A molecular perspective for the use of type IV tyrosine kinase inhibitors as anticancer therapeutics

Tyrosine kinases are enzymes that can transfer a phosphate group from ATP to a specific protein tyrosine, serine or threonine residue within a cell, operating as a switch that can turn ‘on’ and ‘off’ causing different physiological alterations in the body. Mutated kinases have been shown to display an equilibrium shift toward the activated state. Types I–III have been studied intensively leading to drugs like imatinib (type II), cobimetinib (type III), among others. It is the same scenario for types V–VII; however, there is a lacuna in information regarding type IV inhibitors, although recently some advances have surfaced. This review aims to accumulate the knowledge gained so far about type IV inhibitors.     

SARS-CoV-2 and cancer: the intriguing and informative cross-talk

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has significantly disrupted and burdened the diagnostic workup and delivery of care, including transfusion, to cancer patients across the globe. Furthermore, cancer patients suffering from solid tumors or hematologic malignancies were more prone to the infection and had higher morbidity and mortality than the rest of the population. Major signaling pathways have been identified at the intersection of SARS-CoV-2 and cancer cells, often leading to tumor progression or alteration of the tumor response to therapy. The reactivation of oncogenic viruses has also been alluded to in the context and following COVID-19. Paradoxically, certain tumors responded better following the profound infection-induced immune modulation. Unveiling the mechanisms of the virus-tumor cell interactions will lead to a better understanding of the pathophysiology of both cancer progression and virus propagation. It would be challenging to monitor, through the different cancer registries, retrospectively, the response of patients who have been previously exposed to the virus in contrast to those who have not contracted the infection.     

Efficacy,immunogenicity, and safety of available vaccines in children on biologics: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Vaccinations are essential for preventing infectious diseases in children with chronic diseases as they have increased risk of infection from frequent use of biologics. Response to immunizations in this group is not well known.ObjectiveA systematic review was performed to evaluate three primary outcomes: efficacy; immunogenicity; and safety of vaccines in children with chronic conditions treated with biologics.MethodsThe protocol for our systematic review and meta-analysis was registered and published with PROSPERO. We searched electronic bibliographic databases for studies published from 2009 to 2019, focusing on vaccinations in children with chronic conditions treated with biologics.ResultsWe retrieved 532 records. Thirty-one full-text articles were selected, and 14 were included in the meta-analysis. No significant publication bias was found. Efficacy: limited data are available regarding the efficacy of vaccination, as most studies have focused on immunogenicity as surrogate outcome for efficacy. Immunogenicity: patients receiving anti-TNF-alpha therapy had a statistically significant risk of poor seroconversion (p = 0.028) and seroprotection by the serotype B influenza vaccine [inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) p = 0.013; juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) p = 0.004]. We found adequate responses with H1N1 and H3N2 serotypes. Few studies existed for pneumococcal, hepatitis A virus, hepatitis B virus, varicella-zoster virus, Measles Mumps Rubella virus, and multiple vaccine administration. Safety: vaccine administration was not associated with serious side effects, but JIA patients on anti-TNF alpha therapy had a statistically significant risk of presenting with myalgia or arthralgia postinfluenza vaccine (p = 0.014).ConclusionsMore evidence concerning efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of vaccinations is needed to guide physicians in the vaccine decision process for this pediatric population.     

What is the impact of zinc deficiency for pancreatectomies in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma?

Backgroundand purpose: Zinc is an essential element for human health and plays an important role in metabolic, immunological and other biological processes. The present study was conducted to investigate the association between zinc deficiency (ZD) and the perioperative clinical course in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).MethodsOf 216 patients with PDAC who underwent elective pancreatectomy between 2013 and 2017 at our institution, 206 patients with sufficient clinical data were retrospectively reviewed. The perioperative variables were compared and the risk factors associated with infectious complications were identified.ResultsZD was preoperatively present in 36 (17.5%) of 206 patients with PDAC. In the patients of the ZD group, a higher proportion of males, higher preoperative modified Glasgow prognostic scores, a higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and a higher occurrence of postoperative infectious complications after pancreatectomy were observed, compared to the non-ZD group. By a univariate analysis, three risk factors were significantly associated with infectious complications after pancreatectomy: ZD (vs non-ZD: p = 0.002), serum albumin <3.5 g/dl (vs ≥ 3.5 g/dl: p = 0.005), and the procedure of pancreaticoduodenectomy (vs others: p = 0.013). By multivariate logistic regression analysis, the occurrence of infectious complications was significantly associated with ZD (OR 3.430, 95%CI 1.570 to 7.490, p = 0.002) and the procedure of pancreaticoduodenectomy (OR 2.030, 95%CI 1.090 to 3.770, p = 0.025).ConclusionsThe current study newly demonstrated that ZD could serve as a preoperative predictor of infectious complications after pancreatectomies in the patients with PDAC.     

