No abstract

No abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the global pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2, has resulted thus far in greater than 933,000 deaths worldwide; yet disease pathogenesis remains unclear. Clinical and immunological features of patients with COVID-19 have highlighted a potential role for changes in immune activity in regulating disease severity. However, little is known about the responses in human lung tissue, the primary site of infection. Here we show that pathways related to neutrophil activation and pulmonary fibrosis are among the major up-regulated transcriptional signatures in lung tissue obtained from patients who died of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. Strikingly, the viral burden was low in all samples, which suggests that the patient deaths may be related to the host response rather than an active fulminant infection. Examination of the colonic transcriptome of these patients suggested that SARS-CoV-2 impacted host responses even at a site with no obvious pathogenesis. Further proteomics analysis validated our transcriptome findings and identified several key proteins, such as the SARS-CoV-2 entry-associated protease cathepsins B and L and the inflammatory response modulator S100A8/A9, that are highly expressed in fatal cases, revealing potential drug targets for COVID-19.

No abstract

PURPOSE To assess the benefits of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors as neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapies in locally advanced EGFR mutation-positive non–small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was a multicenter (17 centers in China), open-label, phase II, randomized controlled trial of erlotinib versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC chemotherapy) as neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy in patients with stage IIIA-N2 non–small-cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations in exon 19 or 21 (EMERGING). Patients received erlotinib 150 mg/d (neoadjuvant therapy, 42 days; adjuvant therapy, up to 12 months) or gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 (neoadjuvant therapy, two cycles; adjuvant therapy, up to two cycles). Assessments were performed at 6 weeks and every 3 months postsurgery. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1; secondary end points were pathologic complete response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS Of 386 patients screened, 72 were randomly assigned to treatment (intention-to-treat population), and 71 were included in the safety analysis (one patient withdrew before treatment). The ORR for neoadjuvant erlotinib versus GC chemotherapy was 54.1% versus 34.3% (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.87 to 5.84; P = .092). No pathologic complete response was identified in either arm. Three (9.7%) of 31 patients and zero of 23 patients in the erlotinib and GC chemotherapy arms, respectively, had a major pathologic response. Median PFS was significantly longer with erlotinib (21.5 months) versus GC chemotherapy (11.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.67; P < .001). Observed adverse events reflected those most commonly seen with the two treatments. CONCLUSION The primary end point of ORR with 42 days of neoadjuvant erlotinib was not met, but the secondary end point PFS was significantly improved.