Intra- and Inter-Tumor Heterogeneity of BRAFV600EMutations in Primary and Metastatic Melanoma

The rationale for using small molecule inhibitors of oncogenic proteins as cancer therapies depends, at least in part, on the assumption that metastatic tumors are primarily clonal with respect to mutant oncogene. With the emergence of BRAFV600E as a therapeutic target, we investigated intra- and inter-tumor heterogeneity in melanoma using detection of the BRAFV600E mutation as a marker of clonality. BRAF mutant-specific PCR (MS-PCR) and conventional sequencing were performed on 112 tumors from 73 patients, including patients with matched primary and metastatic specimens (n = 18). Nineteen patients had tissues available from multiple metastatic sites. Mutations were detected in 36/112 (32%) melanomas using conventional sequencing, and 85/112 (76%) using MS-PCR. The better sensitivity of the MS-PCR to detect the mutant BRAFV600E allele was not due to the presence of contaminating normal tissue, suggesting that the tumor was comprised of subclones of differing BRAF genotypes. To determine if tumor subclones were present in individual primary melanomas, we performed laser microdissection and mutation detection via sequencing and BRAFV600E-specific SNaPshot analysis in 9 cases. Six of these cases demonstrated differing proportions of BRAFV600Eand BRAFwild-type cells in distinct microdissected regions within individual tumors. Additional analyses of multiple metastatic samples from individual patients using the highly sensitive MS-PCR without microdissection revealed that 5/19 (26%) patients had metastases that were discordant for the BRAFV600E mutation. In conclusion, we used highly sensitive BRAF mutation detection methods and observed substantial evidence for heterogeneity of the BRAFV600E mutation within individual melanoma tumor specimens, and among multiple specimens from individual patients. Given the varied clinical responses of patients to BRAF inhibitor therapy, these data suggest that additional studies to determine possible associations between clinical outcomes and intra- and inter-tumor heterogeneity could prove fruitful

Assessment of Regional Variability in COVID-19 Outcomes Among Patients With Cancer in the United States.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a distinct spatiotemporal pattern in the United States. Patients with cancer are at higher risk of severe complications from COVID-19, but it is not well known whether COVID-19 outcomes in this patient population were associated with geography. Objective: To quantify spatiotemporal variation in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients with a historical diagnosis of invasive malignant neoplasm and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March and November 2020. Data were collected from cancer care delivery centers in the United States. Exposures: Patient residence was categorized into 9 US census divisions. Cancer center characteristics included academic or community classification, rural-urban continuum code (RUCC), and social vulnerability index. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. The secondary composite outcome consisted of receipt of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and all-cause death. Multilevel mixed-effects models estimated associations of center-level and census division-level exposures with outcomes after adjustment for patient-level risk factors and quantified variation in adjusted outcomes across centers, census divisions, and calendar time. Results: Data for 4749 patients (median [IQR] age, 66 [56-76] years; 2439 [51.4%] female individuals, 1079 [22.7%] non-Hispanic Black individuals, and 690 [14.5%] Hispanic individuals) were reported from 83 centers in the Northeast (1564 patients [32.9%]), Midwest (1638 [34.5%]), South (894 [18.8%]), and West (653 [13.8%]). After adjustment for patient characteristics, including month of COVID-19 diagnosis, estimated 30-day mortality rates ranged from 5.2% to 26.6% across centers. Patients from centers located in metropolitan areas with population less than 250 000 (RUCC 3) had lower odds of 30-day mortality compared with patients from centers in metropolitan areas with population at least 1 million (RUCC 1) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.84). The type of center was not significantly associated with primary or secondary outcomes. There were no statistically significant differences in outcome rates across the 9 census divisions, but adjusted mortality rates significantly improved over time (eg, September to November vs March to May: aOR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17-0.58). Conclusions and Relevance: In this registry-based cohort study, significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes across US census divisions were not observed. However, substantial heterogeneity in COVID-19 outcomes across cancer care delivery centers was found. Attention to implementing standardized guidelines for the care of patients with cancer and COVID-19 could improve outcomes for these vulnerable patients

COVID-19 Severity and Cardiovascular Outcomes in SARS-CoV-2-Infected Patients With Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Data regarding outcomes among patients with cancer and co-morbid cardiovascular disease (CVD)/cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) after SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited. OBJECTIVES: To compare Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related complications among cancer patients with and without co-morbid CVD/CVRF. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2, reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from 03/17/2020 to 12/31/2021. CVD/CVRF was defined as established CVD RESULTS: Among 10,876 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with cancer (median age 65 [IQR 54-74] years, 53% female, 52% White), 6253 patients (57%) had co-morbid CVD/CVRF. Co-morbid CVD/CVRF was associated with higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted OR: 1.25 [95% CI 1.11-1.40]). Adverse CV events were significantly higher in patients with CVD/CVRF (all CONCLUSIONS: Co-morbid CVD/CVRF is associated with higher COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer, particularly those not receiving active cancer therapy. While infrequent, COVID-19 related CV complications were higher in patients with comorbid CVD/CVRF. (COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry [CCC19]; NCT04354701)

U1snRNP-mediated suppression of polyadenylation in conjunction with the RNA structure controls poly (A) site selection in foamy viruses

Background During reverse transcription, retroviruses duplicate the long terminal repeats (LTRs). These identical LTRs carry both promoter regions and functional polyadenylation sites. To express full-length transcripts, retroviruses have to suppress polyadenylation in the 5′LTR and activate polyadenylation in the 3′LTR. Foamy viruses have a unique LTR structure with respect to the location of the major splice donor (MSD), which is located upstream of the polyadenylation signal. Results Here, we describe the mechanisms of foamy viruses regulating polyadenylation. We show that binding of the U1 small nuclear ribonucleoprotein (U1snRNP) to the MSD suppresses polyadenylation at the 5′LTR. In contrast, polyadenylation at the 3′LTR is achieved by adoption of a different RNA structure at the MSD region, which blocks U1snRNP binding and furthers RNA cleavage and subsequent polyadenylation. Conclusion Recently, it was shown that U1snRNP is able to suppress the usage of intronic cryptic polyadenylation sites in the cellular genome. Foamy viruses take advantage of this surveillance mechanism to suppress premature polyadenylation at the 5’end of their RNA. At the 3’end, Foamy viruses use a secondary structure to presumably block access of U1snRNP and thereby activate polyadenylation at the end of the genome. Our data reveal a contribution of U1snRNP to cellular polyadenylation site selection and to the regulation of gene expression

Etude relative à l'évaluation du dispositif PERICLES (Partenariat Economique pour le Redéploiement Industriel et les Clusters par l'Economie Sociale)

Étude relative à l'évaluation du dispositif PERICLES (Partenariat Économique pour le Redéploiement Industriel et les Clusters par l'Économie Sociale