3 resultados para crystallization screening data
Resumo:
AIMS: Limited data are available concerning the evolution of the left atrial volume index (LAVI) in pre-heart failure (HF) patients. The aim of this study was to investigate clinical characteristics and serological biomarkers in a cohort with risk factors for HF and evidence of serial atrial dilatation.
METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a prospective substudy within the framework of the STOP-HF cohort (NCT00921960) involving 518 patients with risk factors for HF electively undergoing serial clinical, echocardiographic, and natriuretic peptide assessment. Mean follow-up time between assessments was 15 ± 6 months. 'Progressors' (n = 39) were defined as those with serial LAVI change ≥3.5 mL/m(2) (and baseline LAVI between 20 and 34 mL/m(2)). This cut-off was derived from a calculated reference change value above the biological, analytical, and observer variability of serial LAVI measurement. Multivariate analysis identified significant baseline clinical associates of LAVI progression as increased age, beta-blocker usage, and left ventricular mass index (all P < 0.05). Serological biomarkers were measured in a randomly selected subcohort of 30 'Progressors' matched to 30 'Non-progressors'. For 'Progressors', relative changes in matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP9), tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1 (TIMP1), and the TIMP1/MMP9 ratio, markers of interstitial remodelling, tracked with changes in LAVI over time (all P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Accelerated LAVI increase was found to occur in up to 14% of all pre-HF patients undergoing serial echocardiograms over a relatively short follow-up period. In a randomly selected subcohort of 'Progressors', changes in LAVI were closely linked with alterations in MMP9, TIMP1, and the ratio of these enzymes, a potential aid in highlighting this at-risk group.
Resumo:
INTRODUCTION: EGFR screening requires good quality tissue, sensitivity and turn-around time (TAT). We report our experience of routine screening, describing sample type, TAT, specimen quality (cellularity and DNA yield), histopathological description, mutation result and clinical outcome. METHODS: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) sections were screened for EGFR mutations (M+) in exons 18-21. Clinical, pathological and screening outcome data were collected for year 1 of testing. Screening outcome alone was collected for year 2. RESULTS: In year 1, 152 samples were tested, most (72%) were diagnostic. TAT was 4.9 days (95%confidence interval (CI)=4.5-5.5). EGFR-M+ prevalence was 11% and higher (20%) among never-smoking women with adenocarcinomas (ADCs), but 30% of mutations occurred in current/ex-smoking men. EGFR-M+ tumours were non-mucinous ADCs and 100% thyroid transcription factor (TTF1+). No mutations were detected in poorly differentiated NSCLC-not otherwise specified (NOS). There was a trend for improved overall survival (OS) among EGFR-M+ versus EGFR-M- patients (median OS=78 versus 17 months). In year 1, test failure rate was 19%, and associated with scant cellularity and low DNA concentrations. However 75% of samples with poor cellularity but representative of tumour were informative and mutation prevalence was 9%. In year 2, 755 samples were tested; mutation prevalence was 13% and test failure only 5.4%. Although samples with low DNA concentration (2.2 ng/μL), the mutation rate was 9.2%. CONCLUSION: Routine epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) screening using diagnostic samples is fast and feasible even on samples with poor cellularity and DNA content. Mutations tend to occur in better-differentiated non-mucinous TTF1+ ADCs. Whether these histological criteria may be useful to select patients for EGFR testing merits further investigation.
Resumo:
INTRODUCTION: The presence of ROS proto-oncogene 1, receptor tyrosine kinase gene (ROS1) rearrangements in lung cancers confers sensitivity to ROS kinase inhibitors, including crizotinib. However, they are rare abnormalities (in ∼1% of non-small cell lung carcinomas) that are typically identified by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and so screening using immunohistochemical (IHC) staining would be both cost- and time-efficient.
METHODS: A cohort of lung tumors negative for other common mutations related to targeted therapies were screened to assess the sensitivity and specificity of IHC staining in detecting ROS1 gene rearrangements, enriched by four other cases first identified by FISH. A review of published data was also undertaken.
RESULTS: IHC staining was 100% sensitive (95% confidence interval: 48-100) and 83% specific (95% confidence interval: 86-100) overall when an h-score higher than 100 was used. Patients with ROS1 gene rearrangements were younger and typically never-smokers, with the tumors all being adenocarcinomas with higher-grade architectural features and focal signet ring morphologic features (two of five). Four patients treated with crizotinib showed a partial response, with three also showing a partial response to pemetrexed. Three of four patients remain alive at 13, 27, and 31 months, respectively.
CONCLUSION: IHC staining can be used to screen for ROS1 gene rearrangements, with patients herein showing a response to crizotinib. Patients with tumors that test positive according to IHC staining but negative according to FISH were also identified, which may have implications for treatment selection.