Phase 2 Study of YS110, a Recombinant Humanized Anti-CD26 Monoclonal Antibody, in Japanese Patients With Advanced Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

Association of Dipeptidylpeptidase 4 (CD26) With Chondrocyte Senescence and Radiographic Progression in Knee Osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of dipeptidylpeptidase 4 (DPP-4; also known as CD26) with cellular senescence of human cartilage and progression of knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

Articular cartilage sections and chondrocytes were acquired from 35 individuals undergoing total knee replacement for OA to evaluate the following: 1) the association between OA severity and established senescence markers (senescence-associated β-galactosidase activity and p16), which was quantified using immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry (n = 19 samples); 2) the coexpression of DPP-4 with established senescence markers, which was assessed using flow cytometry; and 3) expression levels of anabolic and catabolic genes, senescence-related genes, and senescence-associated secretory phenotypes in DPP-4+ and DPP-4- cells, which were isolated using fluorescence-activated cell sorting or magnetic-activated cell sorting (n = 16 samples). The concentration of soluble DPP-4 was measured in samples of synovial fluid and samples of plasma from the Prediction of Osteoarthritis Progression cohort and then evaluated for association with the severity of radiographic knee OA at baseline (n = 65 samples) and the progression of structural radiographic OA (n = 57 samples) over a 3-year period.

RESULTS

DPP-4 expression was associated with higher senescence-associated β-galactosidase activity, p16 expression, senescence-related gene and catabolic gene (ADAMTS5, MMP13, IL6, and IL8) expression, higher senescence-associated secretory phenotype secretion, and lower anabolic gene (COL2A1 and ACAN) expression in primary chondrocytes. Synovial fluid DPP-4 concentration was associated with radiographic OA progression (odds ratio 105.32; P = 0.015), proteases (synovial fluid matrix metalloproteinase 1 and matrix metalloproteinase 3), aggrecan degradation (synovial fluid sulfated glycosaminoglycan), indicators of activated macrophages (synovial fluid CD14 and CD163), and inflammation (synovial fluid interleukin-6).

CONCLUSION

Our study identifies DPP-4 as a key surface marker in senescent chondrocytes and a predictor of radiographic OA progression.

Immunotherapy vs. Chemotherapy in Subsequent Treatment of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Which Is Better?

(1) Background: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare but aggressive tumor arising from the pleural surface. For relapsed MPM, there is no accepted standard of- are for subsequent treatment. Thus, we aimed to compare the efficacy of chemotherapy, targeting drugs, and immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) as subsequent therapy for relapsed MPM. (2) Methods: The study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We searched several acknowledged databases. Primary outcomes were defined as overall median progressive survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) in different treatment groups. Secondary outcomes were defined as objective response rate (ORR), the proportion of stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD). (3) Results: Ultimately, 43 articles were selected for the meta-analysis. According to the results of a pooled analysis of single-arm studies, ICIs showed a slight advantage in mOS, while chemotherapy showed a slight advantage in mPFS (mOS: 11.2 m vs. 10.39 m and mPFS: 4.42 m vs. 5.08 m for ICIs group and chemotherapy group, respectively). We identified only a few studies that directly compared the efficacy of ICIs with that of chemotherapy, and ICIs did not show significant benefits over chemotherapy based on mOS. (4) Conclusions: Based on current evidence, we considered that immunotherapy might not be superior to chemotherapy as a subsequent therapy for relapsed MPM. Although several studies investigated the efficacy of ICIs, targeting drugs, and chemotherapy in relapsed MPM, there was still no standard of care. Further randomized control trials with consistent criteria and outcomes are recommended to guide subsequent therapy in relapsed MPM and identify patients with certain characteristics that might benefit from such subsequent therapy.

Validating Cell Surface Proteases as Drug Targets for Cancer Therapy: What Do We Know, and Where Do We Go?

Simple Summary

Cell surface proteases (so-called ectoproteases) are associated with cancer, and their targeting may confer valuable options for the improvement of cancer treatment outcome. Over the past 20 years, the permanent development of a multitude of inhibitors against several ectoproteases (including DPP4, FAP, APN, ADAM17, MMP2, and MMP9) has made it into clinical evaluation in haematological and solid tumours. Among them, a few show some efficacy, albeit limited, to cure cancer in the near future. This Review summarizes the efforts thus far undertaken in the development of ectoprotease inhibitors and highlights new directions for targeting ectoproteases as an additional weapon in the fight against cancer.

Abstract

Cell surface proteases (also known as ectoproteases) are transmembrane and membrane-bound enzymes involved in various physiological and pathological processes. Several members, most notably dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4/CD26) and its related family member fibroblast activation protein (FAP), aminopeptidase N (APN/CD13), a disintegrin and metalloprotease 17 (ADAM17/TACE), and matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) MMP2 and MMP9, are often overexpressed in cancers and have been associated with tumour dysfunction. With multifaceted actions, these ectoproteases have been validated as therapeutic targets for cancer. Numerous inhibitors have been developed to target these enzymes, attempting to control their enzymatic activity. Even though clinical trials with these compounds did not show the expected results in most cases, the field of ectoprotease inhibitors is growing. This review summarizes the current knowledge on this subject and highlights the recent development of more effective and selective drugs targeting ectoproteases among which small molecular weight inhibitors, peptide conjugates, prodrugs, or monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and derivatives. These promising avenues have the potential to deliver novel therapeutic strategies in the treatment of cancers.