Stem cells are maintained by transcriptional programs that promote self-renewal and repress differentiation. Here we found that the transcription factor c-Myb was essential for generating and maintaining stem cells within the CD8 + T cell memory compartment. Following viral infection, CD8 + T cells lacking Myb underwent terminal differentiation and generated fewer stem cell–like central memory cells than Myb -sufficient T cells. c-Myb acted both as a transcriptional activator of Tcf7 (which encodes the transcription factor Tcf1) to enhance memory development and as a repressor of Zeb2 (which encodes the transcription factor Zeb2) to hinder effector differentiation. Domain-mutagenesis experiments revealed that the transactivation domain of c-Myb was necessary for restraining differentiation, whereas its negative regulatory domain was critical for cell survival. Myb overexpression enhanced CD8 + T cell memory formation, polyfunctionality and recall responses that promoted curative antitumor immunity upon adoptive transfer. These findings identify c-Myb as a pivotal regulator of CD8 + T cell stemness and highlight its therapeutic potential.

T cell senescence and exhaustion are major barriers to successful cancer immunotherapy. Here we show that miR-155 increases CD8 + T cell antitumor function by restraining T cell senescence and functional exhaustion through epigenetic silencing of drivers of terminal differentiation. miR-155 enhances Polycomb repressor complex 2 (PRC2) activity indirectly by promoting the expression of the PRC2-associated factor Phf19 through downregulation of the Akt inhibitor, Ship1. Phf19 orchestrates a transcriptional program extensively shared with miR-155 to restrain T cell senescence and sustain CD8 + T cell antitumor responses. These effects rely on Phf19 histone-binding capacity, which is critical for the recruitment of PRC2 to the target chromatin. These findings establish the miR-155–Phf19–PRC2 as a pivotal axis regulating CD8 + T cell differentiation, thereby paving new ways for potentiating cancer immunotherapy through epigenetic reprogramming of CD8 + T cell fate.

Intravenous BU divided four times daily (q6 h) has been shown to be safe and effective in pediatric allo-SCT recipients. Though less frequent dosing is desirable, pharmacokinetic (PK) data on twice daily (q12 h) i.v. BU administration in pediatric allo-SCT recipients is limited. We prospectively examined the PK results in a cohort of pediatric allo-SCT recipients receiving i.v. BU q12 h as part of conditioning before allo-SCT. BU levels were obtained after the first dose of conditioning. PK parameter analysis (n=49) yielded the following 95% confidence intervals (CI₉₅): weight-normalized volume of distribution: 0.65-0.73 L/kg; t(1/2): 122-147 min; weight-normalized clearance (CL(n)): 3.4-4.3 mL/min/kg; and area under the curve: 1835-2180 mmol × min/L. From these results, a steady state concentration was calculated with CI₉₅ between 628-746 ng/mL. Comparison between recipients ≤4 vs >4 years old revealed significant differences in t(1/2) (mean: 115 vs 146 min, P=0.008) and CL(n) (mean: 4.4 vs 3.5 mL/min/kg, P=0.038). Intravenous BU q12 h had a comparable PK to i.v. BU q6 h PK seen in the literature, and in pediatric allo-SCT recipients, is a feasible, attractive alternative to i.v. q6h dosing.

Intravenous (IV) busulfan test dose pharmacokinetics (PK) has been shown to accurately predict once-daily dose requirements and improve outcomes in adult transplant patients, but there are limited data to support this approach in children. Test doses of busulfan ∼0.8 mg/kg were infused over 2 to 3 hours, followed by serial sampling to 4-6 hours postinfusion in pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (n = 5). Once-daily busulfan doses were calculated based on a myelosuppressive area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) target of ∼3700 to 4000 μmol·min/L and assumed dose-proportionality to the test dose. PK analysis was then repeated at full daily doses within 6-8 days of test dose administration. Plasma PK samples collected under test and full-dose conditions were analyzed using validated commercial assays and noncompartmental methods. In 4 out of 5 patients, PK estimates after once-daily IV busulfan administration differed in comparison to test dose estimates (AUC range -38.2% to +49.7%, clearance range -34.3% to +61.8%). Patients 1, 2, and 3 required increases in remaining daily busulfan doses to achieve AUC targets, and no adjustment was required in patient 4. Patient 5's AUC was 49.7% higher than expected, and he subsequently developed fatal sinusoidal obstruction syndrome. In our experience with pediatric patients, test dose PK failed to reliably predict daily dosing requirements with large discrepancies from predicted AUC targets. This article highlights the necessity for therapeutic drug monitoring of IV busulfan and inadvisability of relying solely on test-dose busulfan PK in pediatric patients. Furthermore, clinicians should consider strategies to expedite dose adjustments in real time.