Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,
\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,
\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,
\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,
\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,
\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,
\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,
\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,
\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,
\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,
\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,
\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,
\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,
\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,
\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,
\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,
\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,
\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,
\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,
\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,
\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,
\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,
\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,
\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,
\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,
\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,
\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,
\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,
\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,
\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,
\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,
\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,
\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,
\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,
\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,
\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,
\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,
\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,
\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,
\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,
\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,
\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,
\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,
\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,
\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,
\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,
\nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002,
\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,
\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,
\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,
\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,
\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,
\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,
\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,
\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,
\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,
\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,
\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,
\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,
\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,
\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,
\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,
\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,
\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,
\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,
\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,
\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,
\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,
\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,
\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,
\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,
\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,
\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,
\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,
\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,
\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,
\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,
\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,
\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,
\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,
\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,
\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,
\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,
\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,
\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,
\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

Abstract We herein present an overview of the upcoming 5 th edition of the World Health Organization Classification of Haematolymphoid Tumours focussing on lymphoid neoplasms. Myeloid and histiocytic neoplasms will be presented in a separate accompanying article. Besides listing the entities of the classification, we highlight and explain changes from the revised 4 th edition. These include reorganization of entities by a hierarchical system as is adopted throughout the 5 th edition of the WHO classification of tumours of all organ systems, modification of nomenclature for some entities, revision of diagnostic criteria or subtypes, deletion of certain entities, and introduction of new entities, as well as inclusion of tumour-like lesions, mesenchymal lesions specific to lymph node and spleen, and germline predisposition syndromes associated with the lymphoid neoplasms.

BACKGROUND: Patients who have residual invasive breast cancer after receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted therapy have a worse prognosis than those who have no residual cancer. Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), an antibody-drug conjugate of trastuzumab and the cytotoxic agent emtansine (DM1), a maytansine derivative and microtubule inhibitor, provides benefit in patients with metastatic breast cancer that was previously treated with chemotherapy plus HER2-targeted therapy. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, open-label trial involving patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who were found to have residual invasive disease in the breast or axilla at surgery after receiving neoadjuvant therapy containing a taxane (with or without anthracycline) and trastuzumab. Patients were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant T-DM1 or trastuzumab for 14 cycles. The primary end point was invasive disease-free survival (defined as freedom from ipsilateral invasive breast tumor recurrence, ipsilateral locoregional invasive breast cancer recurrence, contralateral invasive breast cancer, distant recurrence, or death from any cause). RESULTS: At the interim analysis, among 1486 randomly assigned patients (743 in the T-DM1 group and 743 in the trastuzumab group), invasive disease or death had occurred in 91 patients in the T-DM1 group (12.2%) and 165 patients in the trastuzumab group (22.2%). The estimated percentage of patients who were free of invasive disease at 3 years was 88.3% in the T-DM1 group and 77.0% in the trastuzumab group. Invasive disease-free survival was significantly higher in the T-DM1 group than in the trastuzumab group (hazard ratio for invasive disease or death, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.39 to 0.64; P<0.001). Distant recurrence as the first invasive-disease event occurred in 10.5% of patients in the T-DM1 group and 15.9% of those in the trastuzumab group. The safety data were consistent with the known safety profile of T-DM1, with more adverse events associated with T-DM1 than with trastuzumab alone. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who had residual invasive disease after completion of neoadjuvant therapy, the risk of recurrence of invasive breast cancer or death was 50% lower with adjuvant T-DM1 than with trastuzumab alone. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; KATHERINE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01772472 .).

autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.

Cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), a stromal cell population with cell-of-origin, phenotypic and functional heterogeneity, are the most essential components of the tumor microenvironment (TME). Through multiple pathways, activated CAFs can promote tumor growth, angiogenesis, invasion and metastasis, along with extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling and even chemoresistance. Numerous previous studies have confirmed the critical role of the interaction between CAFs and tumor cells in tumorigenesis and development. However, recently, the mutual effects of CAFs and the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) have been identified as another key factor in promoting tumor progression. The TIME mainly consists of distinct immune cell populations in tumor islets and is highly associated with the antitumor immunological state in the TME. CAFs interact with tumor-infiltrating immune cells as well as other immune components within the TIME via the secretion of various cytokines, growth factors, chemokines, exosomes and other effector molecules, consequently shaping an immunosuppressive TME that enables cancer cells to evade surveillance of the immune system. In-depth studies of CAFs and immune microenvironment interactions, particularly the complicated mechanisms connecting CAFs with immune cells, might provide novel strategies for subsequent targeted immunotherapies. Herein, we shed light on recent advances regarding the direct and indirect crosstalk between CAFs and infiltrating immune cells and further summarize the possible immunoinhibitory mechanisms induced by CAFs in the TME. In addition, we present current related CAF-targeting immunotherapies and briefly describe some future perspectives on CAF research in the end.

Circular RNAs (circRNAs) represent a class of widespread and diverse endogenous RNAs that may regulate gene expression in eukaryotes. However, the regulation and function of human circRNAs remain largely unknown. Here we generate ribosomal-depleted RNA sequencing data from six normal tissues and seven cancers, and detect at least 27,000 circRNA candidates. Many of these circRNAs are differently expressed between the normal and cancerous tissues. We further characterize one abundant circRNA derived from Exon2 of the HIPK3 gene, termed circHIPK3. The silencing of circHIPK3 but not HIPK3 mRNA significantly inhibits human cell growth. Via a luciferase screening assay, circHIPK3 is observed to sponge to 9 miRNAs with 18 potential binding sites. Specifically, we show that circHIPK3 directly binds to miR-124 and inhibits miR-124 activity. Our results provide evidence that circular RNA produced from precursor mRNA may have a regulatory role in human cells.

NF-κB signaling has been discovered for nearly 40 years. Initially, NF-κB signaling was identified as a pivotal pathway in mediating inflammatory responses. However, with extensive and in-depth investigations, researchers have discovered that its role can be expanded to a variety of signaling mechanisms, biological processes, human diseases, and treatment options. In this review, we first scrutinize the research process of NF-κB signaling, and summarize the composition, activation, and regulatory mechanism of NF-κB signaling. We investigate the interaction of NF-κB signaling with other important pathways, including PI3K/AKT, MAPK, JAK-STAT, TGF-β, Wnt, Notch, Hedgehog, and TLR signaling. The physiological and pathological states of NF-κB signaling, as well as its intricate involvement in inflammation, immune regulation, and tumor microenvironment, are also explicated. Additionally, we illustrate how NF-κB signaling is involved in a variety of human diseases, including cancers, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, cardiovascular diseases, metabolic diseases, neurological diseases, and COVID-19. Further, we discuss the therapeutic approaches targeting NF-κB signaling, including IKK inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, proteasome inhibitors, nuclear translocation inhibitors, DNA binding inhibitors, TKIs, non-coding RNAs, immunotherapy, and CAR-T. Finally, we provide an outlook for research in the field of NF-κB signaling. We hope to present a stereoscopic, comprehensive NF-κB signaling that will inform future research and clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: germline mutation-associated early breast cancer. METHODS: germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and high-risk clinicopathological factors who had received local treatment and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to 1 year of oral olaparib or placebo. The primary end point was invasive disease-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 1836 patients underwent randomization. At a prespecified event-driven interim analysis with a median follow-up of 2.5 years, the 3-year invasive disease-free survival was 85.9% in the olaparib group and 77.1% in the placebo group (difference, 8.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.5 to 13.0; hazard ratio for invasive disease or death, 0.58; 99.5% CI, 0.41 to 0.82; P<0.001). The 3-year distant disease-free survival was 87.5% in the olaparib group and 80.4% in the placebo group (difference, 7.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.0 to 11.1; hazard ratio for distant disease or death, 0.57; 99.5% CI, 0.39 to 0.83; P<0.001). Olaparib was associated with fewer deaths than placebo (59 and 86, respectively) (hazard ratio, 0.68; 99% CI, 0.44 to 1.05; P = 0.02); however, the between-group difference was not significant at an interim-analysis boundary of a P value of less than 0.01. Safety data were consistent with known side effects of olaparib, with no excess serious adverse events or adverse events of special interest. CONCLUSIONS: pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, adjuvant olaparib after completion of local treatment and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer survival free of invasive or distant disease than was placebo. Olaparib had limited effects on global patient-reported quality of life. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca; OlympiA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02032823.).

