Minding metals: tailoring multifunctional chelating agents for neurodegenerative disease.

Neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease are associated with elevated levels of iron, copper, and zinc and consequentially high levels of oxidative stress. Given the multifactorial nature of these diseases, it is becoming evident that the next generation of therapies must have multiple functions to combat multiple mechanisms of disease progression. Metal-chelating agents provide one such function as an intervention for ameliorating metal-associated damage in degenerative diseases. Targeting chelators to adjust localized metal imbalances in the brain, however, presents significant challenges. In this perspective, we focus on some noteworthy advances in the area of multifunctional metal chelators as potential therapeutic agents for neurodegenerative diseases. In addition to metal chelating ability, these agents also contain features designed to improve their uptake across the blood-brain barrier, increase their selectivity for metals in damage-prone environments, increase antioxidant capabilities, lower Abeta peptide aggregation, or inhibit disease-associated enzymes such as monoamine oxidase and acetylcholinesterase.

Prostate biopsy in selecting candidates for hemiablative focal therapy.

Focal therapy (FT) for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) is growing from a concept to reality because of increased interest of both patients and physicians. Selection protocols, however, are yet to be established. We discuss the role of prostate biopsy in candidate selection for FT and highlight the different strategies and technical aspects of the use of prostate biopsy in this setting. In our opinion, prostate biopsy plays a major role in the selection process and tailoring appropriate treatment strategy to the patient. FT necessitates dedicated biopsy schemes that would reliably predict the extent, nature, and location of PCa in selected patients. Currently, there is insufficient scientific evidence to propose a specific biopsy scheme that could fit every candidate, providing accurate characterization of the disease in the individual patient. Further research is necessary to establish solid selection protocols that would reliably identify appropriate candidates for FT of PCa.

Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews.

BACKGROUND: When the nature and direction of research results affect their chances of publication, a distortion of the evidence base - termed publication bias - results. Despite considerable recent efforts to implement measures to reduce the non-publication of trials, publication bias is still a major problem in medical research. The objective of our study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to prevent or reduce publication bias. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the scholarly literature and extracted data from articles. Further, we performed semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. We performed an inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 39 articles. Thirty-four of 89 invited interview partners agreed to be interviewed. We clustered interventions into four categories: prospective trial registration, incentives for reporting in peer-reviewed journals or research reports, public availability of individual patient-level data, and peer-review/editorial processes. Barriers we identified included economic and personal interests, lack of financial resources for a global comprehensive trial registry, and different legal systems. Facilitators identified included: raising awareness of the effects of publication bias, providing incentives to make data publically available, and implementing laws to enforce prospective registration and reporting of clinical trial results. CONCLUSIONS: Publication bias is a complex problem that reflects the complex system in which it occurs. The cooperation amongst stakeholders to increase public awareness of the problem, better tailoring of incentives to publish, and ultimately legislative regulations have the greatest potential for reducing publication bias.

Similar prevalence and magnitude of auditory-evoked and visually evoked activity in the frontal eye fields: implications for multisensory motor control.

Saccadic eye movements can be elicited by more than one type of sensory stimulus. This implies substantial transformations of signals originating in different sense organs as they reach a common motor output pathway. In this study, we compared the prevalence and magnitude of auditory- and visually evoked activity in a structure implicated in oculomotor processing, the primate frontal eye fields (FEF). We recorded from 324 single neurons while 2 monkeys performed delayed saccades to visual or auditory targets. We found that 64% of FEF neurons were active on presentation of auditory targets and 87% were active during auditory-guided saccades, compared with 75 and 84% for visual targets and saccades. As saccade onset approached, the average level of population activity in the FEF became indistinguishable on visual and auditory trials. FEF activity was better correlated with the movement vector than with the target location for both modalities. In summary, the large proportion of auditory-responsive neurons in the FEF, the similarity between visual and auditory activity levels at the time of the saccade, and the strong correlation between the activity and the saccade vector suggest that auditory signals undergo tailoring to match roughly the strength of visual signals present in the FEF, facilitating accessing of a common motor output pathway.

Utility of a molecular prescreening program in advanced colorectal cancer for enrollment on biomarker-selected clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Incorporation of multiple enrichment biomarkers into prospective clinical trials is an active area of investigation, but the factors that determine clinical trial enrollment following a molecular prescreening program have not been assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with 5-fluorouracil-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer at the MD Anderson Cancer Center were offered screening in the Assessment of Targeted Therapies Against Colorectal Cancer (ATTACC) program to identify eligibility for companion phase I or II clinical trials with a therapy targeted to an aberration detected in the patient, based on testing by immunohistochemistry, targeted gene sequencing panels, and CpG island methylation phenotype assays. RESULTS: Between August 2010 and December 2013, 484 patients were enrolled, 458 (95%) had a biomarker result, and 157 (32%) were enrolled on a clinical trial (92 on biomarker-selected and 65 on nonbiomarker selected). Of the 458 patients with a biomarker result, enrollment on biomarker-selected clinical trials was ninefold higher for predefined ATTACC-companion clinical trials as opposed to nonpredefined biomarker-selected clinical trials, 17.9% versus 2%, P < 0.001. Factors that correlated positively with trial enrollment in multivariate analysis were higher performance status, older age, lack of standard of care therapy, established patient at MD Anderson, and the presence of an eligible biomarker for an ATTACC-companion study. Early molecular screening did result in a higher rate of patients with remaining standard of care therapy enrolling on ATTACC-companion clinical trials, 45.1%, in contrast to nonpredefined clinical trials, 22.7%; odds ratio 3.1, P = 0.002. CONCLUSIONS: Though early molecular prescreening for predefined clinical trials resulted in an increase rate of trial enrollment of nonrefractory patients, the majority of patients enrolled on clinical trials were refractory to standard of care therapy. Within molecular prescreening programs, tailoring screening for preidentified and open clinical trials, temporally linking screening to treatment and optimizing both patient and physician engagement are efforts likely to improve enrollment on biomarker-selected clinical trials. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: The study NCT number is NCT01196130.