TGFβ promotes YAP‐dependent AXL induction in mesenchymal‐type lung cancer cells

The acquisition of chemoresistance remains a major cause of cancer mortality due to the limited accessibility of targeted or immune therapies. However, given that severe alterations of molecular features during epithelial‐to‐mesenchymal transition (EMT) lead to acquired chemoresistance, emerging studies have focused on identifying targetable drivers associated with acquired chemoresistance. Particularly, AXL, a key receptor tyrosine kinase that confers resistance against targets and chemotherapeutics, is highly expressed in mesenchymal cancer cells. However, the underlying mechanism of AXL induction in mesenchymal cancer cells is poorly understood. Our study revealed that the YAP signature, which was highly enriched in mesenchymal‐type lung cancer, was closely correlated to AXL expression in 181 lung cancer cell lines. Moreover, using isogenic lung cancer cell pairs, we also found that doxorubicin treatment induced YAP nuclear translocation in mesenchymal‐type lung cancer cells to induce AXL expression. Additionally, the concurrent activation of TGFβ signaling coordinated YAP‐dependent AXL expression through SMAD4. These data suggest that crosstalk between YAP and the TGFβ/SMAD axis upon treatment with chemotherapeutics might be a promising target to improve chemosensitivity in mesenchymal‐type lung cancer.

Abbreviations

AUC

area under the curve

AXL

AXL receptor tyrosine kinase

BCL2

B‐cell lymphoma 2

CTD2

cancer target discovery and development

CTGF

connective tissue growth factor

DEG

differentially expressed genes

DOXO

doxorubicin

EMT

epithelial–mesenchymal transition

Eto

etoposide

FDA

Food and Drug Administration

ITGB3

integrin beta‐3

MAPK

mitogen‐activated protein kinase

MMP2

matrix metalloproteinase‐2

MMP9

matrix metalloproteinase‐9

mRNA

messenger RNA

NF‐κB

nuclear factor kappa‐light‐chain‐enhancer of activated B cells

SBE

SMAD binding element

SERPINE1

serpin family E member 1

siRNA

small interfering RNA

ssGSEA

single‐sample gene set enrichment analysis

TCGA

The Cancer Genome Atlas

TGFβ

transforming growth factor beta

YAP

Yes‐associated protein

YAP8SA

mutants of inhibitory phosphorylation site at eight serine to Alanine of YAP

ZEB1

zinc finger E‐box binding homeobox 1

ZEB2

zinc finger E‐box‐binding homeobox 2

     

Lifitegrast clinical efficacy for treatment of signs and symptoms of dry eye disease across three randomized controlled trials

Objective: Report efficacy findings from three clinical trials (one phase 2 and two phase 3 [OPUS-1, OPUS-2]) of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% for treatment of dry eye disease (DED).

Research design and methods: Three 84-day, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trials. Adults (≥18 years) with DED were randomized (1:1) to lifitegrast 5.0% or matching placebo. Changes from baseline to day 84 in signs and symptoms of DED were analyzed.

Main outcome measures: Phase 2, pre-specified endpoint: inferior corneal staining score (ICSS; 0–4); OPUS-1, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and visual-related function subscale (0–4 scale); OPUS-2, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and eye dryness score (EDS, VAS; 0–100).

Results: Fifty-eight participants were randomized to lifitegrast 5.0% and 58 to placebo in the phase 2 trial; 293 to lifitegrast and 295 to placebo in OPUS-1; 358 to lifitegrast and 360 to placebo in OPUS-2. In participants with mild-to-moderate baseline DED symptomatology, lifitegrast improved ICSS versus placebo in the phase 2 study (treatment effect, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.05–0.65; p?=?0.0209) and OPUS-1 (effect, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10–0.38; p?=?0.0007). Among more symptomatic participants (baseline EDS ≥40, recent artificial tear use), lifitegrast improved EDS versus placebo in a post hoc analysis of OPUS-1 (effect, 13.34; 95% CI, 2.35–24.33; nominal p?=?0.0178) and in OPUS-2 (effect, 12.61; 95% CI, 8.51–16.70; p?<?0.0001).

Limitations: Trials were conducted over 12 weeks; efficacy beyond this period was not assessed.

Conclusions: Across three trials, lifitegrast improved ICSS in participants with mild-to-moderate baseline symptomatology in two studies, and EDS in participants with moderate-to-severe baseline symptomatology in two studies. Based on the overall findings from these trials, lifitegrast shows promise as a new treatment option for signs and symptoms of DED.     

Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Benzoyl Peroxide Resembling Impetigo

A 17‐year‐old boy presented with recurring severe dermatitis of the face of 5‐months duration that resembled impetigo. He had been treated with several courses of antibiotics without improvement. Biopsy showed changes consistent with allergic contact dermatitis and patch testing later revealed sensitization to benzoyl peroxide, which the patient had been using for the treatment of acne vulgaris.