BACKGROUND: Apalutamide is an inhibitor of the ligand-binding domain of the androgen receptor. Whether the addition of apalutamide to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) would prolong radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival as compared with placebo plus ADT among patients with metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer has not been determined. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer to receive apalutamide (240 mg per day) or placebo, added to ADT. Previous treatment for localized disease and previous docetaxel therapy were allowed. The primary end points were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 525 patients were assigned to receive apalutamide plus ADT and 527 to receive placebo plus ADT. The median age was 68 years. A total of 16.4% of the patients had undergone prostatectomy or received radiotherapy for localized disease, and 10.7% had received previous docetaxel therapy; 62.7% had high-volume disease, and 37.3% had low-volume disease. At the first interim analysis, with a median of 22.7 months of follow-up, the percentage of patients with radiographic progression-free survival at 24 months was 68.2% in the apalutamide group and 47.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for radiographic progression or death, 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.60; P<0.001). Overall survival at 24 months was also greater with apalutamide than with placebo (82.4% in the apalutamide group vs. 73.5% in the placebo group; hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89; P = 0.005). The frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 42.2% in the apalutamide group and 40.8% in the placebo group; rash was more common in the apalutamide group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer, overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival were significantly longer with the addition of apalutamide to ADT than with placebo plus ADT, and the side-effect profile did not differ substantially between the two groups. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; TITAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02489318.).

In recent years, cancer immunotherapy based on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has achieved considerable success in the clinic. However, ICIs are significantly limited by the fact that only one third of patients with most types of cancer respond to these agents. The induction of cell death mechanisms other than apoptosis has gradually emerged as a new cancer treatment strategy because most tumors harbor innate resistance to apoptosis. However, to date, the possibility of combining these two modalities has not been discussed systematically. Recently, a few studies revealed crosstalk between distinct cell death mechanisms and antitumor immunity. The induction of pyroptosis, ferroptosis, and necroptosis combined with ICIs showed synergistically enhanced antitumor activity, even in ICI-resistant tumors. Immunotherapy-activated CD8+ T cells are traditionally believed to induce tumor cell death via the following two main pathways: (i) perforin-granzyme and (ii) Fas-FasL. However, recent studies identified a new mechanism by which CD8+ T cells suppress tumor growth by inducing ferroptosis and pyroptosis, which provoked a review of the relationship between tumor cell death mechanisms and immune system activation. Hence, in this review, we summarize knowledge of the reciprocal interaction between antitumor immunity and distinct cell death mechanisms, particularly necroptosis, ferroptosis, and pyroptosis, which are the three potentially novel mechanisms of immunogenic cell death. Because most evidence is derived from studies using animal and cell models, we also reviewed related bioinformatics data available for human tissues in public databases, which partially confirmed the presence of interactions between tumor cell death and the activation of antitumor immunity.

