Search

We evaluated the prognostic value of hypoalbuminemia in context of various biomarkers at baseline, including clinical, genomic, transcriptomic, and blood-based markers, in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy or anti-PD-1/anti-CTLA-4 combination therapy (n = 178). An independent validation cohort (n = 79) was used to validate the performance of hypoalbuminemia compared to serum LDH (lactate dehydrogenase) levels. Pre-treatment hypoalbuminemia emerged as the strongest predictor of poor outcome for both OS (HR = 4.01, 95% CI 2.10–7.67, Cox P = 2.63e−05) and PFS (HR = 3.72, 95% CI 2.06–6.73, Cox P = 1.38e−05) in univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, the association of hypoalbuminemia with PFS was independent of serum LDH, IFN-γ signature expression, TMB, age, ECOG PS, treatment line, treatment type (combination or monotherapy), brain and liver metastasis (HR = 2.76, 95% CI 1.24–6.13, Cox P = 0.0131). Our validation cohort confirmed the prognostic power of hypoalbuminemia for OS (HR = 1.98, 95% CI 1.16–3.38; Cox P = 0.0127) and was complementary to serum LDH in analyses for both OS (LDH-adjusted HR = 2.12, 95% CI 1.2–3.72, Cox P = 0.00925) and PFS (LDH-adjusted HR = 1.91, 95% CI 1.08–3.38, Cox P = 0.0261). In conclusion, pretreatment hypoalbuminemia was a powerful predictor of outcome in ICI in melanoma and showed remarkable complementarity to previously established biomarkers, including high LDH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancer vaccines have emerged as a potent strategy to improve cancer immunity, with or without the combination of checkpoint blockade. In our investigation, liposomal formulations containing synthetic long peptides and α-Galactosylceramide, along with a DC-SIGN-targeting ligand, Lewis Y (LeY), were studied for their anti-tumor potential. The formulated liposomes boosted with anti-CD40 adjuvant demonstrated robust invariant natural killer (iNKT), CD4+, and CD8+ T-cell activation in vivo. The incorporation of LeY facilitated the targeting of antigen-presenting cells expressing DC-SIGN in vitro and in vivo. Surprisingly, mice vaccinated with LeY-modified liposomes exhibited comparable tumor reduction and survival rates to those treated with untargeted counterparts despite a decrease in antigen-specific CD8+ T-cell responses. These results suggest that impaired induction of antigen-specific CD8+ T-cells via DC-SIGN targeting does not compromise anti-tumor potential, hinting at alternative immune activation routes beyond CD8+ T-cell activation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tumors in the distal esophagus (EAC), gastro-esophageal junction including cardia (GEJAC), and stomach (GAC) develop in close proximity and show strong similarities on a molecular and cellular level. However, recent clinical data showed that the effectiveness of chemo-immunotherapy is limited to a subset of GEAC patients and that EACs and GEJACs generally benefit less from checkpoint inhibition compared to GACs. As the composition of the tumor immune microenvironment drives response to (immuno)therapy we here performed a detailed immune analysis of a large series of GEACs to facilitate the development of a more individualized immunomodulatory strategy. Methods: Extensive immunophenotyping was performed by 14-color flow cytometry in a prospective study to detail the immune composition of untreated gastro-esophageal cancers (n=104) using fresh tumor biopsies of 35 EACs, 38 GEJACs and 31 GACs. The immune cell composition of GEACs was characterized and correlated with clinicopathologic features such as tumor location, MSI and HER2 status. The spatial immune architecture of a subset of tumors (n=30) was evaluated using multiplex immunohistochemistry (mIHC) which allowed us to determine the tumor infiltration status of CD3+, CD8+, FoxP3+, CD163+ and Ki67+ cells. Results: Immunophenotyping revealed that the tumor immune microenvironment of GEACs is heterogeneous and that immune suppressive cell populations such as monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells (mMDSC) are more abundant in EACs compared to GACs (p<0.001). In contrast, GACs indicated a proinflammatory microenvironment with elevated frequencies of proliferating (Ki67+) CD4 Th cells (p<0.001), Ki67+ CD8 T cells (p=0.002), and CD8 effector memory-T cells (p=0.024). Differences between EACs and GACs were confirmed by mIHC analyses showing lower densities of tumor- and stroma-infiltrating Ki67+ CD8 T cells in EAC compared to GAC (both p=0.021). Discussions: This comprehensive immune phenotype study of a large series of untreated GEACs, identified that tumors with an esophageal tumor location have more immune suppressive features compared to tumors in the gastro-esophageal junction or stomach which might explain the location-specific responses to checkpoint inhibitors in this disease. These findings provide an important rationale for stratification according to tumor location in clinical studies and the development of location-dependent