Clinical End Points and Response Criteria in Mycosis Fungoides and Sezary Syndrome: A Consensus Statement of the International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas, the United States Cutaneous Lymphoma Consortium, and the Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

Mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sezary syndrome (SS), the major forms of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, have unique characteristics that distinguish them from other types of non-Hodgkin`s lymphomas. Clinical trials in MF/SS have suffered from a lack of standardization in evaluation, staging, assessment, end points, and response criteria. Recently defined criteria for the diagnosis of early MF, guidelines for initial evaluation, and revised staging and classification criteria for MF and SS now offer the potential for uniform staging of patients enrolled in clinical trials for MF/SS. This article presents consensus recommendations for the general conduct of clinical trials of patients with MF/SS as well as methods for standardized assessment of potential disease manifestations in skin, lymph nodes, blood, and visceral organs, and definition of end points and response criteria. These guidelines should facilitate collaboration among investigators and collation of data from sponsor-generated or investigator-initiated clinical trials involving patients with MF or SS. J Clin Oncol 29:2598-2607. (C) 2011 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

The Provisional Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation/American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism disease activity core set for the evaluation of response to therapy in juvenile dermatomyositis: A prospective validation study

Objective. To validate a core set of outcome measures for the evaluation of response to treatment in patients with juvenile dermatomyositis (DM). Methods. In 2001, a preliminary consensus-derived core set for evaluating response to therapy in juvenile DM was established. In the present study, the core set was validated through an evidence-based, large-scale data collection that led to the enrollment of 294 patients from 36 countries. Consecutive patients with active disease were assessed at baseline and after 6 months. The validation procedures included assessment of feasibility, responsiveness, discriminant and construct ability, concordce in the evaluation of response to therapy between physicians and parents, redundancy, internal consistency, and ability to predict a therapeutic response. Results. The following clinical measures were found to be feasible, and to have good construct validity, discriminative ability, and internal consistency; furthermore, they were not redundant, proved responsive to clinically important changes in disease activity, and were associated strongly with treatment outcome and thus were included in the final core set: 1) physician`s global assessment of disease activity, 2) muscle strength, 3) global disease activity measure, 4) parent`s global assessment of patient`s well-being, 5) functional ability, and 6) health-related quality of life. Conclusion. The members of the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation, with the endorsement of the American College of Rheumatology and the European Leauge Against Rheumatism, propose a core set of criteria for the evaluation of response of therapy that is scientifically and clinically relevant and statistically validated. The core set will help standardize the conduct and reporting of clinical trials and assist practitioners in deciding whether a child with juvenile DM has responded adequately to therapy.

Occlusal outcomes and efficiency of 1-and 2-phase protocols in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the occlusal outcomes and the efficiency of 1-phase and 2-phase treatment protocols in Class II Division 1 malocclusions. Treatment efficiency was defined as a change in the occlusal characteristics in a shorter treatment time. Methods: Class II Division 1 subjects ( n = 139) were divided into 2 groups according to the treatment protocol for Class II correction. Group 1 comprised 78 patients treated with a 1-phase treatment protocol at initial and final mean ages of 12.51 and 14.68 years. Group 2 comprised 61 patients treated with a 2-phase treatment protocol at initial and final mean ages of 11.21 and 14.70 years. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken at the pretreatment stage to evaluate morphological differences in the groups. The initial and final study models of the patients were evaluated by using the peer assessment rating index. Chi-square tests were used to test for differences between the 2 groups for categorical variables. Variables regarding occlusal results were compared by using independent t tests. A linear regression analysis was completed, with total treatment time as the dependent variable, to identify clinical factors that predict treatment length for patients with Class II malocclusions. Results: Similar occlusal outcomes were obtained between the 1-phase and the 2-phase treatment protocols, but the duration of treatment was significantly shorter in the 1-phase treatment protocol group. Conclusions: Treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusions is more efficient with the 1-phase than the 2-phase treatment protocol.