Clinical Application of Prognostic Gene Expression Signature in Fusion Gene-Negative Rhabdomyosarcoma: A Report from the Children's Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: Pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) has two common histologic subtypes: embryonal (ERMS) and alveolar (ARMS). PAX-FOXO1 fusion gene status is a more reliable prognostic marker than alveolar histology, whereas fusion gene-negative (FN) ARMS patients are clinically similar to ERMS patients. A five-gene expression signature (MG5) previously identified two diverse risk groups within the fusion gene-negative RMS (FN-RMS) patients, but this has not been independently validated. The goal of this study was to test whether expression of the MG5 metagene, measured using a technical platform that can be applied to routine pathology material, would correlate with outcome in a new cohort of patients with FN-RMS. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Cases were taken from the Children's Oncology Group (COG) D9803 study of children with intermediate-risk RMS, and gene expression profiling for the MG5 genes was performed using the nCounter assay. The MG5 score was correlated with clinical and pathologic characteristics as well as overall and event-free survival. RESULTS: MG5 standardized score showed no significant association with any of the available clinicopathologic variables. The MG5 signature score showed a significant correlation with overall (N = 57; HR, 7.3; 95% CI, 1.9-27.0; P = 0.003) and failure-free survival (N = 57; HR, 6.1; 95% CI, 1.9-19.7; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: This represents the first, validated molecular prognostic signature for children with FN-RMS who otherwise have intermediate-risk disease. The capacity to measure the expression of a small number of genes in routine pathology material and apply a simple mathematical formula to calculate the MG5 metagene score provides a clear path toward better risk stratification in future prospective clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res; 21(20); 4733-9. ©2015 AACR.

Indirect comparison meta-analysis of two enoxaparin regimens in patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery. Impact on the interpretation of thromboprophylactic effects of new anticoagulant drugs.

Two enoxaparin dosage regimens are used as comparators to evaluate new anticoagulants for thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery, but so far no satisfactory direct comparison between them has been published. Our objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin 3,000 anti-Xa IU twice daily and enoxaparin 4,000 anti-Xa IU once daily in this clinical setting by indirect comparison meta-analysis, using Bucher's method. We selected randomised controlled trials comparing another anticoagulant, placebo (or no treatment) with either enoxaparin regimen for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after hip or knee replacement or hip fracture surgery, provided that the second regimen was assessed elsewhere versus the same comparator. Two authors independently evaluated study eligibility, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary efficacy outcome was the incidence of venous thomboembolism. The main safety outcome was the incidence of major bleeding. Overall, 44 randomised comparisons in 56,423 patients were selected, 35 being double-blind (54,117 patients). Compared with enoxaparin 4,000 anti-Xa IU once daily, enoxaparin 3,000 anti-Xa IU twice daily was associated with a reduced risk of venous thromboembolism (relative risk [RR]: 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40 to 0.69), but an increased risk of major bleeding (RR: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.23 to 3.29). In conclusion, when interpreting the benefit-risk ratio of new anticoagulant drugs versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after major orthopaedic surgery, the apparently greater efficacy but higher bleeding risk of the twice-daily 3,000 anti-Xa IU enoxaparin regimen compared to the once-daily 4,000 anti-Xa IU regimen should be taken into account.

