Background The causative factors for the recent increase in early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC) incidence are unknown. We sought to determine if early-onset disease is clinically or genomically distinct from average-onset colorectal cancer (AO-CRC). Methods Clinical, histopathologic, and genomic characteristics of EO-CRC patients (2014-2019), divided into age 35 years and younger and 36-49 years at diagnosis, were compared with AO-CRC (50 years and older). Patients with mismatch repair deficient tumors, CRC-related hereditary syndromes, and inflammatory bowel disease were excluded from all but the germline analysis. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results In total, 759 patients with EO-CRC (35 years, n = 151; 36-49 years, n = 608) and AO-CRC (n = 687) were included. Left-sided tumors (35 years and younger = 80.8%; 36-49 years = 83.7%; AO = 63.9%; P < .001 for both comparisons), rectal bleeding (35 years and younger = 41.1%; 36-49 years = 41.0%; AO = 25.9%; P = .001 and P < .001, respectively), and abdominal pain (35 years and younger = 37.1%; 36-49 years = 34.0%; AO = 26.8%; P = .01 and P = .005, respectively) were more common in EO-CRC. Among microsatellite stable tumors, we found no differences in histopathologic tumor characteristics. Initially, differences in TP53 and Receptor Tyrosine Kinase signaling pathway (RTK-RAS)alterations were noted by age. However, on multivariate analysis including somatic gene analysis and tumor sidedness, no statistically significant differences at the gene or pathway level were demonstrated. Among advanced microsatellite stable CRCs, chemotherapy response and survival were equivalent by age cohorts. Pathogenic germline variants were identified in 23.3% of patients 35 years and younger vs 14.1% of AO-CRC (P = .01). Conclusions EO-CRCs are more commonly left-sided and present with rectal bleeding and abdominal pain but are otherwise clinically and genomically indistinguishable from AO-CRCs. Aggressive treatment regimens based solely on the age at CRC diagnosis are not warranted.

Purpose: While mutations in BRAF in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) most commonly occur at the V600 amino acid, with the advent of next-generation sequencing, non-V600 BRAF mutations are increasingly identified in clinical practice. It is unclear whether these mutants, like BRAF V600E, confer resistance to anti-EGFR therapy.Experimental Design: We conducted a multicenter pooled analysis of consecutive patients with non-V600 BRAF-mutated mCRCs identified between 2010 and 2017. Non-V600 BRAF mutations were divided into functional classes based on signaling mechanism and kinase activity: activating and RAS-independent (class 2) or kinase-impaired and RASdependent (class 3).Results: Forty patients with oncogenic non-V600 BRAFmutant mCRC received anti-EGFR antibody treatment [n ¼ 12 (30%) class 2 and n ¼ 28 (70%) class 3]. No significant differences in clinical characteristics were observed by mutation class. In contrast, while only 1 of 12 patients with class 2 BRAF mCRC responded, 14 of 28 patients with class 3 BRAF responded to anti-EGFR therapy (response rate, 8% and 50%, respectively, P ¼ 0.02). Specifically, in firstor second-line, 1 of 6 (17%) patients with class 2 and 7 of 9 (78%) patients with class 3 BRAF mutants responded (P ¼ 0.04). In third-or later-line, none of 6 patients with class 2 and 7 of 19 (37%) patients with class 3 BRAF mutants responded (P ¼ 0.14).Conclusions: Response to EGFR antibody treatment in mCRCs with class 2 BRAF mutants is rare, while a large portion of CRCs with class 3 BRAF mutants respond. Patients with colorectal cancer with class 3 BRAF mutations should be considered for anti-EGFR antibody treatment.See related commentary by Fontana and Valeri, p. 6896

Background Convalescent plasma (CP), despite limited evidence on its efficacy, is being widely used as a compassionate therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early CP therapy in COVID-19 progression. Methods and findings The study was an open-label, single-center randomized clinical trial performed in an academic medical center in Santiago, Chile, from May 10, 2020, to July 18, 2020, with final follow-up until August 17, 2020. The trial included patients hospitalized within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, presenting risk factors for illness progression and not on mechanical ventilation. The intervention consisted of immediate CP (early plasma group) versus no CP unless developing prespecified criteria of deterioration (deferred plasma group). Additional standard treatment was allowed in both arms. The primary outcome was a composite of mechanical ventilation, hospitalization for >14 days, or death. The key secondary outcomes included time to respiratory failure, days of mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, mortality at 30 days, and SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR clearance rate. Of 58 randomized patients (mean age, 65.8 years; 50% male), 57 (98.3%) completed the trial. A total of 13 (43.3%) participants from the deferred group received plasma based on clinical aggravation. We failed to find benefit in the primary outcome (32.1% versus 33.3%, odds ratio [OR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.32–2.84, p > 0.999) in the early versus deferred CP group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 17.9% versus 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54–17.17 p = 0.246), mechanical ventilation 17.9% versus 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54–17.17, p = 0.246), and prolonged hospitalization 21.4% versus 30.0% (OR 0.64, 95% CI, 0.19–2.10, p = 0.554) in the early versus deferred CP group, respectively. The viral clearance rate on day 3 (26% versus 8%, p = 0.204) and day 7 (38% versus 19%, p = 0.374) did not differ between groups. Two patients experienced serious adverse events within 6 hours after plasma transfusion. The main limitation of this study is the lack of statistical power to detect a smaller but clinically relevant therapeutic effect of CP, as well as not having confirmed neutralizing antibodies in donor before plasma infusion. Conclusions In the present study, we failed to find evidence of benefit in mortality, length of hospitalization, or mechanical ventilation requirement by immediate addition of CP therapy in the early stages of COVID-19 compared to its use only in case of patient deterioration. Trial registration NCT04375098.

