Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (23)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (23)
Year of publication
- 2020 (23) (remove)
Document Type
- Journal article (22)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (23) (remove)
Keywords
- Merkel cell carcinoma (5)
- melanoma (3)
- COVID-19 (2)
- drug adverse reaction (2)
- drug allergy (2)
- drug hypersensitivity (2)
- urticaria (2)
- BARF-mutated melanoma (1)
- BP180 (1)
- BRAF (1)
Institute
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Dermatologie, Venerologie und Allergologie (23) (remove)
EU-Project number / Contract (GA) number
- 277775 (1)
Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and highly aggressive skin cancer with frequent viral etiology. Indeed, in about 80% of cases, there is an association with Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV); the expression of viral T antigens is crucial for growth of virus-positive tumor cells. Since artesunate — a drug used to treat malaria — has been reported to possess additional anti-tumor as well as anti-viral activity, we sought to evaluate pre-clinically the effect of artesunate on MCC. We found that artesunate repressed growth and survival of MCPyV-positive MCC cells in vitro. This effect was accompanied by reduced large T antigen (LT) expression. Notably, however, it was even more efficient than shRNA-mediated downregulation of LT expression. Interestingly, in one MCC cell line (WaGa), T antigen knockdown rendered cells less sensitive to artesunate, while for two other MCC cell lines, we could not substantiate such a relation. Mechanistically, artesunate predominantly induces ferroptosis in MCPyV-positive MCC cells since known ferroptosis-inhibitors like DFO, BAF-A1, Fer-1 and β-mercaptoethanol reduced artesunate-induced death. Finally, application of artesunate in xenotransplanted mice demonstrated that growth of established MCC tumors can be significantly suppressed in vivo. In conclusion, our results revealed a highly anti-proliferative effect of the approved and generally well-tolerated anti-malaria compound artesunate on MCPyV-positive MCC cells, suggesting its potential usage for MCC therapy.
We here present the case of a 67-year-old woman with a history of a slowly progressive, polypous nodule on her left wrist. The lesion was excised, and the histological analysis revealed a clear cell tumour that was relatively sharply demarked from the surrounding tissue extending into the subcutaneous tissue. The tumour showed a characteristic trabecular pattern in which the tumour cells were arranged around numerous vessels. The neoplastic cells had a predominantly epithelioid shape, granular eosinophilic to clear cytoplasm and prominent centrally located nucleoli. The histological differential diagnosis included a metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma and a primary cutaneous perivascular epithelioid cell tumour (PEComa). Immunohistochemically, the tumour cells revealed homogenous expression of HMB-45, MiTF and CD10, whereas MART-1 and S100 were negative. Antibodies against actin marked the trabecularly arranged vessels, and the neoplastic cells yielded a patchy positivity against actin and desmin. Additional immunohistochemical stains against pan-cytokeratin, CAIX, PAX-8 and EMA were negative. Based on the morphologic and immunophenotypic findings, the histological diagnosis of a CD10-positive cutaneous PEComa was made.
The COVID‐19 pandemic caused by SARS‐CoV‐2 has far‐reaching direct and indirect medical consequences. These include both the course and treatment of diseases. It is becoming increasingly clear that infections with SARS‐CoV‐2 can cause considerable immunological alterations, which particularly also affect pathogenetically and/or therapeutically relevant factors.
Against this background we summarize here the current state of knowledge on the interaction of SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19 with mediators of the acute phase of inflammation (TNF, IL‐1, IL‐6), type 1 and type 17 immune responses (IL‐12, IL‐23, IL‐17, IL‐36), type 2 immune reactions (IL‐4, IL‐13, IL‐5, IL‐31, IgE), B‐cell immunity, checkpoint regulators (PD‐1, PD‐L1, CTLA4), and orally druggable signaling pathways (JAK, PDE4, calcineurin). In addition, we discuss in this context non‐specific immune modulation by glucocorticosteroids, methotrexate, antimalarial drugs, azathioprine, dapsone, mycophenolate mofetil and fumaric acid esters, as well as neutrophil granulocyte‐mediated innate immune mechanisms.
