High CD206 levels in Hodgkin lymphoma-educated macrophages are linked to matrix-remodeling and lymphoma dissemination

Macrophages (M phi) are abundantly present in the tumor microenvironment and may predict outcome in solid tumors and defined lymphoma subtypes. M phi heterogeneity, the mechanisms of their recruitment, and their differentiation into lymphoma-promoting, alternatively activated M2-like phenotypes are still not fully understood. Therefore, further functional studies are required to understand biological mechanisms associated with human tumor-associated M phi (TAM). Here, we show that the global mRNA expression and protein abundance of human M phi differentiated in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL)-conditioned medium (CM) differ from those of M phi educated by conditioned media from diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) cells or, classically, by macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF). Conditioned media from HL cells support TAM differentiation through upregulation of surface antigens such as CD40, CD163, CD206, and PD-L1. In particular, RNA and cell surface protein expression of mannose receptor 1 (MRC1)/CD206 significantly exceed the levels induced by classical M-CSF stimulation in M2-like M phi; this is regulated by interleukin 13 to a large extent. Functionally, high CD206 enhances mannose-dependent endocytosis and uptake of type I collagen. Together with high matrix metalloprotease9 secretion, HL-TAMs appear to be active modulators of the tumor matrix. Preclinical in ovo models show that co-cultures of HL cells with monocytes or M phi support dissemination of lymphoma cells via lymphatic vessels, while tumor size and vessel destruction are decreased in comparison with lymphoma-only tumors. Immunohistology of human HL tissues reveals a fraction of cases feature large numbers of CD206-positive cells, with high MRC1 expression being characteristic of HL-stage IV. In summary, the lymphoma-TAM interaction contributes to matrix-remodeling and lymphoma cell dissemination

Validation of an internationally derived patient severity phenotype to support COVID-19 analytics from electronic health record data

Objective: The Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by EHR (4CE) is an international collaboration addressing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with federated analyses of electronic health record (EHR) data. We sought to develop and validate a computable phenotype for COVID-19 severity. Materials and Methods: Twelve 4CE sites participated. First, we developed an EHR-based severity phenotype consisting of 6 code classes, and we validated it on patient hospitalization data from the 12 4CE clinical sites against the outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and/or death. We also piloted an alternative machine learning approach and compared selected predictors of severity with the 4CE phenotype at 1 site. Results: The full 4CE severity phenotype had pooled sensitivity of 0.73 and specificity 0.83 for the combined outcome of ICU admission and/or death. The sensitivity of individual code categories for acuity had high variability-up to 0.65 across sites. At one pilot site, the expert-derived phenotype had mean area under the curve of 0.903 (95% confidence interval, 0.886-0.921), compared with an area under the curve of 0.956 (95% confidence interval, 0.952-0.959) for the machine learning approach. Billing codes were poor proxies of ICU admission, with as low as 49% precision and recall compared with chart review. Discussion: We developed a severity phenotype using 6 code classes that proved resilient to coding variability across international institutions. In contrast, machine learning approaches may overfit hospital-specific orders. Manual chart review revealed discrepancies even in the gold-standard outcomes, possibly owing to heterogeneous pandemic conditions. Conclusions: We developed an EHR-based severity phenotype for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients and validated it at 12 international sites

What every reader should know about studies using electronic health record data but may be afraid to ask

Coincident with the tsunami of COVID-19-related publications, there has been a surge of studies using real-world data, including those obtained from the electronic health record (EHR). Unfortunately, several of these high-profile publications were retracted because of concerns regarding the soundness and quality of the studies and the EHR data they purported to analyze. These retractions highlight that although a small community of EHR informatics experts can readily identify strengths and flaws in EHR-derived studies, many medical editorial teams and otherwise sophisticated medical readers lack the framework to fully critically appraise these studies. In addition, conventional statistical analyses cannot overcome the need for an understanding of the opportunities and limitations of EHR-derived studies. We distill here from the broader informatics literature six key considerations that are crucial for appraising studies utilizing EHR data: Data completeness, data collection and handling (eg, transformation), data type (ie, codified, textual), robustness of methods against EHR variability (within and across institutions, countries, and time), transparency of data and analytic code, and the multidisciplinary approach. These considerations will inform researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders as to the recommended best practices in reviewing manuscripts, grants, and other outputs from EHR-data derived studies, and thereby promote and foster rigor, quality, and reliability of this rapidly growing field