Endothelial cells (ECs) harbor distinct phenotypical and functional characteristics depending on their tissue localization and contribute to brain, eye, lung, and muscle diseases such as dementia, macular degeneration, pulmonary hypertension, and sarcopenia. To study their function, isolation of pure ECs in high quantities is crucial. Here, we describe protocols for rapid and reproducible blood vessel EC purification established for scRNA sequencing from murine tissues using mechanical and enzymatic digestion followed by magnetic and fluorescence-activated cell sorting.

Purpose: Patients with cancer display reduced humoral responses after double-dose COVID-19 vaccination, whereas their cellular response is more comparable with that in healthy individuals. Recent studies demonstrated that a third vaccination dose boosts these immune responses, both in healthy people and patients with cancer. Because of the availability of many different COVID-19 vaccines, many people have been boosted with a different vaccine from the one used for double-dose vaccination. Data on such alternative vaccination schedules are scarce. This prospective study compares a third dose of BNT162b2 after double-dose BNT162b2 (homologous) versus ChAdOx1 (heterologous) vaccination in patients with cancer. Experimental Design: A total of 442 subjects (315 patients and 127 healthy) received a third dose of BNT162b2 (230 homologous vs. 212 heterologous). Vaccine-induced adverse events (AE) were captured up to 7 days after vaccination. Humoral immunity was assessed by SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 IgG antibody levels and SARS-CoV-2 50% neutralization titers (NT50) against Wuhan and BA.1 Omicron strains. Cellular immunity was examined by analyzing CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2–specific S1 and S2 peptides. Results: Local AEs were more common after heterologous boosting. SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 IgG antibody levels did not differ significantly between homologous and heterologous boosted subjects [GMT 1,755.90 BAU/mL (95% CI, 1,276.95–2,414.48) vs. 1,495.82 BAU/mL (95% CI, 1,131.48–1,977.46)]. However, homologous-boosted subjects show significantly higher NT50 values against BA.1 Omicron. Subjects receiving heterologous boosting demonstrated increased spike-specific CD8+ T cells, including higher IFNγ and TNFα levels. Conclusions: In patients with cancer who received double-dose ChAdOx1, a third heterologous dose of BNT162b2 was able to close the gap in antibody response.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) can be used to detect tumor-specific genomic alterations. This retrospective single-center study aims to assess the application of an extensive NGS panel to identify actionable alterations and initiate matched targeted treatment for patients with advanced cancer. We analyzed genomic alterations in solid tumor biopsies from 464 patients with advanced cancer with the Foundation Medicine assay (FoundationOne^®CDx). Therapeutic implications were determined using the Memorial Sloan Kettering Precision Oncology Knowledge Base (OncoKB) classification. The FoundationOne^®CDx was successfully applied in 464/521 patients (89%). The most common altered genes were TP53 (61%), KRAS (20%), CDKN2A (20%), TERT (16%), and APC (16%). Among the 419 patients with successfully analyzed tumor mutational burden (TMB), 43 patients presented with a high TMB (≥10 mutations/megabase). Out of the 126 patients with an actionable target, 40 patients received matched treatment (32%) of which 17 were within a clinical trial. This study shows that the application of NGS is feasible in an academic center and increases the detection of actionable alterations and identification of patients eligible for targeted treatment or immunotherapy regardless of tumor histology. Strategies such as early referral for NGS, inclusion in clinical (basket) trials, and the development of new targeted drugs are necessary to improve the matched treatment rate.

PURPOSE: Multiple disparities have been recognized in the area of location, gender, and funding for leadership in oncology clinical trials. Understanding their intersectionality is crucial to be able to formulate policies and actions, to ensure research is representative of the global oncology community. Here, data from phase III trials presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting of 2022 (ASCO22) were analyzed. METHODS: The location of institution, gender of lead and senior authors, and funding source for solid tumor phase III trial abstracts presented at the ASCO22 were analyzed. World Bank analytical grouping version 2021-2022 was used to describe regions and countries as high (HIC), upper-middle (UMIC), lower-middle (LoMIC), and low-income (LIC). RESULTS: Across 239 phase III abstracts, lead and senior authors respectively represented HIC institutions in 83% and 85%, UMIC in 13% and 12%, and LoMIC in 4% and 3%. No authors worked in LICs or sub-Saharan Africa. Women accounted for 29% of lead and 23% of senior authors. This distribution persisted across regions, with women as lead authors ranging from 19% (UMIC) to 31% (HIC), and as senior authors from 7% (UMIC) to 25% (HIC). Industry funded 62% of trials, academia 17%, and others 15%; 6% lacked funding. Industry funding was highest in HIC trials (66% for lead and senior authors), followed by UMICs (55% lead, 53% senior) and LoMICs (11% lead, 0% senior). Industry-sponsored trials were proportionally equally represented among female and male senior authors (63% each). CONCLUSION: There is marked intersectionality in leadership of oncology clinical trials presented at the world's largest oncology conference.

PURPOSE: Conflicts of interest (COIs) between oncologists and industry might considerably influence how the presentation of the research results is delivered, ultimately affecting clinical decisions and policy-making. Although there are many regulations on reporting COI in high-income countries (HICs), little is known about their reporting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking (ONCOTRUST-1) is a pilot global survey to explore the knowledge and perceptions of oncologists regarding COI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed an online 27-question–based survey in the English language to explore the perceptions and knowledge of oncologists regarding COI, with an emphasis on LMICs. Descriptive statistics and the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies guidelines were used to report the findings. RESULTS: ONCOTRUST-1 surveyed 200 oncologists, 70.9% of them practicing in LMICs. Median age of the respondents was 36 (range, 26-84) years; 47.5% of them were women. Of the respondents, 40.5% reported weekly visits by pharmaceutical representatives to their institutions. Regarding oncologists' perceptions of COI that require disclosure, direct financial benefits, such as honoraria, ranked highest (58.5%), followed by gifts from pharmaceutical representatives (50%) and travel grants for attending conferences (44.5%). By contrast, personal or institutional research funding, sample drugs, consulting or advisory board, expert testimony, and food and beverage funded by pharmaceutical industry were less frequently considered as COI. Moreover, only 24% of surveyed oncologists could correctly categorize all situations representing a COI. CONCLUSION: These findings underscore the importance of clear guidelines, education, and transparency in reporting COI in oncology. This hypothesis-generating pilot survey provided the rationale for ONCOTRUST-2 study, which will compare perceptions of COI among oncologists in LMICs and HICs.