Both physicians and dermatology patients are searching for long-term topical skin care solutions (both cosmetic and cosmeceutical) to address problems presented by skin hyperpigmentation. Specifically, some women often express a desire to "lighten" skin tone by achieving improved visible tone, reduction in yellowness (or sallow tone), and reduction in the appearance of hyperpigmented spots ("age" or "sun" spots). Traditional depigmenting agents, such as hydroquinone, corticosteroids, and kojic acid, although highly effective, can raise several safety concerns (for example, ochronosis, atrophy, carcinogenesis, and other local or systemic side effects) with long-term exposure. An understanding of the benefits of natural and botanical extracts provides opportunities to develop new products to address pigmentation problems. Active compounds isolated from plants, such as arbutin, aloesin, gentisic acid, flavonoids, hesperidin, licorice, niacinamide, yeast derivatives, and polyphenols, inhibit melanogenesis without melanocytotoxicity by different mechanisms. This review presents an overview of trends in the application of plant extracts as topical treatments for hyperpigmentation disorders. It highlights some of the most relevant natural extracts, providing in vitro screening results and relevant available clinical study trial findings supporting their efficacy.

Introduction: Tislelizumab, an anti-programmed cell death protein-1 antibody, was specifically engineered to minimize FcɣR macrophage binding to abrogate antibody-dependent phagocytosis. Compared with chemotherapy alone, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy may improve clinical outcomes in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC (nsq-NSCLC). Methods:In this open-label phase 3 trial (RATIONALE 304; NCT03663205), patients with histologically confirmed stage IIIB or IV nsq-NSCLC were randomized (2:1) to receive either arm A: tislelizumab plus platinum (carboplatin or cisplatin) and pemetrexed every 3 weeks (Q3Ws) or arm B: platinum and pemetrexed alone Q3W during induction treatment, followed by intravenous maintenance

Our purpose was to explore whether 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT alone (PET/CT) or in combination with multiparametric MRI (PET/MRI) can improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 54 patients who underwent both MRI and PET/CT before radical prostatectomy. Regions of interest on MR images, PET/CT images, and pathologic images were marked. A lesion was defined as a region of interest marked on images obtained with any of the 3 modalities. All lesions were characterized using the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS), the molecular imaging PSMA expression score, and the pathologic results and analyzed. Diagnostic performance was analyzed by receiver-operating-characteristic analysis. Specific improvement for lesions with different PI-RADS scores was analyzed using the net reclassification index (NRI). Results: In total, 90 lesions from 54 patients were analyzed, among which 66 lesions represented clinically significant PCa. Receiver-operating-characteristic analysis showed PET/MRI to perform better than MRI in detecting clinically significant PCa (change in area under the curve, 0.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.12; P , 0.05). With the calculated cutoff, PET/MRI performed significantly better than MRI (NRI, 21.9%; P , 0.01), with an improvement in sensitivity (89% vs. 76%, P , 0.01) at no sacrifice of specificity (96% vs. 88%, P . 0.05). Improvement in diagnosing clinically significant PCa occurred for lesions classified as PI-RADS 3 (NRI, 66.7%; P , 0.01). Conclusion: PET/MRI improves the detection of clinically significant PCa for PI-RADS 3 lesions.

