

Durvalumab as monotherapy and in combination therapy in patients with lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia: The FUSION NHL 001 trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that immune checkpoint inhibitors may represent a promising strategy for boosting immune responses and improving the antitumor activity of standard therapies in patients with relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies. AIMS: Phase 1/2 FUSION NHL 001 was designed to determine the safety and efficacy of durvalumab, an anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, combined with standard-of-care therapies for lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary endpoints were to determine the recommended phase 2 dose of the drugs used in combination with durvalumab (durvalumab was administered at the previously recommended dose of 1500 mg every 4 weeks) and to assess safety and tolerability. Patients were enrolled into one of four arms: durvalumab monotherapy (Arm D) or durvalumab in combination with lenalidomide ± rituximab (Arm A), ibrutinib (Arm B), or rituximab ± bendamustine (Arm C). A total of 106 patients with relapsed/refractory lymphoma were enrolled. All but two patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); those not experiencing a TEAE were in Arm C (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL]) and Arm D (DLBCL during the durvalumab monotherapy treatment period). No new safety signals were identified, and TEAEs were consistent with the respective safety profiles for each study treatment. Across the study, patients with follicular lymphoma (FL; n = 23) had an overall response rate (ORR) of 59%; ORR among DLBCL patients (n = 37) was 18%. Exploratory biomarker analysis showed that response to durvalumab monotherapy or combination therapy was associated with higher interferon-γ signature scores in patients with FL (p = .02). CONCLUSION: Durvalumab as monotherapy or in combination is tolerable but requires close monitoring. The high rate of TEAEs during this study may reflect on the difficulty in combining durvalumab with full doses of other agents. Durvalumab alone or in combination appeared to add limited benefit to therapy