Background: For primary triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), higher pretreatment tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) correlates with increased pathologic complete response (pCR) rates, and improved survival. We evaluated the added prognostic value of residual disease (RD) TILs to residual cancer burden (RCB) in predicting survival post-NAC.&#13;\n&#13;\nPatients and methods: We combined four TNBC NAC patient cohorts who did not achieve pCR. RD TILs were investigated for associations with recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) using Cox models with stromal TILs as a continuous variable (per 10% increment). The likelihood ratio test was used to evaluate added prognostic value of RD TILs.&#13;\n&#13;\nResults: A total of 375 RD TNBC samples were evaluable for TILs and RCB. The median age was 50 years, with 62% receiving anthracycline/taxane chemotherapy. The RCB class after NAC was 11%, 50%, and 39% for I, II, and III, respectively. The median RD TIL level was 20% (IQR 10-40). There was a positive correlation between RD TIL levels and CD8+ T-cell density (ρ = 0.41). TIL levels were significantly lower with increasing post-NAC tumor (P = 0.005), nodal stage (P = 0.032), but did not differ by RCB class (P = 0.84). Higher RD TILs were significantly associated with improved RFS (HR: 0.86; 95% CI 0.79-0.92; P &lt; 0.001), and improved OS (HR: 0.87; 95% CI 0.80-0.94; P &lt; 0.001), and remained significant predictors in multivariate analysis (RFS P = 0.032; OS P = 0.038 for OS). RD TILs added significant prognostic value to multivariate models including RCB class (P &lt; 0.001 for RFS; P = 0.021 for OS). The positive prognostic effect of RD TILs significantly differed by RCB class for RFS (PInt=0.003) and OS (PInt=0.008) with a greater magnitude of positive effect observed for RCB class II than class III.&#13;\n&#13;\nConclusions: TIL levels in TNBC RD are significantly associated with improved RFS and OS and add further prognostic information to RCB class, particularly in RCB class II.&#13;\n&#13;\nKeywords: RCB; TILs; TNBC; neoadjuvant; prognosis.

Despite a long-suspected role in the development of human colorectal cancer (CRC), the composition of gut microbiota in CRC patients has not been adequately described. In this study, fecal bacterial diversity in CRC patients (n=46) and healthy volunteers (n=56) were profiled by 454 pyrosequencing of the V3 region of the 16S ribosomal RNA gene. Both principal component analysis and UniFrac analysis showed structural segregation between the two populations. Forty-eight operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were identified by redundancy analysis as key variables significantly associated with the structural difference. One OTU closely related to Bacteroides fragilis was enriched in the gut microbiota of CRC patients, whereas three OTUs related to Bacteroides vulgatus and Bacteroides uniformis were enriched in that of healthy volunteers. A total of 11 OTUs belonging to the genera Enterococcus, Escherichia/Shigella, Klebsiella, Streptococcus and Peptostreptococcus were significantly more abundant in the gut microbiota of CRC patients, and 5 OTUs belonging to the genus Roseburia and other butyrate-producing bacteria of the family Lachnospiraceae were less abundant. Real-time quantitative PCR further validated the significant reduction of butyrate-producing bacteria in the gut microbiota of CRC patients by measuring the copy numbers of butyryl-coenzyme A CoA transferase genes (Mann-Whitney test, P<0.01). Reduction of butyrate producers and increase of opportunistic pathogens may constitute a major structural imbalance of gut microbiota in CRC patients.

Metallic glasses and cancer theranostics are emerging fields that do not seem to be related to each other. Herein, we report the facile synthesis of amorphous iron nanoparticles (AFeNPs) and their superior physicochemical properties compared to their crystalline counterpart, iron nanocrystals (FeNCs). The AFeNPs can be used for cancer theranostics by inducing a Fenton reaction in the tumor by taking advantage of the mild acidity and the overproduced H2 O2 in a tumor microenvironment: Ionization of the AFeNPs enables on-demand ferrous ion release in the tumor, and subsequent H2 O2 disproportionation leads to efficient (.)OH generation. The endogenous stimuli-responsive (.)OH generation in the presence AFeNPs enables a highly specific cancer therapy without the need for external energy input.

AIMS: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) overexpression/amplification is implicated in the development of various solid tumour types. Validated methods and scoring systems for evaluating HER2 status exist in breast cancer, but not in gastric cancer. The aim was to establish a HER2 scoring system for gastric cancer to identify suitable patients for enrollment in a trial of trastuzumab (Herceptin) in advanced metastatic gastric cancer. METHODS AND RESULTS: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded gastric cancer samples were tested for HER2 status using the fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) pharmDxt kit (Dako Denmark A/S). Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed using the HercepTest (Dako). Concordance between FISH and IHC was 93.5% in 168 evaluable samples. Eleven samples were scored as FISH+ but IHC- or equivocal. CONCLUSIONS: IHC/FISH discrepancies were attributed to basolateral membranous immunoreactivity of glandular cells resulting in incomplete membranous reactivity and/or a higher rate of tumour heterogeneity in gastric cancer compared with breast cancer. With modifications to the IHC scoring system, the HercepTest is considered valid for the identification of HER2+ gastric tumours for this clinical trial. Correlation of HER2 scores with clinical outcomes will be needed to determine which patients might benefit from trastuzumab therapy.

