No abstract

No abstract

The underlying mechanisms by which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) leads to acute and long-term neurological manifestations remains obscure. We aimed to characterize the neuropathological changes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and determine the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. In this autopsy study of the brain, we characterized the vascular pathology, the neuroinflammatory changes and cellular and humoral immune responses by immunohistochemistry. All patients died during the first wave of the pandemic from March to July 2020. All patients were adults who died after a short duration of the infection, some had died suddenly with minimal respiratory involvement. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 was confirmed on ante-mortem or post-mortem testing. Descriptive analysis of the pathological changes and quantitative analyses of the infiltrates and vascular changes were performed. All patients had multifocal vascular damage as determined by leakage of serum proteins into the brain parenchyma. This was accompanied by widespread endothelial cell activation. Platelet aggregates and microthrombi were found adherent to the endothelial cells along vascular lumina. Immune complexes with activation of the classical complement pathway were found on the endothelial cells and platelets. Perivascular infiltrates consisted of predominantly macrophages and some CD8 + T cells. Only rare CD4 + T cells and CD20 + B cells were present. Astrogliosis was also prominent in the perivascular regions. Microglial nodules were predominant in the hindbrain, which were associated with focal neuronal loss and neuronophagia. Antibody-mediated cytotoxicity directed against the endothelial cells is the most likely initiating event that leads to vascular leakage, platelet aggregation, neuroinflammation and neuronal injury. Therapeutic modalities directed against immune complexes should be considered.

IntroductionEstrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) testing are performed in the evaluation of breast cancer. While the clinical utility of ER as a predictive biomarker to identify patients likely to benefit from hormonal therapy is well-established, the added value of PR is less well-defined. The primary goals of our study were to assess the distribution, inter-assay reproducibility, and prognostic significance of breast cancer subtypes defined by patterns of ER and PR expression.MethodsWe integrated gene expression microarray (GEM) and clinico-pathologic data from 20 published studies to determine the frequency (n = 4,111) and inter-assay reproducibility (n = 1,752) of ER/PR subtypes (ER+/PR+, ER+/PR-, ER-/PR-, ER-/PR+). To extend our findings, we utilized a cohort of patients from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) with ER/PR data recorded in the medical record and assessed on tissue microarrays (n = 2,011). In both datasets, we assessed the association of ER and PR expression with survival.ResultsIn a genome-wide analysis, progesterone receptor was among the least variable genes in ER- breast cancer. The ER-/PR+ subtype was rare (approximately 1 to 4%) and showed no significant reproducibility (Kappa = 0.02 and 0.06, in the GEM and NHS datasets, respectively). The vast majority of patients classified as ER-/PR+ in the medical record (97% and 94%, in the GEM and NHS datasets) were re-classified by a second method. In the GEM dataset (n = 2,731), progesterone receptor mRNA expression was associated with prognosis in ER+ breast cancer (adjusted P <0.001), but not in ER- breast cancer (adjusted P = 0.21). PR protein expression did not contribute significant prognostic information to multivariate models considering ER and other standard clinico-pathologic features in the GEM or NHS datasets.ConclusionER-/PR+ breast cancer is not a reproducible subtype. PR expression is not associated with prognosis in ER- breast cancer, and PR does not contribute significant independent prognostic information to multivariate models considering ER and other standard clinico-pathologic factors. Given that PR provides no clinically actionable information in ER+ breast cancer, these findings question the utility of routine PR testing in breast cancer.