Background: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an aggressive subtype of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Most patients with MCL relapse after first-line immunochemotherapy, with poor responses to salvage therapy. Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy has shown clinical efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) NHL. We report the results of the dose-finding and dose-expansion parts of the ongoing phase 1 TRANSCEND NHL 001 study (NCT02631044) in patients with R/R MCL (MCL cohort) who received lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), an investigational, CD19-directed, defined composition, 4-1BB CAR T cell product administered at equal target doses of CD8+ and CD4+ CAR+ T cells. Methods: Eligible patients had confirmed MCL (cyclin D1 expression, t[11;14]) with R/R disease after ≥1 prior line of therapy. After lymphodepleting chemotherapy, patients received liso-cel infusion at 1 of 2 dose levels (DLs): DL1 (50 × 106 CAR+ T cells) or DL2 (100 × 106 CAR+ T cells). Bridging therapy was allowed between leukapheresis and initiation of lymphodepleting chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were safety and objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included complete response (CR) rate, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and pharmacokinetics (PK). Results: At data cutoff, 41 patients had undergone leukapheresis and 32 had received liso-cel (DL1, n = 6; DL2, n = 26). Among the 32 patients who received liso-cel, the median (range) age was 67 (36‒80) years and 27 patients (84%) were male. Twelve patients (37.5%) had blastoid morphology, 23 (72%) had documented Ki67 ≥30%, 7 (22%) had a TP53 mutation, and 11 (34%) had a complex karyotype. Patients had a median (range) sum of the product of perpendicular diameters before lymphodepleting chemotherapy of 28.7 (0-209.6) cm2 and median lactate dehydrogenase of 251.5 (117-811) U/L. Patients had received a median (range) of 3 (1-7) prior systemic therapies, and most (72%) were refractory to their last prior therapy. Of 28 patients (87.5%) who had received a prior Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, 11 (34%) were refractory to the therapy. Seventeen patients (53%) received bridging therapy. Eighteen patients (56%) had serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and 27 (84%) had grade ≥3 TEAEs, primarily neutropenia (41%), anemia (34%), and thrombocytopenia (31%). Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia was more frequent at DL2 (n = 9/26 [35%]) than at DL1 (n = 1/6 [17%]). Prolonged grade ≥3 cytopenias (present at study Day 29) occurred in 11 patients (34%). Sixteen patients (50%; DL1, n = 2/6 [33%]; DL2, n = 14/26 [54%]) had cytokine release syndrome (CRS), including 1 grade 4 event at DL2. There were no grade 3 or 5 CRS events. Median (range) time to CRS onset and resolution was 6 (2‒10) days and 4 (2‒9) days, respectively. Nine patients (28%) had neurological events (NEs), all at DL2, including 3 grade 3 NEs. No grade 4 or 5 NEs were reported. Median (range) time to NE onset and resolution was 8 (2‒25) days and 3 (1‒51) days, respectively. Ten patients (31%) received tocilizumab and/or corticosteroids for treatment of CRS and/or NEs. Grade 5 TEAEs occurred in 2 patients (at DL2): one patient with high tumor burden had tumor lysis syndrome and 1 patient had cryptococcal meningoencephalitis. DL2 was selected for dose expansion. Of 32 patients, 27 responded to liso-cel (ORR, 84%: DL1, n = 4/6 [67%]; DL2, n = 23/26 [88%]), and 19 (59%) achieved a CR (DL1, n = 2/6 [33%]; DL2, n = 17/26 [65%]). Among the 12 patients with blastoid morphology, 9 patients had a response (ORR, 75%), including 7 (58%) who achieved a CR. Overall, the median (range) time to first CR was 1 (1-6) month. At data cutoff, 20 (74%) of 27 responders were censored with an ongoing response or had completed the study. Median (range) follow-up duration was 10.9 (1.2-24.8) months for DL1 and 3.1 (0.4-23.0) months for DL2. Preliminary PK analysis indicated that median maximum expansion was higher among patients at DL2 than at DL1. Conclusions: In this phase 1 study of patients with R/R MCL, treatment with liso-cel was associated with a low incidence of grade ≥3 CRS and NEs, late onset of CRS/NEs, and promising clinical activity. Dose confirmation is ongoing at DL2 in the MCL cohort. Disclosures Palomba: Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Juno: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Regeneron: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Gordon:Zylem Biosciences: Patents & Royalties: Patents, No Royalties. Siddiqi:Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene: Other: DMC member; Juno Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Kite Pharma, and BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, and AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, Juno Therapeutics, KITE Pharma, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Celgene, Oncternal, and BeiGene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses; Astrazenca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PCYC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Abramson:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Juno Therapeutics: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; AbbVie: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; EMD Serono: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Genentech/Roche: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Janssen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Karyopharm: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Gilead: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Bayer: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Merck: Other; KIte Pharma: Other; Novartis: Other; Amgen: Other; Seattle Genetics: Other; Allogene: Other; Morphosys: Other; C4 Therapeutics: Other; BeiGene: Other; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria. Kamdar:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Lunning:Acrotech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Aeratech: Consultancy, Honoraria. Maloney:Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; A2 Biotherapeutics: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: Patents are pending, but not issued, licensed, no royalties, no licensees., Research Funding; Bioline Rx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Andreadis:Genentech: Other: Spouse Employee (salary and stock); Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene/Juno: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Other: Advisor; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisor; Astellas: Other: Advisor; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisor; Karyopharm: Other: Advisor; Incyte: Other. Arnason:Regeneron: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy. Ghosh:Forty Seven Inc: Consultancy, Other: Research Bureau, Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; SGN: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mehta:Innate Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gelgene/BMS: Research Funding; Oncotartis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Juno Parmaceuticals/BMS: Research Funding; fortyseven Inc/Gilead: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Affimed: Research Funding. Farazi:Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Current Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Garcia:Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Current Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Dehner:Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Current Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ogasawara:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Gao:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current Employment. Wang:Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding; InnoCare: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding; MoreHealth: Consultancy; Lu Daopei Medical Group: Honoraria; Beijing Medical Award Foundation: Honoraria; OncLive: Honoraria; Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Guidepoint Global: Consultancy; Pulse Biosciences: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding; Oncternal: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nobel Insights: Consultancy; OMI: Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; BioInvent: Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding.