Abstract Liver metastasis, the leading cause of colorectal cancer mortality, exhibits a highly heterogeneous and suppressive immune microenvironment. Here, we sequenced 97 matched samples by using single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics. Strikingly, the metastatic microenvironment underwent remarkable spatial reprogramming of immunosuppressive cells such as MRC1+ CCL18+ M2-like macrophages. We further developed scMetabolism, a computational pipeline for quantifying single-cell metabolism, and observed that those macrophages harbored enhanced metabolic activity. Interestingly, neoadjuvant chemotherapy could block this status and restore the antitumor immune balance in responsive patients, whereas the nonresponsive patients deteriorated into a more suppressive one. Our work described the immune evolution of metastasis and uncovered the black box of how tumors respond to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Significance: We present a single-cell and spatial atlas of colorectal liver metastasis and found the highly metabolically activated MRC1+ CCL18+ M2-like macrophages in metastatic sites. Efficient neoadjuvant chemotherapy can slow down such metabolic activation, raising the possibility to target metabolism pathways in metastasis. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1

Over the past decade, we have seen rapid advances in applying nanotechnology in biomedical areas including bioimaging, biodetection, and drug delivery. As an emerging field, DNA nanotechnology offers simple yet powerful design techniques for self-assembly of nanostructures with unique advantages and high potential in enhancing drug targeting and reducing drug toxicity. Various sequence programming and optimization approaches have been developed to design DNA nanostructures with precisely engineered, controllable size, shape, surface chemistry, and function. Potent anticancer drug molecules, including Doxorubicin and CpG oligonucleotides, have been successfully loaded on DNA nanostructures to increase their cell uptake efficiency. These advances have implicated the bright future of DNA nanotechnology-enabled nanomedicine. In this review, we begin with the origin of DNA nanotechnology, followed by summarizing state-of-the-art strategies for the construction of DNA nanostructures and drug payloads delivered by DNA nanovehicles. Further, we discuss the cellular fates of DNA nanostructures as well as challenges and opportunities for DNA nanostructure-based drug delivery.

Apoptosis resistance is to a large extent a major obstacle leading to chemotherapy failure during cancer treatment. Bypassing the apoptotic pathway to induce cancer cell death is considered to be a promising approach to overcoming this problem. Necroptosis is a regulated necrotic cell death modality in a caspase-independent fashion and is mainly mediated by Receptor-Interacting Protein 1 (RIP1), RIP3, and Mixed Lineage Kinase Domain-Like (MLKL). Necroptosis serves as an alternative mode of programmed cell death overcoming apoptosis resistance and may trigger and amplify antitumor immunity in cancer therapy.The role of necroptosis in cancer is complicated. The expression of key regulators of the necroptotic pathway is generally downregulated in cancer cells, suggesting that cancer cells may also evade necroptosis to survive; however, in certain types of cancer, the expression level of key mediators is elevated. Necroptosis can elicit strong adaptive immune responses that may defend against tumor progression; however, the recruited inflammatory response may also promote tumorigenesis and cancer metastasis, and necroptosis may generate an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Necroptosis also reportedly promotes oncogenesis and cancer metastasis despite evidence demonstrating its antimetastatic role in cancer. In addition, necroptotic microenvironments can direct lineage commitment to determine cancer subtype development in liver cancer. A plethora of compounds and drugs targeting necroptosis exhibit potential antitumor efficacy, but their clinical feasibility must be validated.Better knowledge of the necroptotic pathway mechanism and its physiological and pathological functions is urgently required to solve the remaining mysteries surrounding the role of necroptosis in cancer. In this review, we briefly introduce the molecular mechanism and characteristics of necroptosis, the interplay between necroptosis and other cell death mechanisms, crosstalk of necroptosis and metabolic signaling and detection methods. We also summarize the intricate role of necroptosis in tumor progression, cancer metastasis, prognosis of cancer patients, cancer immunity regulation, cancer subtype determination and cancer therapeutics.