Variability in non-core vaccination rates of dogs and cats in veterinary clinics across the United States

Vaccination guidelines for dogs and cats indicate that core vaccines (for dogs, rabies, distemper, adenovirus, parvovirus; for cats, feline parvovirus, herpes virus-1, calicivirus) are essential to maintain health, and that non-core vaccines be administered according to a clinician’s assessment of a pet’s risk of exposure and susceptibility to infection. A reliance on individual risk assessment introduces the potential for between-practice inconsistencies in non-core vaccine recommendations. A study was initiated to determine non-core vaccination rates of dogs (Leptospira, Borrelia burgdorferi, Bordetella bronchiseptica, canine influenza virus) and cats (feline leukemia virus) in patients current for core vaccines in veterinary practices across the United States. Transactional data for 5,531,866 dogs (1,670 practices) and 1,914,373 cats (1,661 practices) were retrieved from practice management systems for the period November 1, 2016 through January 1, 2020, deidentified and normalized. Non-core vaccination status was evaluated in 2,798,875 dogs and 788,772 cats that were core-vaccine current. Nationally, median clinic vaccination rates for dogs were highest for leptospirosis (70.5%) and B. bronchiseptica (68.7%), and much lower for canine influenza (4.8%). In Lyme-endemic states, the median clinic borreliosis vaccination rate was 51.8%. Feline leukemia median clinic vaccination rates were low for adult cats (34.6%) and for kittens and 1-year old cats (36.8%). Individual clinic vaccination rates ranged from 0 to 100% for leptospirosis, B. bronchiseptica and feline leukemia, 0–96% for canine influenza, and 0–94% for borreliosis. Wide variation in non-core vaccination rates between clinics in similar geographies indicates that factors other than disease risk are driving the use of non-core vaccines in pet dogs and cats, highlighting a need for veterinary practices to address gaps in patient protection. Failure to implement effective non-core vaccination strategies leaves susceptible dogs and cats unprotected against vaccine-preventable diseases.     

Immunogenicity of heterologous inactivated and adenoviral-vectored COVID-19 vaccine: Real-world data

Limited data are available on the responses to heterologous vaccine regimens for SARS-CoV-2, especially among countries using inactivated and adenoviral-vectored vaccines. A total of 77 participants who received heterologous inactivated COVID-19 vaccine (CoronaVac) and adenoviral-vectored vaccine (AZD1222) were enrolled in our study. There were two comparison groups vaccinated with the homologous CoronaVac (N = 79) and AZD1222 (N = 78) regimen. All sera samples were tested for anti-receptor-binding-domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) using a chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA). The neutralizing activity in a subset of serum samples was tested against the original Wuhan strain and variants of concern, B.1.1.7, B.1.617.2 and B.1.351, using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)-based surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT). The heterologous CoronaVac/AZD1222 vaccine induced higher levels of anti-RBD IgG than that of two-dose homologous CoronaVac or AZD1222 vaccines (p < 0.001). Sera samples of the CoronaVac/AZD1222 vaccine recipients elicited higher neutralizing antibody activity against the original Wuhan and all variants of concern than in the recipients of the two-dose CoronaVac. The heterologous CoronaVac followed by AZD1222 is an alternative regimen to combat with the SARS-CoV-2 variants in case of vaccine shortage with improved immunogenicity compared to the homologous CoronaVac regimen.     

What information can we gain from performing adaptive radiotherapy of head and neck cancer patients from the past 10 years?

The aim of the review was to present the current literature status about replanning regarding anatomical and dosimetric changes in the target and OARs in the head and neck region during radiotherapy, to discuss and to analyze factors influencing the decision for adaptive radiotherapy of head and neck cancer patients. Significant progress has been made in head and neck patients’ evaluation and qualification for adapted radiotherapy over the past ten years. Many factors leading to anatomical and dosimetric changes during treatment have been identified. Based on the literature, the most common factors triggering re-plan are weight loss, tumor and nodal changes, and parotid glands shrinkage. The fluctuations in dose distribution in the clinical area are significant predictive factors for patients’ quality of life and the possibility of recovery. It has been shown that re-planning influence clinical outcomes: local control, disease free survival and overall survival. Regarding literature studies, it seems that adaptive radiotherapy would be the most beneficial for tumors of immense volume or those in the nearest proximity of the OARs. All researchers agree that the timing of re-planning is a crucial challenge, and there are still no clear consensus guidelines for time or criteria of re-planning. Nowadays, thanks to significant technological progress, the decision is mostly made based on observation and supported with IGRT verification. Although further research is still needed, adaptive strategies are evolving and now became the state of the art of modern radiotherapy.