CDC25B and CDC25C overexpression in nonmelanoma skin cancer suppresses cell death

Non‐melanoma skin cancer frequently results from chronic exposure to ultraviolet (UV) irradiation. UV‐induced DNA damage activates cell cycle arrest checkpoints through degradation of the cyclin‐dependent kinase activators, the cell division cycle 25 (CDC25) phosphatases. We previously reported increased CDC25A in nonmelanoma skin cancer, but CDC25B and CDC25C had not been previously examined. Consequently, we hypothesized that increased expression of CDC25B and CDC25C increases tumor cell proliferation and skin tumor growth. We found that CDC25B and CDC25C were increased in mouse and human skin cancers. CDC25B was primarily cytoplasmic in skin and skin tumors and was significantly increased in the squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), while CDC25C was mostly nuclear in the skin, with an increased cytoplasmic signal in the premalignant and malignant tumors. Surprisingly, forced expression of CDC25B or CDC25C in cultured SCC cells did not affect proliferation, but instead suppressed apoptosis, while CDC25C silencing increased apoptosis without impacting proliferation. Targeting CDC25C to the nucleus via mutation of its nuclear export sequence, however, increased proliferation in SCC cells. Overexpression of CDC25C in the nuclear compartment did not hinder the ability of CDC25C to suppress apoptosis, neither did mutation of sites necessary for its interaction with 14‐3‐3 proteins. Analysis of apoptotic signaling pathways revealed that CDC25C increased activating phosphorylation of Akt on Ser⁴⁷³, increased inhibitory phosphorylation of proapoptotic BAD on Ser¹³⁶, and increased the survival protein Survivin. Silencing of CDC25C significantly reduced Survivin levels. Taken together, these data suggest that increased expression of CDC25B or CDC25C are mechanisms by which skin cancers evade apoptotic cell death.     

Subtyping of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms – pitfalls of MUC1 immunohistochemistry

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) are precursor lesions of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Current edition of WHO Classification of Tumors of the Digestive System recognizes four different subtypes (gastric, intestinal, pancreatobiliary, and oncocytic) and recommends analysis of mucin expression (MUC1, MUC2, MUC5AC, MUC6) as well as evaluation of architectural and cell differentiation patterns for correct classification. However, there is no consensus on MUC1 expression of IPMN‐lesions in the literature. Current recommendations are based on studies where antibodies against the core MUC1 protein or sialylated MUC1 (tumor associated MUC1), not the fully glycosylated MUC1 were used. We have recently reported that MUC1 is strongly expressed in both gastric and intestinal types IPMN specimens from the cystic wall, obtained by endoscopic ultrasound guided microbiopsy procedure. We have used a commercial MUC1 antibody, validated and recommended for diagnostic use, which recognizes fully glycosylated MUC1. Based on the above, we propose a revision of the WHO Classification, specifying that antibodies against tumor associated MUC1 should be used for IPMN subtyping.     

Real-world effectiveness of HPV vaccination against cervical neoplasia among birth cohorts ineligible for routine vaccination

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine effectiveness may differ between settings. Here we present the first real-world effectiveness study of HPV vaccination on high-grade cervical lesions from Norway, among women who received HPV vaccine outside the routine program. We performed an observational study of all Norwegian women born 1975 to 1996 and retrieved individual data from nationwide registries on HPV vaccination status and incidence of histologically verified high-grade cervical neoplasia during 2006 to 2016. We estimated the incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for vaccination vs no vaccination by Poisson regression stratified by age at vaccination <20 years and ≥20 years. The cohort consisted of 832 732 women, of which 46 381 (5.6%) received at least one dose of HPV vaccine by the end of 2016. The incidence rate of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) increased with age regardless of vaccination status and was highest at age 25 to 29, at 637/100 000 among unvaccinated women, 487/100 000 among women vaccinated before age 20 and 831/100 000 among women vaccinated at age 20 or older. The adjusted IRR of CIN2+ between vaccinated and unvaccinated women was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.46-0.84) for women vaccinated below age 20, and 1.22 (95% CI: 1.03-1.43) for women vaccinated at age 20 or older. These findings indicate that HPV vaccination among women too old to be eligible for routine HPV vaccination is effective among women who are vaccinated below age 20 but may not have the desired impact among women who are vaccinated at age 20 or older.     

Association between medically diagnosed postnatal infection and childhood cancers: A matched case-control study in Denmark, 1978 to 2016

Although the association between infection and childhood cancer has been long investigated, there is limited information on rarer cancers. This article aimed to explore the association between postnatal infection and childhood cancers in the Danish population. A matched case-control study was conducted using Danish nationwide registries from 1978 to 2016. Each childhood cancer case was matched 1:25 with controls by birth date within a week and sex. Postnatal infections were identified from the Danish National Patient Registry, which lists diagnoses seen in hospital, specialist or emergency care services. Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (adj.OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Specific types of infections and the number of infection episodes were also considered. The study included 4125 childhood cancer cases and 103 526 matched controls with ages ranging from 0 to 19 years. Medically diagnosed postnatal infections were positively associated with many types of childhood cancer including acute lymphoblastic leukemia (adj.OR = 1.42; 95% CI: 1.23-1.63), acute myeloid leukemia (adj.OR = 1.80; 95% CI: 1.28-2.52), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (adj.OR = 1.53; 95% CI: 1.19-1.97) and central nervous system tumors (adj.OR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.39-1.77). A higher number of infection episodes were also associated with an increased risk of these cancers. Specific infections such as viral, enteric and urinary tract infections were also strongly associated with specific types of cancer. In conclusion, children who later develop cancer appear to have adverse reactions to infections necessitating referral to specialized health care services, perhaps indicating dysregulated immune function.     