No abstract

Background: To compare the diagnostic performance of 68 Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography ( 68 Ga-PSMA PET/CT) with multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) on extracapsular extension (ECE) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) in primary prostate cancer and its impact on therapeutic decisions.Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 54 patients with both PET/CT and mpMRI before radical prostatectomy. Diagnostic performance of mpMRI, PET/CT and their combination (com-MRI/PET) on ECE and SVI on a patient basis were analyzed. The impact of additional PET/CT scanning on therapeutic decisions were presented.Results: Among the 54 patients, 17 had tumor limited in the prostate gland, 25 only had ECE and 12 patients had both SVI and ECE on pathology. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV)

Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations play a vital role in revealing the mechanism of amyloid aggregation that is crucial to the therapeutic agent development for Alzheimer’s Disease. However, the accuracy of MD simulation results strongly depends on the force field employed. In our previous benchmark for 17 all-atom force fields on modeling of amyloid aggregation using the Aβ16–22 dimer, we showed that AMBER14SB and CHARMM36m are suitable force fields for amyloid aggregation simulation, while GROMOS54a7 and OPLSAA are not good for the task. In this work, we continue assessing the applicability of atomistic force fields on amyloid aggregation using the VQIVYK (PHF6) peptide which is essential for tau-protein aggregation. Although, both Aβ16–22 and PHF6 peptides formed fibrils in vitro, the PHF6 fibrils are parallel β-sheets, while the Aβ16–22 fibrils are antiparallel β-sheets. We performed an all-atom large-scale MD simulation in explicit water on the PHF6 dimer and octa-peptides systems using five mainstream force fields, including AMBER99SB-disp, AMBER14SB, CHARMM36m, GROMOS54a7, and OPLSAA. The accumulated simulation time is 0.2 ms. Our result showed that the β-sheet structures of PHF6 peptides sampled by AMBER99SB-disp, AMBER14SB, GROMOS54a7, and OPLSAA are in favor of the antiparallel β-sheets, while the dominant type of β-sheet structures is parallel β-sheet by using CHARMM36m. Among the five force fields, CHARMM36m provides the strongest CH−π interaction that was observed in an NMR study. The comparison between our results and experimental observation indicates that CHARMM36m achieved the best performance on modeling the aggregation of PHF6 peptides. In summary, CHARMM36m is currently the most suitable force field for studying the aggregation of both amyloid-β and Tau through MD simulations.

No abstract