From these recent findings we derive possible implications for the therapeutic modulation of said immunological mechanisms in connection with SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19. Although, of course, the greatest care should be taken with patients with immunologically mediated diseases or immunomodulating therapies, it appears that many treatments can also be carried out during the COVID‐19 pandemic; some even appear to alleviate COVID‐19.
COVID‐19, caused by the coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2, has become pandemic. A further level of complexity opens up as soon as we look at diseases whose pathogenesis and therapy involve different immunological signaling pathways, which are potentially affected by COVID‐19. Medical treatments must often be reassessed and questioned in connection with this infection.
This article summarizes the current knowledge of COVID‐19 in the light of major dermatological and allergological diseases. It identifies medical areas lacking sufficient data and draws conclusions for the management of our patients during the pandemic. We focus on common chronic inflammatory skin diseases with complex immunological pathogenesis: psoriasis, eczema including atopic dermatitis, type I allergies, autoimmune blistering and inflammatory connective tissue diseases, vasculitis, and skin cancers. Since several other inflammatory skin diseases display related or comparable immunological reactions, clustering of the various inflammatory dermatoses into different disease patterns may help with therapeutic decisions. Thus, following these patterns of skin inflammation, our review may supply treatment recommendations and thoughtful considerations for disease management even beyond the most frequent diseases discussed here.
GNAQ and GNA11 mutant nonuveal melanoma: a subtype distinct from both cutaneous and uveal melanoma
(2020)
Background
GNAQ and GNA11 mutant nonuveal melanoma represent a poorly characterized rare subgroup of melanoma with a gene mutation profile similar to uveal melanoma.
Objectives
To characterize these tumours in terms of clinical behaviour and genetic characteristics.
Methods
Patients with nonuveal GNAQ/11 mutated melanoma were identified from the prospective multicentre tumour tissue registry ADOREG, Tissue Registry in Melanoma (TRIM) and additional cooperating skin cancer centres. Extensive data on patient, tumour and treatment characteristics were collected retrospectively. Targeted sequencing was used to determine tumour mutational burden. Immunohistochemistry staining was performed for programmed death‐ligand 1 and BRCA1‐associated protein (BAP)1. Existing whole‐exome cutaneous and uveal melanoma data were analysed for mutation type and burden.
Results
We identified 18 patients with metastatic GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanoma. Tumours had a lower tumour mutational burden and fewer ultraviolet signature mutations than cutaneous melanomas. In addition to GNAQ and GNA11 mutations (nine each), six splicing factor 3b subunit 1 (SF3B1), three eukaryotic translation initiation factor 1A X‐linked (EIF1AX) and four BAP1 mutations were detected. In contrast to uveal melanoma, GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas frequently metastasized lymphatically and concurrent EIF1AX, SF3B1 and BAP1 mutations showed no apparent association with patient prognosis. Objective response to immunotherapy was poor with only one partial response observed in 10 treated patients (10%).
Conclusions
Our findings suggest that GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas are a subtype of melanoma that is both clinically and genetically distinct from cutaneous and uveal melanoma. As they respond poorly to available treatment regimens, novel effective therapeutic approaches for affected patients are urgently needed.
What is already known about this topic?
The rare occurrence of GNAQ/11 mutations in nonuveal melanoma has been documented.
GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas also harbour genetic alterations in EIF1AX, SF3B1 and BAP1 that are of prognostic relevance in uveal melanoma.
What does this study add?
GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas show metastatic spread reminiscent of cutaneous melanoma, but not uveal melanoma.
GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas have a low tumour mutational burden that is higher than uveal melanoma, but lower than cutaneous melanoma.
What is the translational message?
Primary GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas are a subtype of melanoma that is clinically and genetically distinct from both cutaneous and uveal melanoma.
