Isotope ratio mass spectrometry as a tool for source inference in forensic science: a critical review

Isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) has been used in numerous fields of forensic science in a source inference perspective. This review compiles the studies published on the application of isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) to the traditional fields of forensic science so far. It completes the review of Benson et al. [1] and synthesises the extent of knowledge already gathered in the following fields: illicit drugs, flammable liquids, human provenancing, microtraces, explosives and other specific materials (packaging tapes, safety matches, plastics, etc.). For each field, a discussion assesses the state of science and highlights the relevance of the information in a forensic context. Through the different discussions which mark out the review, the potential and limitations of IRMS, as well as the needs and challenges of future studies are emphasized. The paper elicits the various dimensions of the source which can be obtained from the isotope information and demonstrates the transversal nature of IRMS as a tool for source inference.

Fulvestrant with or without selumetinib, a MEK 1/2 inhibitor, in breast cancer progressing after aromatase inhibitor therapy: A multicentre randomised placebo-controlled double-blind phase II trial, SAKK 21/08.

BACKGROUND: Second line endocrine therapy has limited antitumour activity. Fulvestrant inhibits and downregulates the oestrogen receptor. The mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway is one of the major cascades involved in resistance to endocrine therapy. We assessed the efficacy and safety of fulvestrant with selumetinib, a MEK 1/2 inhibitor, in advanced stage breast cancer progressing after aromatase inhibitor (AI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomised phase II trial included postmenopausal patients with endocrine-sensitive breast cancer. They were ramdomised to fulvestrant combined with selumetinib or placebo. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR) in the experimental arm. ClinicalTrials.gov Indentifier: NCT01160718. RESULTS: Following the planned interim efficacy analysis, recruitment was interrupted after the inclusion of 46 patients (23 in each arm), because the selumetinib-fulvestrant arm did not reach the pre-specified DCR. DCR was 23% (95% confidence interval (CI) 8-45%) in the selumetinib arm and 50% (95% CI 27-75%) in the placebo arm. Median progression-free survival was 3.7months (95% CI 1.9-5.8) in the selumetinib arm and 5.6months (95% CI 3.4-13.6) in the placebo arm. Median time to treatment failure was 5.1 (95% CI 2.3-6.7) and 5.6 (95% CI 3.4-10.2) months, respectively. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events observed in the selumetinib-fulvestrant arm were skin disorders, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, oedema, diarrhoea, mouth disorders and muscle disorders. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of selumetinib to fulvestrant did not show improving patients' outcome and was poorly tolerated at the recommended monotherapy dose. Selumetinib may have deteriorated the efficacy of the endocrine therapy in some patients.

Embolic Strokes of Undetermined Source in the Athens Stroke Registry: an Outcome Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Information about outcomes in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source (ESUS) patients is unavailable. This study provides a detailed analysis of outcomes of a large ESUS population. METHODS: Data set was derived from the Athens Stroke Registry. ESUS was defined according to the Cryptogenic Stroke/ESUS International Working Group criteria. End points were mortality, stroke recurrence, functional outcome, and a composite cardiovascular end point comprising recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, aortic aneurysm rupture, systemic embolism, or sudden cardiac death. We performed Kaplan-Meier analyses to estimate cumulative probabilities of outcomes by stroke type and Cox-regression to investigate whether stroke type was outcome predictor. RESULTS: 2731 patients were followed-up for a mean of 30.5±24.1months. There were 73 (26.5%) deaths, 60 (21.8%) recurrences, and 78 (28.4%) composite cardiovascular end points in the 275 ESUS patients. The cumulative probability of survival in ESUS was 65.6% (95% confidence intervals [CI], 58.9%-72.2%), significantly higher compared with cardioembolic stroke (38.8%, 95% CI, 34.9%-42.7%). The cumulative probability of stroke recurrence in ESUS was 29.0% (95% CI, 22.3%-35.7%), similar to cardioembolic strokes (26.8%, 95% CI, 22.1%-31.5%), but significantly higher compared with all types of noncardioembolic stroke. One hundred seventy-two (62.5%) ESUS patients had favorable functional outcome compared with 280 (32.2%) in cardioembolic and 303 (60.9%) in large-artery atherosclerotic. ESUS patients had similar risk of composite cardiovascular end point as all other stroke types, with the exception of lacunar strokes, which had significantly lower risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.52-0.94]). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term mortality risk in ESUS is lower compared with cardioembolic strokes, despite similar rates of recurrence and composite cardiovascular end point. Recurrent stroke risk is higher in ESUS than in noncardioembolic strokes.