“Unmixing” Tissue Gene Expression Signatures from Tumor Biopsies

Emergent molecular measurement methods, such as DNA microarray, qRTPCR, andmany others, offer tremendous promise for the personalized treatment of cancer. Thesetechnologies measure the amount of specific proteins, RNA, DNA or other moleculartargets from tumor specimens with the goal of “fingerprinting” individual cancers. Tumorspecimens are heterogeneous; an individual specimen typically contains unknownamounts of multiple tissues types. Thus, the measured molecular concentrations resultfrom an unknown mixture of tissue types, and must be normalized to account for thecomposition of the mixture.For example, a breast tumor biopsy may contain normal, dysplastic and cancerousepithelial cells, as well as stromal components (fatty and connective tissue) and bloodand lymphatic vessels. Our diagnostic interest focuses solely on the dysplastic andcancerous epithelial cells. The remaining tissue components serve to “contaminate”the signal of interest. The proportion of each of the tissue components changes asa function of patient characteristics (e.g., age), and varies spatially across the tumorregion. Because each of the tissue components produces a different molecular signature,and the amount of each tissue type is specimen dependent, we must estimate the tissuecomposition of the specimen, and adjust the molecular signal for this composition.Using the idea of a chemical mass balance, we consider the total measured concentrationsto be a weighted sum of the individual tissue signatures, where weightsare determined by the relative amounts of the different tissue types. We develop acompositional source apportionment model to estimate the relative amounts of tissuecomponents in a tumor specimen. We then use these estimates to infer the tissuespecificconcentrations of key molecular targets for sub-typing individual tumors. Weanticipate these specific measurements will greatly improve our ability to discriminatebetween different classes of tumors, and allow more precise matching of each patient tothe appropriate treatment

Time-related improvement of survival in resectable gastric cancer: the role of Japanese-style gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy

Background: We investigated the change of prognosis in resected gastric cancer (RGC) patients and the role of radical surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Methods: We retrospectively analyze the outcome of 426 consecutive patients from 1975 to 2002, divided into 2 time-periods (TP) cohort: Before 1990 (TP1, n = 207) and 1990 or after (TP2; n= 219). Partial gastrectomy and D1-lymphadenetomy was predominant in TP1 and total gastrectomy with D2-lymphadenectomy it was in TP2. Adjuvant chemotherapy consisted of mitomycin C (MMC), 10¿20 mg/m2 iv 4 courses or MMC plus Tegafur 500 mg/m2 for 6 months. Results: Positive nodes were similar in TP2/TP1 patients with 56%/59% respectively. Total gastrectomy was done in 56%/45% of TP2/TP1 respectively. Two-drug adjuvant chemotherapy was administered in 65%/18% of TP2/TP1 respectively. Survival at 5 years was 66% for TP2 versus 42%for TP1 patients (p < 0.0001). Survival by stages II, IIIA y IIIB for TP2 versus TP1 patients was 70 vs. 51% (p = 0.0132); 57 vs. 22% (p = 0.0008) y 30 vs. 15% (p = 0.2315) respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that age, stage of disease and period of treatment were independent variables. Conclusion: The global prognosis and that of some stages have improved in recent years with case RGC patients treated with surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy.

To return or to discard? Randomised trial on gastric residual volume management

Background: The control of gastric residual volume (GRV) is a common nursing intervention in intensive care; however the literature shows a wide variation in clinical practice regarding the management of GRV, potentially affecting patients" clinical outcomes. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of returning or discarding GRV, on gastric emptying delays and feeding, electrolyte and comfort outcomes in critically ill patients. Method: A randomised, prospective, clinical trial design was used to study 125 critically ill patients, assigned to the return or the discard group. Main outcome measure was delayed gastric emptying. Feeding outcomes were determined measuring intolerance indicators, feeding delays and feeding potential complications. Fluid and electrolyte measures included serum potassium, glycaemia control and fluid balance. Discomfort was identified by significant changes in vital signs. Results: Patients in both groups presented similar mean GRV with no significant differences found (p=0.111), but participants in the intervention arm showed a lower incidence and severity of delayed gastric emptying episodes (p=0.001). No significant differences were found for the rest of outcome measurements, except for hyperglycaemia. Conclusions: The results of this study support the recommendation to reintroduce gastric content aspirated to improve GRV management without increasing the risk for potential complications.