Consistency of safety and efficacy of new oral anticoagulants across subgroups of patients with atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: The well-known limitations of vitamin K antagonists (VKA) led to development of new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the consistency of treatment effects of NOAC irrespective of age, comorbidities, or prior VKA exposure. METHODS AND RESULTS: All randomized, controlled phase III trials comparing NOAC to VKA up to October 2012 were eligible provided their results (stroke/systemic embolism (SSE) and major bleeding (MB)) were reported according to age (≤ or >75 years), renal function, CHADS2 score, presence of diabetes mellitus or heart failure, prior VKA use or previous cerebrovascular events. Interactions were considered significant at p <0.05. Three studies (50,578 patients) were included, respectively evaluating apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran versus warfarin. A trend towards interaction with heart failure (p = 0.08) was observed with respect to SSE reduction, this being greater in patients not presenting heart failure (RR = 0.76 [0.67-0.86]) than in those with heart failure (RR = 0.90 [0.78-1.04]); Significant interaction (p = 0.01) with CHADS2 score was observed, NOAC achieving a greater reduction in bleeding risk in patients with a score of 0-1 (RR 0.67 CI 0.57-0.79) than in those with a score ≥2 (RR 0.85 CI 0.74-0.98). Comparison of MB in patients with (RR 0.97 CI 0.79-1.18) and without (RR 0.76 CI 0.65-0.88) diabetes mellitus showed a similar trend (p = 0.06). No other interactions were found. All subgroups derived benefit from NOA in terms of SSE or MB reduction. CONCLUSIONS: NOAC appeared to be more effective and safer than VKA in reducing SSE or MB irrespective of patient comorbidities. Thromboembolism risk, evaluated by CHADS2 score and, to a lesser extent, diabetes mellitus modified the treatment effects of NOAC without complete loss of benefit with respect to MB reduction.

Epilepsy priorities in Europe: A report of the ILAE-IBE Epilepsy Advocacy Europe Task Force.

The European Forum on Epilepsy Research (ERF2013), which took place in Dublin, Ireland, on May 26-29, 2013, was designed to appraise epilepsy research priorities in Europe through consultation with clinical and basic scientists as well as representatives of lay organizations and health care providers. The ultimate goal was to provide a platform to improve the lives of persons with epilepsy by influencing the political agenda of the EU. The Forum highlighted the epidemiologic, medical, and social importance of epilepsy in Europe, and addressed three separate but closely related concepts. First, possibilities were explored as to how the stigma and social burden associated with epilepsy could be reduced through targeted initiatives at EU national and regional levels. Second, ways to ensure optimal standards of care throughout Europe were specifically discussed. Finally, a need for further funding in epilepsy research within the European Horizon 2020 funding programme was communicated to politicians and policymakers participating to the forum. Research topics discussed specifically included (1) epilepsy in the developing brain; (2) novel targets for innovative diagnostics and treatment of epilepsy; (3) what is required for prevention and cure of epilepsy; and (4) epilepsy and comorbidities, with a special focus on aging and mental health. This report provides a summary of recommendations that emerged at ERF2013 about how to (1) strengthen epilepsy research, (2) reduce the treatment gap, and (3) reduce the burden and stigma associated with epilepsy. Half of the 6 million European citizens with epilepsy feel stigmatized and experience social exclusion, stressing the need for funding trans-European awareness campaigns and monitoring their impact on stigma, in line with the global commitment of the European Commission and with the recommendations made in the 2011 Written Declaration on Epilepsy. Epilepsy care has high rates of misdiagnosis and considerable variability in organization and quality across European countries, translating into huge societal cost (0.2% GDP) and stressing the need for cost-effective programs of harmonization and optimization of epilepsy care throughout Europe. There is currently no cure or prevention for epilepsy, and 30% of affected persons are not controlled by current treatments, stressing the need for pursuing research efforts in the field within Horizon 2020. Priorities should include (1) development of innovative biomarkers and therapeutic targets and strategies, from gene and cell-based therapies to technologically advanced surgical treatment; (2) addressing issues raised by pediatric and aging populations, as well as by specific etiologies and comorbidities such as traumatic brain injury (TBI) and cognitive dysfunction, toward more personalized medicine and prevention; and (3) translational studies and clinical trials built upon well-established European consortia.