immunomodulatory treatment approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Addition of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition to standard-of-care interventions for locally advanced oral cancer could improve clinical outcome., Methods: In this study, 16 evaluable patients with stage III/IV oral cancer were treated with one dose of 480 mg nivolumab 3 weeks prior to surgery. Primary objectives were safety, feasibility, and suitability of programmed death receptor ligand-1 positron emission tomography (PD-L1 PET) as a biomarker for response. Imaging included 18 F-BMS-986192 (PD-L1) PET and 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET before and after nivolumab treatment. Secondary objectives included clinical and pathological response, and immune profiling of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) for response prediction. Baseline tumor biopsies and postnivolumab resection specimens were evaluated by histopathology., Results: Grade III or higher adverse events were not observed and treatment was not delayed in relation to nivolumab administration and other study procedures. Six patients (38%) had a pathological response, of whom three (19%) had a major (≥90%) pathological response (MPR). Tumor PD-L1 PET uptake (quantified using standard uptake value) was not statistically different in patients with or without MPR (median 5.3 vs 3.4). All major responders showed a significantly postnivolumab decreased signal on FDG PET. PBMC immune phenotyping showed higher levels of CD8 + T cell activation in MPR patients, evidenced by higher baseline expression levels of PD-1, TIGIT, IFNγ and lower levels of PD-L1., Conclusion: Together these data support that neoadjuvant treatment of advanced-stage oral cancers with nivolumab was safe and induced an MPR in a promising 19% of patients. Response was associated with decreased FDG PET uptake as well as activation status of peripheral T cell populations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RvdV has received research funding from Genmab BV. TDdG is scientific advisor to Immunicum, GE Health, and Lava Therapeutics, holds stock from LAVA Therapeutics and received research funding from Idera Pharmaceuticals (now Aceragen). RHB received research grants from KWF Kankerbestrijding/Dutch Cancer Society, Cancer Center Amsterdam Foundation, ZonMW and NWO, Genmab BV and the Hanarth Foundation and is on the advisory board of Nanobiotix. He has a scientific collaboration with Orfenix BV and Qialix DoT. CRL received research grants from KWF Kankerbestrijding/Dutch Cancer Society, Cancer Center Amsterdam Foudation, Genmab BV, BMS and the Hanarth Foundation and is on the advisory board of Merck & Co. CWM-vdHvO received research grants from BMS, Boeringher Ingelheim, GSK, Pfizer and AstraZeneca and consulted for GE Health Care, Novartis and EliLilly. All other authors report no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Tertiary lymphoid structures (TLSs) are thought to stimulate antitumor immunity and positively impact prognosis and response to immune checkpoint blockade. In gastric cancers (GCs), however, TLSs are predominantly found in GC with poor prognosis and limited treatment response. We, therefore, hypothesize that immune cell composition and function of TLS depends on tumor location and the tumor immune environment., Methods: Spatial transcriptomics and immunohistochemistry were used to characterize the phenotype of CD45 + immune cells inside and outside of TLS using archival resection specimens from GC primary tumors and peritoneal metastases., Results: We identified significant intrapatient and interpatient diversity of the cellular composition and maturation status of TLS in GC. Tumor location (primary vs metastatic site) accounted for the majority of differences in TLS maturity, as TLS in peritoneal metastases were predominantly immature. This was associated with higher levels of tumor-infiltrating macrophages and Tregs and less plasma cells compared with tumors with mature TLS. Furthermore, mature TLSs were characterized by overexpression of antitumor immune pathways such as B cell-related pathways, MHC class II antigen presentation while immature TLS were associated with protumor pathways, including T cell exhaustion and enhancement of DNA repair pathways in the corresponding cancer., Conclusion: The observation that GC-derived peritoneal metastases often contain immature TLS which are associated with immune suppressive regulatory tumor-infiltrating leucocytes, is in keeping with the lack of response to immune checkpoint blockade and the poor prognostic features of peritoneal metastatic GC, which needs to be taken into account when optimizing immunomodulatory strategies for metastatic GC., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can elicit anticancer immune responses, but predictive biomarkers are needed. We measured programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in organs and lymph nodes using 18 F-BMS-986192 positron emission tomography (PET)-imaging and looked for correlations with response and immune-related adverse events., Methods: Four 18 F-BMS-986192 PET studies in patients with melanoma, lung, pancreatic and oral cancer, receiving ICI treatment, were combined. Imaging data (organ standardized uptake value (SUV) mean , lymph node SUV max ) and clinical data (response to treatment and incidence of immune-related adverse events) were extracted., Results: Baseline PD-L1 uptake in the spleen was on average higher in non-responding patients than in responders (spleen SUV mean 16.1±4.4 vs 12.5±3.4, p=0.02). This effect was strongest in lung cancer, and not observed in oral cancer. In the oral cancer cohort, benign tumor-draining lymph nodes (TDLNs) had higher PD-L1 uptake (SUV max 3.3 IQR 2.5-3.9) compared with non-TDLNs (SUV max 1.8, IQR 1.4-2.8 p=0.04). Furthermore, in the same cohort non-responders showed an increase in PD-L1 uptake in benign TDLNs on-treatment with ICIs (+15%), while for responders the PD-L1 uptake decreased (-11%). PD-L1 uptake did not predict immune-related adverse events, though elevated thyroid uptake on-treatment correlated with pre-existing thyroid disease or toxicity., Conclusion: PD-L1 PET uptake in the spleen is a potential negative predictor of response to ICIs. On-treatment with ICIs, PD-L1 uptake in benign TDLNs increases in non-responders, while it decreases in responders, potentially indicating a mechanism for resistance to ICIs in patients with oral cancer., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RvdV: Research funding for Institute: Genmab B.V. TDdG: Research funding for Institute: Idera Pharmaceuticals (now Aceragen); Consultancy: GE Health, LAVA Therapeutics, Mendus (all to Institute); holds stocks from LAVA Therapeutics. GAPH: Research funding for Institute: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Seerave. Consultancy/advisory relationships with Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre. AJdL: Research funding for Institute: Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca. Non-financial support from Merck Serono, non-financial support from Roche. CWM-vdHvO: Research funding for Institute: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Pfizer; AstraZeneca. Consultancy: GE Health Care, Novartis, Eli Lilly. IHCM, JEEP, AK, GJCZ, MCH, FEFT: No competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Colorectal cancer (CRC) raises considerable clinical challenges, including a high mortality rate once the tumor spreads to distant sites. At this advanced stage, more accurate prediction of prognosis and treatment outcome is urgently needed. The role of cancer immunity in metastatic CRC (mCRC) is poorly understood. Here, we explore cellular immune cell status in patients with multi-organ mCRC. We analyzed T cell infiltration in primary tumor sections, surveyed the lymphocytic landscape of liver metastases, and assessed circulating mononuclear immune cells. Besides asking whether immune cells are associated with survival at this stage of the disease, we investigated correlations between the different tissue types; as this could indicate a dominant immune phenotype. Taken together, our analyses corroborate previous observations that higher levels of CD8+ T lymphocytes link to better survival outcomes. Our findings therefore extend evidence from earlier stages of CRC to indicate an important role for cancer immunity in disease control even after metastatic spreading to multiple organs. This finding may help to improve predicting outcome of patients with mCRC and suggests a future role for immunotherapeutic strategies., Competing Interests: TdG received research funding from Idera Pharmaceuticals, consultancy fees from LAVA Therapeutics, GE Health, and Mendus, and holds stocks from LAVA Therapeutics. Other authors declare no potential conflicts of interest., (© 2024 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.)

Background: Intratumorally delivered immunotherapies have the potential to favorably alter the local tumor microenvironment and may stimulate systemic host immunity, offering an alternative or adjunct to other local and systemic treatments. Despite their potential, these therapies have had limited success in late-phase trials for advanced cancer resulting in few formal approvals. