Endocrine Therapy Synergizes with SMAC Mimetics to Potentiate Antigen Presentation and Tumor Regression in Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer.

UNLABELLED: Immunotherapies have yet to demonstrate significant efficacy in the treatment of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer. Given that endocrine therapy (ET) is the primary approach for treating HR+ breast cancer, we investigated the effects of ET on the tumor immune microenvironment (TME) in HR+ breast cancer. Spatial proteomics of primary HR+ breast cancer samples obtained at baseline and after ET from patients enrolled in a neoadjuvant clinical trial (NCT02764541) indicated that ET upregulated β2-microglobulin and influenced the TME in a manner that promotes enhanced immunogenicity. To gain a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms, the intrinsic effects of ET on cancer cells were explored, which revealed that ET plays a crucial role in facilitating the chromatin binding of RelA, a key component of the NF-κB complex. Consequently, heightened NF-κB signaling enhanced the response to interferon-gamma, leading to the upregulation of β2-microglobulin and other antigen presentation-related genes. Further, modulation of NF-κB signaling using a SMAC mimetic in conjunction with ET augmented T-cell migration and enhanced MHC-I-specific T-cell-mediated cytotoxicity. Remarkably, the combination of ET and SMAC mimetics, which also blocks prosurvival effects of NF-κB signaling through the degradation of inhibitors of apoptosis proteins, elicited tumor regression through cell autonomous mechanisms, providing additional support for their combined use in HR+ breast cancer. SIGNIFICANCE: Adding SMAC mimetics to endocrine therapy enhances tumor regression in a cell autonomous manner while increasing tumor immunogenicity, indicating that this combination could be an effective treatment for HR+ patients with breast cancer

Intravenous NPA for the treatment of infarcting myocardium early: InTIME-II, a double-blind comparison on of single-bolus lanoteplase vs accelerated alteplase for the treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction

Aims to compare the efficacy and safety of lanoteplase, a single-bolus thrombolytic drug derived from alteplase tissue plasminogen activator, with the established accelerated alteplase regimen in patients presenting within 6 h of onset of ST elevation acute myocardial infarction. Methods and Results 15 078 patients were recruited from 855 hospitals worldwide and randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either lanoteplase 120 KU. kg-1 as a single intravenous bolus, or up to 100 mg accelerated alteplase given over 90 min. The primary end-point was all-cause mortality at 30 days and the hypothesis was that the two treatments would be equivalent. By 30 days, 6.61% of alteplase-treated patients and 6.75% lanoteplase-treated patients had died (relative risk 1.02). Total stroke occurred in 1.53% alteplase- and 1.87% lanoteplase-treated patients (ns); haemorrhagic stroke rates were 0.64% alteplase and 1.12% lanoteplase (P=0.004). The net clinical deficit of 30-day death or non-fatal disabling stroke was 7.0% and 7.2%, respectively. By 6 months, 8.8% of alteplase-treated patients and 8.7% of lanoteplase-treated patients had died. Conclusion Single-bolus weight-adjusted lanoteplase is an effective thrombolytic agent, equivalent to alteplase in terms of its impact on survival and with a comparable risk-benefit profile. The single-bolus regimen should shorten symptoms to treatment times and be especially convenient for emergency department or out-of-hospital administration. (C) 2000 The European Society of Cardiology

Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND: Statin therapy reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiovascular events, but whether the addition of ezetimibe, a nonstatin drug that reduces intestinal cholesterol absorption, can reduce the rate of cardiovascular events further is not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial involving 18,144 patients who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 days and had LDL cholesterol levels of 50 to 100 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 2.6 mmol per liter) if they were receiving lipid-lowering therapy or 50 to 125 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 3.2 mmol per liter) if they were not receiving lipid-lowering therapy. The combination of simvastatin (40 mg) and ezetimibe (10 mg) (simvastatin-ezetimibe) was compared with simvastatin (40 mg) and placebo (simvastatin monotherapy). The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, coronary revascularization ( 6530 days after randomization), or nonfatal stroke. The median follow-up was 6 years. RESULTS: The median time-weighted average LDL cholesterol level during the study was 53.7 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 69.5 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier event rate for the primary end point at 7 years was 32.7% in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 34.7% in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (absolute risk difference, 2.0 percentage points; hazard ratio, 0.936; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 0.99; P = 0.016). Rates of pre-specified muscle, gallbladder, and hepatic adverse effects and cancer were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: When added to statin therapy, ezetimibe resulted in incremental lowering of LDL cholesterol levels and improved cardiovascular outcomes. Moreover, lowering LDL cholesterol to levels below previous targets provided additional benefit