Identification of imaging selection patterns in acute ischemic stroke patients and the influence on treatment and clinical trial enrollment decision making.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: For the STroke Imaging Research (STIR) and VISTA-Imaging Investigators The purpose of this study was to collect precise information on the typical imaging decisions given specific clinical acute stroke scenarios. Stroke centers worldwide were surveyed regarding typical imaging used to work up representative acute stroke patients, make treatment decisions, and willingness to enroll in clinical trials. METHODS: STroke Imaging Research and Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive-Imaging circulated an online survey of clinical case vignettes through its website, the websites of national professional societies from multiple countries as well as through email distribution lists from STroke Imaging Research and participating societies. Survey responders were asked to select the typical imaging work-up for each clinical vignette presented. Actual images were not presented to the survey responders. Instead, the survey then displayed several types of imaging findings offered by the imaging strategy, and the responders selected the appropriate therapy and whether to enroll into a clinical trial considering time from onset, clinical presentation, and imaging findings. A follow-up survey focusing on 6 h from onset was conducted after the release of the positive endovascular trials. RESULTS: We received 548 responses from 35 countries including 282 individual centers; 78% of the centers originating from Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, Spain, United Kingdom, and United States. The specific onset windows presented influenced the type of imaging work-up selected more than the clinical scenario. Magnetic Resonance Imaging usage (27-28%) was substantial, in particular for wake-up stroke. Following the release of the positive trials, selection of perfusion imaging significantly increased for imaging strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Usage of vascular or perfusion imaging by Computed Tomography or Magnetic Resonance Imaging beyond just parenchymal imaging was the primary work-up (62-87%) across all clinical vignettes and time windows. Perfusion imaging with Computed Tomography or Magnetic Resonance Imaging was associated with increased probability of enrollment into clinical trials for 0-3 h. Following the release of the positive endovascular trials, selection of endovascular only treatment for 6 h increased across all clinical vignettes.

Arterial Therapies of Non-Colorectal Liver Metastases.

BACKGROUND: The unique situation of the liver with arterial and venous blood supply and the dependency of the tumor on the arterial blood flow make this organ an ideal target for intrahepatic catheter-based therapies. Main forms of treatment are classical bland embolization (TAE) cutting the blood flow to the tumors, chemoembolization (TACE) inducing high chemotherapy concentration in tumors, and radioembolization (TARE) without embolizing effect but very high local radiation. These different forms of therapies are used in different centers with different protocols. This overview summarizes the different forms of treatment, their indications and protocols, possible side effects, and available data in patients with non-colorectal liver tumors. METHODS: A research in PubMed was performed. Mainly clinical controlled trials were reviewed. The search terms were 'embolization liver', 'TAE', 'chemoembolization liver', 'TACE', 'radioembolization liver', and 'TARE' as well as 'chemosaturation' and 'TACP' in the indications 'breast cancer', 'neuroendocrine', and 'melanoma'. All reported studies were analyzed for impact and reported according to their clinical relevance. RESULTS: The main search criteria revealed the following results: 'embolization liver + breast cancer', 122 results, subgroup clinical trials 16; 'chemoembolization liver + breast cancer', 62 results, subgroup clinical trials 11; 'radioembolization liver + breast cancer', 37 results, subgroup clinical trials 3; 'embolization liver + neuroendocrine', 283 results, subgroup clinical trials 20; 'chemoembolization liver + neuroendocrine', 202 results, subgroup clinical trials 9; 'radioembolization liver + neuroendocrine', 64 results, subgroup clinical trials 9; 'embolization liver + melanoma', 79 results, subgroup clinical trials 15; 'chemoembolization liver + melanoma', 60 results, subgroup clinical trials 14; 'radioembolization liver + melanoma', 18 results, subgroup clinical trials 3. The term 'chemosaturation liver' was tested without indication since only few publications exist and provided us with five results and only one clinical trial. CONCLUSION: Despite many years of clinical use and documented efficacy on intra-arterial treatments of the liver, there are still only a few prospective multicenter trials with many different protocols. To guarantee the future use of these efficacious therapies, especially in the light of many systemic or surgical therapies in the treatment of non-colorectal liver metastases, further large randomized trials and transparent guidelines need to be established.