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to determine how to design clinical trials with the greatest chance of demonstrating the benefits of intratumoral immunotherapy for patients with cancers across all stages of pathogenesis., Methods: An Intratumoral Immunotherapy Clinical Trials Expert Panel composed of international key stakeholders from academia and industry was assembled. A multiple choice/free response survey was distributed to the panel, and the results of this survey were discussed during a half-day consensus meeting. Key discussion points are summarized in the following manuscript., Results: The panel determined unique clinical trial designs tailored to different stages of cancer development-from premalignant to unresectable/metastatic-that can maximize the chance of capturing the effect of intratumoral immunotherapies. Design elements discussed included study type, patient stratification and exclusion criteria, indications of randomization, study arm determination, endpoints, biological sample collection, and response assessment with biomarkers and imaging. Populations to prioritize for the study of intratumoral immunotherapy, including stage, type of cancer and line of treatment, were also discussed along with common barriers to the development of these local treatments., Conclusions: The SITC Intratumoral Immunotherapy Clinical Trials Expert Panel has identified key considerations for the design and implementation of studies that have the greatest potential to capture the effect of intratumorally delivered immunotherapies. With more effective and standardized trial designs, the potential of intratumoral immunotherapy can be realized and lead to regulatory approvals that will extend the benefit of these local treatments to the patients who need them the most., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JJL: Researcher: AbbVie, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvus, Day 1, EMD Serono, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena, Immatics, Incyte, Kadmon, KAHR, Macrogenics, Merck, Moderna, Nektar, Next Cure, Numab, Palleon, Pfizer, Replimmune, Rubius, Servier, Scholar Rock, Synlogic, Takeda, Trishula, Tizona, XencorConsultant/Advisor/Speaker: Abbvie, Agenus, Alnylam, Atomwise, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Castle, Checkmate, Codiak, Crown, Cugene, Curadev, Day One, Eisai, EMD Serono, Endeavor, Flame, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead, Glenmark, HotSpot, Kadmon, KSQ, Janssen, Ikena, Inzen, Immatics, Immunocore, Incyte, Instil, IO Biotech, Macrogenics, Merck, Mersana, Nektar, Novartis, Partner, Pfizer, Pioneering Medicines, PsiOxus, Regeneron, Replimmune, Ribon, Roivant, Servier, STINGthera, Synlogic, Synthekine, 7 Hills, Affivant, Bright Peak, Exo, Fstar, Inzen, RefleXion, Xilio (stock) Actym, Alphamab Oncology, Arch Oncology, Duke Street Bio, Kanaph, Mavu, NeoTx, Onc.AI, OncoNano, physIQ, Pyxis, Saros, STipe, Tempest, Abbvie, Agenus, Amgen, Immutep, Evaxion. DD: Grants/Research Support (institutional): Arcus, Immunocore, Merck, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Tesaro/GSK. Consultant: ACM Bio, Ascendis, Castle, Clinical Care Options (CCO), Gerson Lehrman Group (GLG), Immunitas, Medical Learning Group (MLG), Replimmune, Trisalus, Xilio Therapeutics. CE Speakers’ Bureau: Castle Biosciences. Stockholder: None. Intellectual Property: US Patent 63/124,231, "Compositions and Methods for Treating Cancer", December 11, 2020 US Patent 63/208,719, "Compositions and Methods For Responsiveness to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICI), Increasing Effectiveness of ICI and Treating Cancer", June 9, 2021. AM: Owner: HiFiBio, Deka Bio, Hotspot Therapeutics, Shattuck Labs, Researcher: Astra Zeneca, BMS, Sanofi, Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Gritstone, Innate Pharma, Neogene, Deka Bio, Hotspot therapeutics, J&J, Medicxi, Depth Charge, BiolineRx, Clover Pharma, Grey Wolf, Lytix, RedX, HiFiBio, ImCheck, Applied Materials, Takeda, Shattuck Labs, Marengo therapeutics, Pierre Fabre, Third Rock Ventures, SotioPublicly Traded Stocks: Centessa. RHA–Employee: Seven & Eight Biopharmaceuticals. Ownership Interest Less Than 5 Percent: Seven & Eight Biopharmaceuticals. NB: Consulting Fees: Novartis, Apricity, Rome Therapeutics, BreakBio, Carisma Therapeutics, CureVac, BioNTech, Gilead, Tempest Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Contracted Research: Regeneron Pharmaceutics, Dragonfly Therapeutics, Harbour Biomed Sciences, Ownership Interest Less Than 5 Percent: BreakBio, Apricity. JDB: Researcher: Merck, Genentech, Astrazeneca, Kite/Gilead, BMS, Celldex, Oncovir, Seattle Genetics, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Merck, Genentech, Astrazeneca, Kite/Gilead, BMS, Seattle Genetics, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, Asgaard Therapeutics, Global BioAccess, SIRPant Immunotherapeutics. JC: Executive Role: UofL Health, Researcher: Amgen, Iovance, Fate, Replimune, Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Replimune advisory board 2020-21, Royalties or Patent Beneficiary: US Patents: University of Louisville. RC: Employee: Replimune. TdB: Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Terumo, Boston Scientific, Astra Zeneca, Nanobiotix, Quantum Surgical, Guerbet, Cook medical, Johnson & Johnson. TDdG: Patents: (1) The use of cytostatics for the accelerated differentiation of DC; WO2009019320-A2; WO2009019320-A3; AU2008285598-A1; EP2281030-A2; CA2724018-A1; US2011117051-A1. US8,470,789B2; DCprime BV. (2) Immunoglobulins binding human Vγ9VÎ’2 T cell receptors; P31885NL00. Consulting Fees: Mendus (formerly Immunicum, formerly DCPrime BV), Partner Therapeutics, GE Health, LAVA Therapeutics, Contracted Research: Idera Pharmaceuticals, Macrophage Parma, Ownership Interest Less Than 5 Percent: LAVA Therapeutics. MGF: Employee: Regeneron. GVG: Employee: Merck. Publicly Traded Stocks: Immunogen, Aveo, Beta Bionics. KJH: Researcher: AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Replimune, Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Arch Oncology, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Codiak, Eisai, Inzen, Merck-Serono, MSD, Oncolys, Pfizer, Replimune. HK: Employee: Ankyra Therapeutics. Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Castle Biosciences, Marengo Therapeutics. CMK: Researcher: Amgen, Merck & Co., Kartos Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eily lilly, Blueprint Medicines, Incyte Corporation, Clovis Oncology, BMS, Aadi Bioscience, Pfizer, Iterion Therapeutics, Springworks Therapeutics, Nektar Therapeutics, GSK, Adaptimmune, Medimmune, Bioatla, Oncternal Therapeutics, Daiichi- Sankyo Co. Traycon Pharm, Eisai. Ascentage Pharma, Hutchison Medipharma, Salarius Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, -BTG Specialty Pharmaceuticals, AStex Pharmaceuticals, Xencor, bayer healthcare, Athenex pharmaceuticals, servier, K- group Beta, Trilliium Pharmaceuticals, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Ningbo Newbay Technology Development, Rain Therapeutics, Inhibrx, C4 Therapeutics, Foghorn Therapeutics, Theseus Pharmaceuticals, Cogent Therapeutics, Curadev PharmaRegeneron, Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Chemocentryx, Kartos, Servier, Immunicom, Other: Spouse employed by Daichii Sankyo with stock options. ADK: Employee: Merck. KL: Employee: Marengo Therapeutics. SL: Executive Role: Big Against Cancer (Belgium), Breast Cancer Trials (Australia), International Breast Cancer Study Group (Switzerland) Researcher: Research funding to institution from Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Merck, Puma Biotechnology, Eli Lilly, Nektar Therapeutics, Astra Zeneca, Roche-Genentech and Seattle Genetics, Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Consultant (not compensated) to Seattle Genetics, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Gilead Therapeutics and Roche-Genentech. Consultant (paid to institution) to Aduro Biotech, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche-Genentech, Astra Zeneca, Silverback Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, PUMA Biotechnologies, Pfizer, Gilead Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Amunix, Tallac Therapeutics, Eli Lilly and Bristol Meyers Squibb, Role: Presenter (Speaker). GVL: Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Consultant Advisor for Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca UK, Boehringer Ingelheim International, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion Biotech A/S, Hexal AG (Sandoz Company), Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Innovent Biologics USA, Merck Sharpe & Dohme (Australia), Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis Pharma AG, PHMR, Pierre Fabre, Provectus Australia, Qbiotics Group Limited, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. IM: Consulting Fees: Bristol-Myers Squibb, F-STAR, Alligator, Pharma Mar, AstraZeneca, Numab Therapeutics, Roche, Amunix, Gossamer, Molecular Partners, Merck-Serono, Genmab, PharmaMar, Contracted Research: Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Highlight Therapeutics, Alligator, Genmab, Astrazeneca. MRM: Researcher : Roche, Astrazeneca, Novartis, Immunocore, BMS, Pfizer, Merck/MSD, Regeneron, BiolineRx, Replimune, GRAIL, Alkermes, iOx, Vaccitech, Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Infinitopes. BN: Researcher: As a principal investigator for clinical trials sponsored by UZ Brussel, my institution received support from Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, BMS, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, Amgen, Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: Novartis, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Amgen. DJP: Consulting Fees: ViiV Healthcare, Bayer, Hoffman La Roche, EISAI, H3B, MiNa Alpha Therapeutics, DaVolterra, Fees for Non CE Services: Hoffmann La Roche, EISAI, Contracted Research: Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb (to institution). RAS: Researcher: Boston ScientificConsultant/Advisor/Speaker: Cook Medical, TriSalus, Replimune, Medtronic. SBS: Owner: Aperture Medical Technology, Executive Role: Aperture Medical Technology, Researcher: GE Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson, Elesta, Consultant/Advisor/Speaker: GE Healthcare, XACT Robotics, Microbot, Candel Therapeutics, Varian, Merck & Co., Royalty and Patent Beneficiary: Aperture Medical Technology, Publicly Traded Stocks: Johnson & Johnson, Poseidx Therapeutics, Motus GI, Sientra, Avadel, Lantheus. PS: Employee: Johnson & Johnson, Publicly Traded Stocks: Johnson & Johnson. SITC staff members SMW, CG, AK, NL, EG and KJ have no disclosures., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)