Photodynamic therapy with mTHPC and polyethylene glycol-derived mTHPC: a comparative study on human tumour xenografts.

The photosensitizing properties of m-tetrahydroxyphenylchlorin (mTHPC) and polyethylene glycol-derivatized mTHPC (pegylated mTHPC) were compared in nude mice bearing human malignant mesothelioma, squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma xenografts. Laser light (20 J/cm2) at 652 nm was delivered to the tumour (surface irradiance) and to an equal-sized area of the hind leg of the animals after i.p. administration of 0.1 mg/kg body weight mTHPC and an equimolar dose of pegylated mTHPC, respectively. The extent of tumour necrosis and normal tissue injury was assessed by histology. Both mTHPC and pegylated mTHPC catalyse photosensitized necrosis in mesothelioma xenografts at drug-light intervals of 1-4 days. The onset of action of pegylated mTHPC seemed slower but significantly exceeds that of mTHPC by days 3 and 4 with the greatest difference being noted at day 4. Pegylated mTHPC also induced significantly larger photonecrosis than mTHPC in squamous cell xenografts but not in adenocarcinoma at day 4, where mTHPC showed greatest activity. The degree of necrosis induced by pegylated mTHPC was the same for all three xenografts. mTHPC led to necrosis of skin and underlying muscle at a drug-light interval of 1 day but minor histological changes only at drug-light intervals from 2-4 days. In contrast, pegylated mTHPC did not result in histologically detectable changes in normal tissues under the same treatment conditions at any drug-light interval assessed. In this study, pegylated mTHPC had advantages as a photosensitizer compared to mTHPC. Tissue concentrations of mTHPC and pegylated mTHPC were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography in non-irradiated animals 4 days after administration. There was no significant difference in tumour uptake between the two sensitizers in mesothelioma, adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma xenografts. Tissue concentration measurements were of limited use for predicting photosensitization in this model.

Primary localized rectal/pararectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors: results of surgical and multimodal therapy from the French Sarcoma group.

BACKGROUND: Rectal and pararectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare. The optimal management strategy for primary localized GISTs remains poorly defined. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 41 patients with localized rectal or pararectal GISTs treated between 1991 and 2011 in 13 French Sarcoma Group centers. RESULTS: Of 12 patients who received preoperative imatinib therapy for a median duration of 7 (2-12) months, 8 experienced a partial response, 3 had stable disease, and 1 had a complete response. Thirty and 11 patients underwent function-sparing conservative surgery and abdominoperineal resection, respectively. Tumor resections were mostly R0 and R1 in 35 patients. Tumor rupture occurred in 12 patients. Eleven patients received postoperative imatinib with a median follow-up of 59 (2.4-186) months. The median time to disease relapse was 36 (9.8-62) months. The 5-year overall survival rate was 86.5%. Twenty patients developed local recurrence after surgery alone, two developed recurrence after resection combined with preoperative and/or postoperative imatinib, and eight developed metastases. In univariate analysis, the mitotic index (≤5) and tumor size (≤5 cm) were associated with a significantly decreased risk of local relapse. Perioperative imatinib was associated with a significantly reduced risk of overall relapse and local relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative imatinib therapy was associated with improved disease-free survival. Preoperative imatinib was effective. Tumor shrinkage has a clear benefit for local excision in terms of feasibility and function preservation. Given the complexity of rectal GISTs, referral of patients with this rare disease to expert centers to undergo a multidisciplinary approach is recommended.

Scores to predict major bleeding risk during oral anticoagulation therapy: a prospective validation study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical scores may help physicians to better assess the individual risk/benefit of oral anticoagulant therapy. We aimed to externally validate and compare the prognostic performance of 7 clinical prediction scores for major bleeding events during oral anticoagulation therapy. METHODS: We followed 515 adult patients taking oral anticoagulants to measure the first major bleeding event over a 12-month follow-up period. The performance of each score to predict the risk of major bleeding and the physician's subjective assessment of bleeding risk were compared with the C statistic. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of a first major bleeding event during follow-up was 6.8% (35/515). According to the 7 scoring systems, the proportions of major bleeding ranged from 3.0% to 5.7% for low-risk, 6.7% to 9.9% for intermediate-risk, and 7.4% to 15.4% for high-risk patients. The overall predictive accuracy of the scores was poor, with the C statistic ranging from 0.54 to 0.61 and not significantly different from each other (P=.84). Only the Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation score performed slightly better than would be expected by chance (C statistic, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.70). The performance of the scores was not statistically better than physicians' subjective risk assessments (C statistic, 0.55; P=.94). CONCLUSION: The performance of 7 clinical scoring systems in predicting major bleeding events in patients receiving oral anticoagulation therapy was poor and not better than physicians' subjective assessments.

Ambulatory blood pressure measurement and antihypertensive therapy.

The traditional basis for assessing the effect of antihypertensive therapy is the blood pressure reading taken by a physician. However, several recent trials have been designed to evaluate the blood pressure lowering effect of various therapeutic agents during the patients' normal daytime activities, using a portable, semi-automatic blood pressure recorder. The results have shown that in a given patient, blood pressure measured at the physician's office often differs greatly from that prevailing during the rest of the day. This is true both in treated and untreated hypertensive patients. The difference between office and ambulatory recorded pressures cannot be predicted from blood pressure levels measured by the physician. Therefore, a prospective study was carried out in patients with diastolic blood pressures that were uncontrolled at the physician's office despite antihypertensive therapy. The purpose was to evaluate the response of recorded ambulatory blood pressure to treatment adjustments aimed at reducing office blood pressure below a pre-set target level. Only patients with high ambulatory blood pressures at the outset appeared to benefit from further changes in therapy. Thus, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring can be used to identify those patients who remain hypertensive only when facing the physician, despite antihypertensive therapy. Ambulatory monitoring could thus help to evaluate the efficacy of antihypertensive therapy and allow individual treatment.