Impact of Secretion-Active Osteoblast-Specific Factor 2 in Promoting Progression and Metastasis of Head and Neck Cancer

Treatment success of head and neck cancer (HNC) is still hampered by tumor relapse due to metastases. Our study aimed to identify biomarkers by exploiting transcriptomics profiles of patient-matched metastases, primary tumors, and normal tissue mucosa as well as the TCGA HNC cohort data sets. Analyses identified osteoblast-specific factor 2 (OSF-2) as significantly overexpressed in lymph node metastases and primary tumors compared to normal tissue. High OSF-2 levels correlate with metastatic disease and reduced overall survival of predominantly HPV-negative HNC patients. No significant correlation was observed with tumor localization or therapy response. These findings were supported by the fact that OSF-2 expression was not elevated in cisplatin-resistant HNC cell lines. OSF-2 was strongly expressed in tumor-associated fibroblasts, suggesting a tumor microenvironment-promoting function. Molecular cloning and expression studies of OSF-2 variants from patients identified an evolutionary conserved bona fide protein secretion signal (1MIPFLPMFSLLLLLIVNPINA21). OSF-2 enhanced cell migration and cellular survival under stress conditions, which could be mimicked by the extracellular administration of recombinant protein. Here, OSF-2 executes its functions via ß1 integrin, resulting in the phosphorylation of PI3K and activation of the Akt/PKB signaling pathway. Collectively, we suggest OSF-2 as a potential prognostic biomarker and drug target, promoting metastases by supporting the tumor microenvironment and lymph node metastases survival rather than by enhancing primary tumor proliferation or therapy resistance.

Profiling Cisplatin Resistance in Head and Neck Cancer: A Critical Role of the VRAC Ion Channel for Chemoresistance

Treatment success of head and neck cancers (HNSCC) is often hindered by tumor relapses due to therapy resistances. This study aimed at profiling cisplatin resistance mechanisms and identifying biomarkers potentially suitable as drug targets and for patient stratification. Bioinformatic analyses of suggested resistance factors in a cohort of 565 HNSCC patients identified the VRAC ion channel as a clinically relevant indicator for recurrent diseases following radiochemotherapy (p = 0.042). Other drug import/export transporters, such as CTR1, OCT1, or MRP1, were found to be less relevant. To experimentally verify VRAC's critical role for cisplatin resistance, we used CRISPR/Cas9 knockout resulting in cisplatin-resistant HNSCC cells, which could be resensitized by VRAC expression. Next-generation sequencing further underlined VRAC's importance and identified VRAC-regulated signaling networks, potentially also contributing to cisplatin resistance. CTR1, OCT1, or MRP1 did not contribute to increased cisplatin resistance. In addition to two-dimensional HNSCC models, three-dimensional tumor spheroid cultures confirmed VRAC's unique role for cisplatin sensitivity. Here, resistance correlated with DNA damage and downstream apoptosis. The cisplatin specificity of the identified VRAC pathway was verified by testing paclitaxel and doxorubicin. Our results were independently confirmed in naturally occurring, cisplatin-resistant HNSCC cancer cell models. Collectively, we here demonstrate VRAC's role for cisplatin resistance in HNSCC and its relevance as a potential drug target and/or prognostic biomarker for chemotherapy resistance.

Use of biologicals in allergic and type-2 inflammatory diseases during the current COVID-19 pandemic: Position paper of Ärzteverband Deutscher Allergologen (AeDA)A, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allergologie und Klinische Immunologie (DGAKI)B, Gesellschaft für Pädiatrische Allergologie und Umweltmedizin (GPA)C, Österreichische Gesellschaft für Allergologie und Immunologie (ÖGAI)D, Luxemburgische Gesellschaft für Allergologie und Immunologie (LGAI)E, Österreichische Gesellschaft für Pneumologie (ÖGP)F in co-operation with the German, Austrian, and Swiss ARIA groupsG, and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)H

BACKGROUND

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the treatment of patients with allergic and atopy-associated diseases has faced major challenges. Recommendations for "social distancing" and the fear of patients becoming infected during a visit to a medical facility have led to a drastic decrease in personal doctor-patient contacts. This affects both acute care and treatment of the chronically ill. The immune response after SARS-CoV-2 infection is so far only insufficiently understood and could be altered in a favorable or unfavorable way by therapy with monoclonal antibodies. There is currently no evidence for an increased risk of a severe COVID-19 course in allergic patients. Many patients are under ongoing therapy with biologicals that inhibit type 2 immune responses via various mechanisms. There is uncertainty about possible immunological interactions and potential risks of these biologicals in the case of an infection with SARS-CoV-2.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A selective literature search was carried out in PubMed, Livivo, and the internet to cover the past 10 years (May 2010 - April 2020). Additionally, the current German-language publications were analyzed. Based on these data, the present position paper provides recommendations for the biological treatment of patients with allergic and atopy-associated diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

In order to maintain in-office consultation services, a safe treatment environment must be created that is adapted to the pandemic situation. To date, there is a lack of reliable study data on the care for patients with complex respiratory, atopic, and allergic diseases in times of an imminent infection risk from SARS-CoV-2. Type-2-dominant immune reactions, as they are frequently seen in allergic patients, could influence various phases of COVID-19, e.g., by slowing down the immune reactions. Theoretically, this could have an unfavorable effect in the early phase of a SARS-Cov-2 infection, but also a positive effect during a cytokine storm in the later phase of severe courses. However, since there is currently no evidence for this, all data from patients treated with a biological directed against type 2 immune reactions who develop COVID-19 should be collected in registries, and their disease courses documented in order to be able to provide experience-based instructions in the future.

CONCLUSION

The use of biologicals for the treatment of bronchial asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and spontaneous urticaria should be continued as usual in patients without suspected infection or proven SARS-CoV-2 infection. If available, it is recommended to prefer a formulation for self-application and to offer telemedical monitoring. Treatment should aim at the best possible control of difficult-to-control allergic and atopic diseases using adequate rescue and add-on therapy and should avoid the need for systemic glucocorticosteroids. If SARS-CoV-2 infection is proven or reasonably suspected, the therapy should be determined by weighing the benefits and risks individually for the patient in question, and the patient should be involved in the decision-making. It should be kept in mind that the potential effects of biologicals on the immune response in COVID-19 are currently not known. Telemedical offers are particularly desirable for the acute consultation needs of suitable patients.