Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Harboring Concurrent EGFR Genomic Alterations: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of the Double Dilemma

The molecular pathways which promote lung cancer cell features have been broadly explored, leading to significant improvement in prognostic and diagnostic strategies. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have dramatically altered the treatment approach for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Latest investigations by using next-generation sequencing (NGS) have shown that other oncogenic driver mutations, believed mutually exclusive for decades, could coexist in EGFR-mutated NSCLC patients. However, the exact clinical and pathological role of concomitant genomic aberrations needs to be investigated. In this systematic review, we aimed to summarize the recent data on the oncogenic role of concurrent genomic alterations, by specifically evaluating the characteristics, the pathological significance, and their potential impact on the treatment approach

Prognostic and Predictive Role of Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes (TILs) in Ovarian Cancer

In the last decade, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have been recognized as clinically relevant prognostic markers for improved survival, providing the immunological basis for the development of new therapeutic strategies and showing a significant prognostic and predictive role in several malignancies, including ovarian cancer (OC). In fact, many OCs show TILs whose typology and degree of infiltration have been shown to be strongly correlated with prognosis and survival. The OC histological subtype with the higher presence of TILs is the high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) followed by the endometrioid subtype, whereas mucinous and clear cell OCs seem to contain a lower percentage of TILs. The abundant presence of TILs in OC suggests an immunogenic potential for this tumor. Despite the high immunogenic potential, OC has been described as a highly immunosuppressive tumor with a high expression of PD1 by TILs. Although further studies are needed to better define their role in prognostic stratification and the therapeutic implication, intraepithelial TILs represent a relevant prognostic factor to take into account in OC. In this review, we will discuss the promising role of TILs as markers which are able to reflect the anticancer immune response, describing their potential capability to predict prognosis and therapy response in OC

Can circulating PD-1, PD-L1, BTN3A1, pan-BTN3As, BTN2A1 and BTLA levels enhance prognostic power of CA125 in patients with advanced high-grade serous ovarian cancer?

The most common subtype of ovarian cancer (OC) is the high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC), accounting for 70%-80% of all OC deaths. Although HGSOC is a potentially immunogenic tumor, clinical studies assessing the effectiveness of inhibitors of programmed death protein and its ligand (PD-1/PD-L1) in OC patients so far showed only response rates = 30 months) in advanced HGSOC women. However, further two-factor multivariate analyses highlighted that baseline serum CA125 levels >401 U/ml and each soluble protein above respective concentration cutoff were covariates associated with shorter PFS (<30 months) and unfavorable clinical outcome, suggesting that contemporary measurement of both biomarkers than CA125 only could strengthen prognostic power of serum CA125 in predicting PFS of advanced HGSOC women. Plasma PD-L1, PD-1, BTN3A1, pan-sBTN3As, BTN2A1, or BTLA levels could be helpful biomarkers to increase prognostic value of CA125

DataSheet_1_Can circulating PD-1, PD-L1, BTN3A1, pan-BTN3As, BTN2A1 and BTLA levels enhance prognostic power of CA125 in patients with advanced high-grade serous ovarian cancer?.docx

The most common subtype of ovarian cancer (OC) is the high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC), accounting for 70%–80% of all OC deaths. Although HGSOC is a potentially immunogenic tumor, clinical studies assessing the effectiveness of inhibitors of programmed death protein and its ligand (PD-1/PD-L1) in OC patients so far showed only response rates 401 U/ml and each soluble protein above respective concentration cutoff were covariates associated with shorter PFS (<30 months) and unfavorable clinical outcome, suggesting that contemporary measurement of both biomarkers than CA125 only could strengthen prognostic power of serum CA125 in predicting PFS of advanced HGSOC women. Plasma PD-L1, PD-1, BTN3A1, pan-sBTN3As, BTN2A1, or BTLA levels could be helpful biomarkers to increase prognostic value of CA125.</p

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