Background Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been widely implemented in low- and middle-income countries. However, immunogenicity in immunocompromised patients has not been established. Herein, we aimed to evaluate immune response to CoronaVac vaccine in these patients. Methods This prospective cohort study included 193 participants with five different immunocompromising conditions and 67 controls, receiving two doses of CoronaVac 8-12 weeks before enrollment. The study was conducted between May and August 2021, at Red de Salud UC-CHRISTUS, Chile. Neutralizing antibodies (NAb) positivity, total anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies (TAb) concentration, and T cell response were determined. Results NAb positivity and median neutralizing activity were 83.1% and 51.2% for the control group versus 20.6% (p<0.0001) and 5.7% (p<0.0001) in the solid organ transplant (SOT) group, 41.5% (p<0.0001) and 19.2% (p<0.0001) in the autoimmune rheumatic diseases group, 43.3% (p=0.0002) and 21.4% (p=0.0013) in the cancer patients with solid tumors group, 45.5% (p<0.0001) and 28.7% (p=0.0006) in the HIV infected group, 64.3% (p=n.s.) and 56.6% (p=n.s.) in the hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) group, respectively. TAb seropositivity was also lower for the SOT (20.6%, p<0.0001), rheumatic diseases (61%, p=0.0001) and HIV groups (70.9%, p=0.0032), compared to control group (92.3%). On the other hand, the number of IFN-y Spot Forming T Cells specific for SARS-CoV-2 tended to be lower but did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusions Diverse immunocompromising conditions markedly reduce the humoral response to CoronaVac vaccine. These findings suggest a boosting vaccination strategy should be considered in these vulnerable patients.

The expression pattern of interferon-inducible proteins reflects the characteristic histological distribution of infiltrating immune cells in different cutaneous lupus erythematosus subsets.

No abstract

Background: Convalescent plasma (CP), despite limited evidence on its efficacy, is being widely used as a compassionate therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early CP therapy in COVID-19 progression. Methods: Open-label, single-center, randomized clinical trial performed in an academic center in Santiago, Chile from May 10, 2020, to July 18, 2020, with final follow-up August 17, 2020. The trial included patients hospitalized within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptoms onset, presenting risk factors for illness progression and not on mechanical ventilation. The intervention consisted in immediate CP (early plasma group) versus no CP unless developing pre-specified criteria of deterioration (deferred plasma group). Additional standard treatment was allowed in both arms. The primary outcome was a composite of mechanical ventilation, hospitalization for >14 days or death. Key secondary outcomes included: time to respiratory failure, days of mechanical ventilation, hospital length-of-stay, mortality at 30 days, and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR clearance rate. Results: Of 58 randomized patients (mean age, 65.8 years, 50% male), 57 (98.3%) completed the trial. A total of 13 (43.3%) participants from the deferred group received plasma based on clinical aggravation. We found no benefit in the primary outcome (32.1% vs 33.3%, OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.32-2.84, p>0.99) in the early versus deferred CP group. In-hospital mortality rate was 17.9% vs 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54-17.2, p=0.25), mechanical ventilation 17.9% vs 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54-17.2, p=0.25), and prolonged hospitalization 21.4% vs 30% (OR 0.64, 95%CI, 0.19-2.1, p=0.55) in early versus deferred CP group, respectively. Viral clearance rate on day 3 (26% vs 8%, p=0.20) and day 7 (38% vs 19%, p=0.37) did not differ between groups. Two patients experienced serious adverse events within 6 or less hours after plasma transfusion. Conclusion: Immediate addition of CP therapy in early stages of COVID-19 -compared to its use only in case of patient deterioration- did not confer benefits in mortality, length of hospitalization or mechanical ventilation requirement.

The widespread use of next generation sequencing (NGS) has led to a refined understanding of the genomics of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, progress in the use of molecular biomarkers in standard practice has been slow, and there is no approved targeted therapy for CRC based on a positive predictive marker yet. In this review, we will first summarize biomarkers with clinical utility in standard practice or targeted therapy trials and then consider how to rationally design clinical trials to more effectively target CRC. Specifically, we will discuss current clinical applications of genomic information consisting of the use of the MAPK (mitogen-activated protein kinase) pathway genes ,, and as prognostic and predictive biomarkers for standard treatment, risk stratification by primary tumor site and consideration of tumor laterality in patient selection for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody treatment, and the evaluation for genomic biomarkers, including V600E, amplification, and gene rearrangements, for targeted therapies in clinical trials. Applying lessons from targeted therapy trials in CRC, we now appreciate that both tumor genomics and tissue of origin affect targeted therapy response and that the development of resistance to targeted therapies is dynamic and often subclonal. Based on these understandings, we propose the design of adaptive clinical trials that evaluate real-time pharmacodynamic markers and monitor tumor subpopulations during the course of treatment to overcome challenges targeting genetic drivers in CRC.