N6-methyladenosine (m6A), the most abundant internal modification of RNA in eukaryotic cells, has gained increasing attention in recent years. The m6A modification affects multiple aspects of RNA metabolism, ranging from RNA processing, nuclear export, RNA translation to decay. Emerging evidence suggests that m6A methylation plays a critical role in cancer through various mechanisms. Moreover, m6A methylation has provided more possibilities for the early diagnosis and treatment of cancers. In this review, we focus on m6A-associated mechanisms and functions in several major malignancies and summarize the dual role of m6A methylation as well as its prospects in cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of adjuvant treatment in high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma after radical surgery is not clear. METHODS: In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who had undergone radical surgery to receive, in a 1:1 ratio, either nivolumab (240 mg intravenously) or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 1 year. Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy before trial entry was allowed. The primary end points were disease-free survival among all the patients (intention-to-treat population) and among patients with a tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression level of 1% or more. Survival free from recurrence outside the urothelial tract was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 353 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab and 356 to receive placebo. The median disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.5 to 27.6) with nivolumab and 10.8 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 13.9) with placebo. The percentage of patients who were alive and disease-free at 6 months was 74.9% with nivolumab and 60.3% with placebo (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.70; 98.22% CI, 0.55 to 0.90; P<0.001). Among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more, the percentage of patients was 74.5% and 55.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.55; 98.72% CI, 0.35 to 0.85; P<0.001). The median survival free from recurrence outside the urothelial tract in the intention-to-treat population was 22.9 months (95% CI, 19.2 to 33.4) with nivolumab and 13.7 months (95% CI, 8.4 to 20.3) with placebo. The percentage of patients who were alive and free from recurrence outside the urothelial tract at 6 months was 77.0% with nivolumab and 62.7% with placebo (hazard ratio for recurrence outside the urothelial tract or death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89). Among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more, the percentage of patients was 75.3% and 56.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.79). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 17.9% of the nivolumab group and 7.2% of the placebo group. Two treatment-related deaths due to pneumonitis were noted in the nivolumab group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who had undergone radical surgery, disease-free survival was longer with adjuvant nivolumab than with placebo in the intention-to-treat population and among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 274 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02632409.).

MicroRNA (miRNA) opens up a new field for molecular diagnosis of cancer. However, the role of circulating miRNAs in plasma/serum in cancer diagnosis is not clear. The aim of this study was to investigate whether plasma miRNAs can be used as biomarkers for the early detection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC). We measured the levels of 12 miRNAs (miR-134, -146a, -17-3p, -181d, -191, -221, -222, -223, -25, -29a, -320a and -92a) in plasma samples from patients with advanced colorectal neoplasia (carcinomas and advanced adenomas) and healthy controls using real-time RT-PCR. We found that plasma miR-29a and miR-92a have significant diagnostic value for advanced neoplasia. MiR-29a yielded an AUC (the areas under the ROC curve) of 0.844 and miR-92a yielded an AUC of 0.838 in discriminating CRC from controls. More importantly, these 2 miRNAs also could discriminate advanced adenomas from controls and yielded an AUC of 0.769 for miR-29a and 0.749 for miR-92a. Combined ROC analyses using these 2 miRNAs revealed an elevated AUC of 0.883 with 83.0% sensitivity and 84.7% specificity in discriminating CRC, and AUC of 0.773 with 73.0% sensitivity and 79.7% specificity in discriminating advanced adenomas. Collectively, these data suggest that plasma miR-29a and miR-92a have strong potential as novel noninvasive biomarkers for early detection of CRC.