As metastatic GNAQ/11 mutant nonuveal melanomas respond poorly to available systemic therapies, including immune checkpoint inhibition, novel therapeutic approaches for these tumours are urgently needed.
miR-375 is a highly abundant miRNA in Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). In other cancers, it acts as either a tumor suppressor or oncogene. While free-circulating miR-375 serves as a surrogate marker for tumor burden in patients with advanced MCC, its function within MCC cells has not been established. Nearly complete miR-375 knockdown in MCC cell lines was achieved using antagomiRs via nucleofection. The cell viability, growth characteristics, and morphology were not altered by this knockdown. miR-375 target genes and related signaling pathways were determined using Encyclopedia of RNA Interactomes (ENCORI) revealing Hippo signaling and epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT)-related genes likely to be regulated. Therefore, their expression was analyzed by multiplexed qRT-PCR after miR-375 knockdown, demonstrating only a limited change in expression. In summary, highly effective miR-375 knockdown in classical MCC cell lines did not significantly change the cell viability, morphology, or oncogenic signaling pathways. These observations render miR-375 an unlikely intracellular oncogene in MCC cells, thus suggesting that likely functions of miR-375 for the intercellular communication of MCC should be addressed.
Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and aggressive skin cancer. In approximately 80% of cases, genomic integration of the Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV) is observed and overexpression of the two MCPyV T antigens (TAgs) is regarded as the main oncogenic determinant of MCPyV-positive MCC cases. However, the nature of the cells from which MCC arises is unknown. Therefore, the goal of the present work was to determine the cell of origin of MCC.
First, we characterized MCC patients’ tumors and demonstrated a high similarity of MCPyV- negative MCC with extracutaneous neuroendocrine carcinoma while MCPyV-positive MCC differs from these two groups with respect to morphology, immunohistochemical profile, genetics, origin and behavior. Based on the analysis of a trichoblastoma/MCC combined tumor, we demonstrated that a MCPyV-positive MCC can arise following MCPyV integration in an epithelial cell. In addition, the high similarity between trichoblastoma cells and Merkel cell (MC) progenitors of the hair follicle suggests that these hair follicle cells may represent a general start point for the development of MCPyV-positive MCC. A contribution of the viral TAgs to the development of the characteristic Merkel cell-like MCC phenotype is suggested by experiments demonstrating induction of Merkel cell markers upon TAg expression in human primary keratinocytes or hair follicle cells. As potential mechanisms mediating these phenotypic changes, we identified the capability of MCPyV LT to repress degradation of master regulator of MC development, i.e. the transcription factor ATOH1.
To conclude, our work suggests that MCPyV integration in epithelial cells of the hair follicle may represent an important path for MCC development.
The increasingly frequent use of immunomodulatory agents in dermatology requires the observance of specific recommendations for immunization. These recommendations are developed and regularly updated by the German Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO), an independent advisory group at the Robert Koch Institute. Dermatological patients on immunosuppressive treatment should ideally receive all vaccinations included in the standard immunization schedule. Additionally, it is recommended that they also undergo vaccination against the seasonal flu, pneumococci, and herpes zoster (inactivated herpes zoster subunit vaccine for patients ≥ 50 years). Additional immunizations against Haemophilus influenzae type B, hepatitis B and meningococci may be indicated depending on individual comorbidities and exposure risk. Limitations of use, specific contraindications and intervals to be observed between vaccination and immunosuppression depend on the immunosuppressive agent used and its dosing. Only under certain conditions may live‐attenuated vaccines be administered in patients on immunosuppressive therapy. Given its strong suppressive effect on the humoral immune response, no vaccines – except for flu shots – should be given within six months after rituximab therapy.
This CME article presents current recommendations on immunization in immunocompromised individuals, with a special focus on dermatological patients. Its goal is to enable readers to provide competent counseling and to initiate necessary immunizations in this vulnerable patient group.
The approval of BRAF and MEK inhibitors has signifi-cantly improved treatment outcomes for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma. The 3 first-line targeted therapy trials have provided similar results, and thus the identification of predictive biomarkers may generate a more precise basis for clinical deci-sion-making. Elevated baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) has already been determined as a strong prog-nostic factor. Therefore, this indirect analysis compa-red subgroups with elevated baseline LDH across the pivotal targeted therapy trials co-BRIM, COMBI-v and COLUMBUS part 1. The Bucher method was used to compare progression-free survival, objective response rate and overall survival indirectly. The results show a non-significant risk reduction for progression in the subgroup with elevated baseline LDH receiving vemu-rafenib plus cobimetinib compared with dabrafenib plus trametinib and encorafenib plus binimetinib. Al-though an indirect comparison, these data might pro-vide some guidance for treatment recommendations in melanoma patients with elevated LDH.