Digitally Enabled,Patient‐Centric Clinical Trials: Shifting the Drug Development Paradigm

The rapidly advancing field of digital health technologies provides a great opportunity to radically transform the way clinical trials are conducted and to shift the clinical trial paradigm from a site‐centric to a patient‐centric model. Merck’s (Kenilworth, NJ) digitally enabled clinical trial initiative is focused on introduction of digital technologies into the clinical trial paradigm to reduce patient burden, improve drug adherence, provide a means of more closely engaging with the patient, and enable higher quality, faster, and more frequent data collection. This paper will describe the following four key areas of focus from Merck’s digitally enabled clinical trials initiative, along with corresponding enabling technologies: (i) use of technologies that can monitor and improve drug adherence (smart dosing), (ii) collection of pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD), and biomarker samples in an outpatient setting (patient‐centric sampling), (iii) use of digital devices to collect and measure physiological and behavioral data (digital biomarkers), and (iv) use of data platforms that integrate digital data streams, visualize data in real‐time, and provide a means of greater patient engagement during the trial (digital platform). Furthermore, this paper will discuss the synergistic power in implementation of these approaches jointly within a trial to enable better understanding of adherence, safety, efficacy, PK, PD, and corresponding exposure‐response relationships of investigational therapies as well as reduced patient burden for clinical trial participation. Obstacle and challenges to adoption and full realization of the vision of patient‐centric, digitally enabled trials will also be discussed.

The rapidly advancing field of digital health technologies provides an opportunity to transform the pharmaceutical industry and the way clinical trials are conducted. Although the conduct of clinical trials has evolved over the last century to improve the unbiased evaluation of new therapies, there remain several limitations in the current clinical trial paradigm. Pharmaceutical clinical trials are often site‐centric, requiring patients to come to the clinical site for sample and data collection. The need to travel to the clinical site often restricts the trial population to those that live in geographic proximity to the clinical site, and, thus, restricts who participates and limits patient diversity, leaving many patients excluded and underserved. ¹ , ² , ³ , ⁴ , ⁵ The current trial paradigm provides only static snapshots of data (corresponding to the time of the clinical visit), resulting in lost opportunity to monitor end points of disease progression, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety and tolerability end points in between clinical visits. Additionally, clinical trial outcome measures may not be particularly meaningful to patients or their health care providers, and end points may be limited by categorical, episodic, subjective assessments that progress slowly, thus requiring large, long, expensive clinical trials to enable detection of meaningful change in the end point. Furthermore, patient medication adherence and persistence to therapy in clinical trials is often low, ⁶ , ⁷ limiting the researcher’s ability to adequately assess the drug’s safety, efficacy, and exposure‐response relationships. Lastly, patients often find the clinical trial language confusing and the trial’s expectation of what they are supposed to do intrusive into their daily lives, limiting the number of patients that participate in clinical trials and threatening the retention of those patients that do consent to participate. ¹ , ² , ³ , ⁴ , ⁵ The potential benefits of digital health and outpatient sampling technologies in clinical trials are tremendous. They can enable increased access to the appropriate patient population, reduced patient burden to participate, augmented, more informed, objective data sets (both in collecting and measuring existing end points at home and in access to new end points that would have been impossible to collect in the past), increased engagement with the patient, and better understanding of the patient experience throughout the trial. All these benefits will ultimately improve the patient experience during the trial and enable improved drug development decisions and understanding of drug and disease effects. ⁸ Despite all these potential improvements, the relative “explosion” in both the number of digital health technologies as well as their capabilities, and an increased adoption of consumer‐grade health‐tracking devices in the marketplace, adoption of use of such technologies in pharmaceutical trials has been lagging by comparison. ⁹ , ¹⁰ , ¹¹ Some of the challenges to pharmaceutical trial adoption include questions around patient privacy, lack of sufficient validation for digital end points, lack of transparency for calculation of end points (“black box” algorithms), challenges related to patient adherence and burden of wearing and using devices, operational and data transfer challenges, and regulatory unknowns. However, use of digital end points in drug development trials, including as primary and secondary end points and to support label claims, is becoming a reality, and “pilot” trials evaluating technologies of interest, often evaluating digital end points in comparison to a traditionally accepted clinical standard end point, are being increasingly conducted. ¹² , ¹³ , ¹⁴ The digitally enabled clinical trials initiative at Merck (Kenilworth, NJ) is aimed at using innovative, digital technologies in clinical trials both at the clinical site and in at‐home settings to reduce patient burden, collect higher quality, enrich clinical trial data sets, and ultimately enable more rapid and informed clinical decisions. We ultimately aim to shift the clinical trial paradigm from one that is site‐centric to patient‐centric. Key areas of focus include (i) collection of at‐home PK, PD, and biomarker samples (outpatient sampling), (ii) use of technologies to monitor and improve patient adherence (smart dosing), (iii) use of digital devices to collect and measure physiological and behavioral data (digital biomarkers), and (iv) development and use of data platforms that can acquire the data from digital devices, provide real‐time analytic capabilities, and maintain patient engagement throughout the trial (digital platform; Figure  1 ). Application of these components in clinical trials will lead to access to higher quality and previously unattainable data for more informed clinical decision making.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Areas of focus for digitally enabled clinical trials.This paper describes the four key areas of focus of our digitally enabled clinical trials initiative and reviews corresponding enabling technologies. Furthermore, this paper discusses the synergistic power in implementation of these approaches jointly within a trial to enable a more accurate understanding of adherence, safety, PK, and corresponding exposure‐response relationships of investigational new drugs (INDs) as well as reduced patient burden for clinical trial participation. Obstacles and challenges to adoption and fully realizing the vision of patient‐centric, digitally enabled trials are also discussed.