Body size differences between foraging and intranidal workers of the monomorphic ant Lasius niger

The association between the division of labour and worker body size of ants is typical for species that maintain physical castes. Some studies showed that this phenomenon can be also observed in the absence of distinct morphological subcastes among workers. However, the general and consistent patterns in the size-based division of labour in monomorphic ants are largely unidentified. In this study, we performed a field experiment to investigate the link between worker body size and the division of labour of the ant Lasius niger (Linnaeus, 1758), which displays limited worker size variation. We demonstrated that the body size of workers exploring tuna baits is slightly but significantly smaller than the size of workers located in the upper parts of the nest. Comparing the present results with existing studies, large workers do not seem to be dedicated to work outside the nest. We suggest that monomorphic workers of certain body sizes are flexible in the choice of task they perform, and food type may be the important determinant of this choice

407 Preliminary safety, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of XmAb20717, a PD-1 x CTLA-4 bispecific antibody, in patients with advanced solid tumors

Background XmAb20717 is a humanized bispecific monoclonal antibody that simultaneously targets PD-1 and CTLA-4. We report preliminary data from an ongoing, multicenter, Phase 1 study investigating the safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity (RECIST 1.1) of XmAb20717 in patients with selected advanced solid tumors. Methods A 3+3 dose-escalation design was used to establish a maximum tolerated (MTD)/recommended dose for evaluation in parallel expansion cohorts, including melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), prostate cancer, and a basket of tumor types without an FDA-approved checkpoint inhibitor (CI; n≤20 each). XmAb20717 was administered as an infusion on Days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Results As of 08Jul2020, 109 patients had been treated (table 1), and 30 were continuing treatment. In escalation, 6 dose levels (0.15–10.0 mg/kg) were evaluated (n=34); an MTD was not established. Expansion cohorts were initiated at 10 mg/kg (n=72), and a 15 mg/kg escalation cohort was added (n=3). T-cell proliferation was noted in peripheral blood at doses as low as 3 mg/kg and was highest at 10 mg/kg. At this dose, consistent proliferation of CD8+ and CD4+ T cells was observed, indicative of dual PD-1 and CTLA-4 checkpoint blockade (figure 1). Paired pre- and post-dosing biopsies showed increased intratumoral T-cell infiltration and IFN-response signatures following treatment. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) reported for ≥3 patients included rash (13%), transaminase elevations (7%), lipase increased (4% [2% with amylase increased]), and acute kidney injury (3%), all considered immune-related. There were 2 Grade 5 TRAEs: immune-mediated pancreatitis (in the presence of pancreatic metastases) and immune-mediated myocarditis (Grade 4) that contributed to respiratory failure. A complete response was reported as the best overall response for 1 patient (melanoma); partial responses were reported for 5 patients (2 melanoma, 2 NSCLC, 1 ovarian). The objective response rate was 13% overall and 21% at 10 mg/kg (6/46 and 6/29 evaluable patients, respectively). All responders had prior CI exposure. Responses were observed only at 10 mg/kg and, within the 10 mg/kg group, appeared to correlate with higher peak serum concentration and area under the curve. Conclusions XmAb20717 induced T-cell proliferation in peripheral blood consistent with dual-checkpoint blockade. Preliminary data indicate XmAb20717 was generally well-tolerated and associated with evidence of antitumor activity in CI-pretreated patients with various types of advanced solid tumors. Trial Registration NCT03517488 Ethics Approval The study was approved by each institution’s IRB. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2020-SITC2020.040

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable