PURPOSE: Candidate circulating disease response biomarkers for classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) might arise from Hodgkin-Reed-Sternberg (HRS) cells or nonmalignant tumor-infiltrating cells. HRS cells are sparse within the diseased node, whereas benign CD163(+) M2 tissue-associated macrophages (TAM) are prominent. CD163(+) cells within the malignant node may be prognostic, but there is no data on serum CD163 (sCD163). The HRS-specific serum protein sTARC shows promise as a disease response biomarker. Tumor-specific and tumor-infiltrating circulating biomarkers have not been compared previously. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We prospectively measured sCD163 and sTARC in 221 samples from 47 patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and 21 healthy participants. Blood was taken at five fixed time-points prior, during, and after first-line therapy. Results were compared with radiological assessment and plasma Epstein-Barr virus DNA (EBV-DNA). Potential sources of circulating CD163 were investigated, along with immunosuppressive properties of CD163. RESULTS: Pretherapy, both sCD163 and sTARC were markedly elevated compared with healthy and complete remission samples. sCD163 better reflected tumor burden during therapy, whereas sTARC had greater value upon completion of therapy. sCD163 correlated with plasma EBV-DNA, and associated with B symptoms, stage, and lymphopenia. Circulating CD163(+) monocytes were elevated in patients, indicating that sCD163 are likely derived from circulating and intratumoral cells. Depletion of cHL CD163(+) monocytes markedly enhanced T-cell proliferation, implicating monocytes and/or TAMs as potential novel targets for immunotherapeutic manipulation. CONCLUSION: The combination of circulating tumor-infiltrate (sCD163) and tumor-specific (sTARC) proteins is more informative than either marker alone as disease response biomarkers in early and advanced disease during first-line therapy for cHL.
PURPOSE: Candidate circulating disease response biomarkers for classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) might arise from Hodgkin-Reed-Sternberg (HRS) cells or nonmalignant tumor-infiltrating cells. HRS cells are sparse within the diseased node, whereas benign CD163(+) M2 tissue-associated macrophages (TAM) are prominent. CD163(+) cells within the malignant node may be prognostic, but there is no data on serum CD163 (sCD163). The HRS-specific serum protein sTARC shows promise as a disease response biomarker. Tumor-specific and tumor-infiltrating circulating biomarkers have not been compared previously. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We prospectively measured sCD163 and sTARC in 221 samples from 47 patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and 21 healthy participants. Blood was taken at five fixed time-points prior, during, and after first-line therapy. Results were compared with radiological assessment and plasma Epstein-Barr virus DNA (EBV-DNA). Potential sources of circulating CD163 were investigated, along with immunosuppressive properties of CD163. RESULTS: Pretherapy, both sCD163 and sTARC were markedly elevated compared with healthy and complete remission samples. sCD163 better reflected tumor burden during therapy, whereas sTARC had greater value upon completion of therapy. sCD163 correlated with plasma EBV-DNA, and associated with B symptoms, stage, and lymphopenia. Circulating CD163(+) monocytes were elevated in patients, indicating that sCD163 are likely derived from circulating and intratumoral cells. Depletion of cHL CD163(+) monocytes markedly enhanced T-cell proliferation, implicating monocytes and/or TAMs as potential novel targets for immunotherapeutic manipulation. CONCLUSION: The combination of circulating tumor-infiltrate (sCD163) and tumor-specific (sTARC) proteins is more informative than either marker alone as disease response biomarkers in early and advanced disease during first-line therapy for cHL.
Authors: Catherine S Diefenbach; Joseph M Connors; Jonathan W Friedberg; John P Leonard; Brad S Kahl; Richard F Little; Lawrence Baizer; Andrew M Evens; Richard T Hoppe; Kara M Kelly; Daniel O Persky; Anas Younes; Lale Kostakaglu; Nancy L Bartlett Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-12-31 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Zsofia Simon; S Barna; Z Miltenyi; K Husi; F Magyari; A Jona; I Garai; Z Nagy; G Ujj; L Szerafin; A Illes Journal: Int J Hematol Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 2.490
Authors: Sara J McKee; Zewen K Tuong; Takumi Kobayashi; Brianna L Doff; Megan Sf Soon; Michael Nissen; Pui Yeng Lam; Colm Keane; Frank Vari; Davide Moi; Roberta Mazzieri; Graham Leggatt; Maher K Gandhi; Stephen R Mattarollo Journal: Oncoimmunology Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 8.110
Authors: Alison J Moskowitz; Heiko Schöder; Somali Gavane; Katie L Thoren; Martin Fleisher; Joachim Yahalom; Susan J McCall; Briana R Cadzin; Stephanie Y Fox; John Gerecitano; Ravinder Grewal; Paul A Hamlin; Steven M Horwitz; Anita Kumar; Matthew Matasar; Andy Ni; Ariela Noy; M Lia Palomba; Miguel-Angel Perales; Carol S Portlock; Craig Sauter; David Straus; Anas Younes; Andrew D Zelenetz; Craig H Moskowitz Journal: Blood Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Benjamin J Chen; Bjoern Chapuy; Jing Ouyang; Heather H Sun; Margaretha G M Roemer; Mina L Xu; Hongbo Yu; Christopher D M Fletcher; Gordon J Freeman; Margaret A Shipp; Scott J Rodig Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jennifer A Kanakry; Aparna M Hegde; Christine M Durand; Allan B Massie; Amy E Greer; Richard F Ambinder; Alexandra Valsamakis Journal: Blood Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 22.113