The dysregulated expression of immune checkpoint molecules enables cancer cells to evade immune destruction. While blockade of inhibitory immune checkpoints like PD-L1 forms the basis of current ca...Show moreThe dysregulated expression of immune checkpoint molecules enables cancer cells to evade immune destruction. While blockade of inhibitory immune checkpoints like PD-L1 forms the basis of current cancer immunotherapies, a deficiency in costimulatory signals can render these therapies futile. CD58, a costimulatory ligand, plays a crucial role in antitumor immune responses, but the mechanisms controlling its expression remain unclear. Using two systematic approaches, we reveal that CMTM6 positively regulates CD58 expression. Notably, CMTM6 interacts with both CD58 and PD-L1, maintaining the expression of these two immune checkpoint ligands with opposing functions. Functionally, the presence of CMTM6 and CD58 on tumor cells significantly affects T cell-tumor interactions and response to PD-L1−PD-1 blockade. Collectively, these findings provide fundamental insights into CD58 regulation, uncover a shared regulator of stimulatory and inhibitory immune checkpoints, and highlight the importance of tumor-intrinsic CMTM6 and CD58 expression in antitumor immune responses. Show less
Objectives Several patient factors have been described to influence access to optimal cancer care like socioeconomic factors or place of residence. In this study, we investigate whether data... Show moreObjectives Several patient factors have been described to influence access to optimal cancer care like socioeconomic factors or place of residence. In this study, we investigate whether data routinely collected in a clinical cancer registry can be used to identify populations of lung cancer patients with increased risk of not receiving optimal cancer care.Methods We analysed data of 837 lung cancer patients extracted from the clinical cancer registry of a German university hospital. We compared patient populations by two indicators of optimal care, namely implementation of tumour board meeting recommendations as well as the timeliness of care.Results There was a high rate of implementation of tumour board meeting recommendations of 94.4%. Reasons for non-implementation were mainly a patient's own wish or a worsening of the health situation. Of all patient parameters, only tumour stage was associated with the two optimal care indicators.Conclusion Using routine data from a clinical cancer registry, we were not able to identify patient populations at risk of not getting optimal care and the implementation of guideline-conform care appeared to be very high in this setting. However, limitations were the ambiguity of optimal care indicators and availability of parameters predictive for patients' vulnerability. Show less
