Search

The rationale for therapeutic targeting of Vδ2 + γδ T cells in breast cancer is strongly supported by in vitro and murine preclinical investigations, characterizing them as potent breast tumor cell killers and source of Th1-related cytokines, backing cytotoxic αβ T cells. Nonetheless, insights regarding Vδ2 + γδ T cell phenotypic alterations in human breast cancers are still lacking. This paucity of information is partly due to the challenging scarcity of these cells in surgical specimens. αβ T cell phenotypic alterations occurring in the tumor bed are detectable in the periphery and correlate with adverse clinical outcomes. Thus, we sought to determine through an exploratory study whether Vδ2 + γδ T cells phenotypic changes can be detected within breast cancer patients' peripheral blood, along with association with tumor progression. By using mass cytometry, we quantified 130 immune variables from untreated breast cancer patients' peripheral blood. Supervised analyses and dimensionality reduction algorithms evidenced circulating Vδ2 + γδ T cell phenotypic alterations already established at diagnosis. Foremost, terminally differentiated Vδ2 + γδ T cells displaying phenotypes of exhausted senescent T cells associated with lymph node involvement. Thereby, our results support Vδ2 + γδ T cells implication in breast cancer pathogenesis and progression, besides shedding light on liquid biopsies to monitor surrogate markers of tumor-infiltrating Vδ2 + γδ T cell antitumor activity.

The objective of the study was to identify all parallel design randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for eczema in recent dermatology literature that have failed to report a between-group analysis. The GREAT database (www.greatdatabase.org.uk) was searched to identify parallel group RCTs comparing two or more interventions published in the English language in the last decade, 2004 to 2013. The primary outcome was the number of studies that had not reported a between-group analysis for any of the outcomes. Where possible we re-analysed the data to determine whether a between-group analysis would have given a different conclusion to that reported. Out of a total of 304 RCTs in the study period, 173 (56.9%) met the inclusion criteria. Of the 173 eligible studies, 12 (6.9%) had not conducted a between-group analysis for any of the reported outcomes. There was no clear improvement over time. Five of the eight studies that were re-analysed yielded non-significant between-group differences yet reported significant within-group comparisons. All but one of the 12 studies implied that the experimental intervention was successful despite not undertaking any between-group comparisons. Although the proportion of all RCTs that fail to report an appropriate between-group analysis is small, the fact that any scientist who purports to compare one treatment against another then chooses to omit the key comparison statistic is worrying.