International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume.

The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference in Boston made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to the substaging of pT2 prostate cancers according to the TNM 2002/2010 system, reporting of tumor size/volume and zonal location of prostate cancers were coordinated by working group 2. A survey circulated before the consensus conference demonstrated that 74% of the 157 participants considered pT2 substaging of prostate cancer to be of clinical and/or academic relevance. The survey also revealed a considerable variation in the frequency of reporting of pT2b substage prostate cancer, which was likely a consequence of the variable methodologies used to distinguish pT2a from pT2b tumors. Overview of the literature indicates that current pT2 substaging criteria lack clinical relevance and the majority (65.5%) of conference attendees wished to discontinue pT2 substaging. Therefore, the consensus was that reporting of pT2 substages should, at present, be optional. Several studies have shown that prostate cancer volume is significantly correlated with other clinicopathological features, including Gleason score and extraprostatic extension of tumor; however, most studies fail to demonstrate this to have prognostic significance on multivariate analysis. Consensus was reached with regard to the reporting of some quantitative measure of the volume of tumor in a prostatectomy specimen, without prescribing a specific methodology. Incorporation of the zonal and/or anterior location of the dominant/index tumor in the pathology report was accepted by most participants, but a formal definition of the identifying features of the dominant/index tumor remained undecided.

Results of a collaborative study of the EDNAP group regarding mitochondrial DNA heteroplasmy and segregation in hair shafts.

A collaborative exercise was carried out by the European DNA Profiling Group (EDNAP) in order to evaluate the distribution of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) heteroplasmy amongst the hairs of an individual who displays point heteroplasmy in blood and buccal cells. A second aim of the exercise was to study reproducibility of mtDNA sequencing of hairs between laboratories using differing chemistries, further to the first mtDNA reproducibility study carried out by the EDNAP group. Laboratories were asked to type 2 sections from each of 10 hairs, such that each hair was typed by at least two laboratories. Ten laboratories participated in the study, and a total of 55 hairs were typed. The results showed that the C/T point heteroplasmy observed in blood and buccal cells at position 16234 segregated differentially between hairs, such that some hairs showed only C, others only T and the remainder, C/T heteroplasmy at varying ratios. Additionally, differential segregation of heteroplasmic variants was confirmed in independent extracts at positions 16093 and the poly(C) tract at 302-309, whilst a complete A-G transition was confirmed at position 16129 in one hair. Heteroplasmy was observed at position 16195 on both strands of a single extract from one hair segment, but was not observed in the extracts from any other segment of the same hair. Similarly, heteroplasmy at position 16304 was observed on both strands of a single extract from one hair. Additional variants at positions 73, 249 and the HVII poly(C) region were reported by one laboratory; as these were not confirmed in independent extracts, the possibility of contamination cannot be excluded. Additionally, the electrophoresis and detection equipment used by this laboratory was different to those of the other laboratories, and the discrepancies at position 249 and the HVII poly(C) region appear to be due to reading errors that may be associated with this technology. The results, and their implications for forensic mtDNA typing, are discussed in the light of the biology of hair formation.

Harmonization guidelines for HLA-peptide multimer assays derived from results of a large scale international proficiency panel of the Cancer Vaccine Consortium.

PURPOSE: The Cancer Vaccine Consortium of the Cancer Research Institute (CVC-CRI) conducted a multicenter HLA-peptide multimer proficiency panel (MPP) with a group of 27 laboratories to assess the performance of the assay. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Participants used commercially available HLA-peptide multimers and a well characterized common source of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). The frequency of CD8+ T cells specific for two HLA-A2-restricted model antigens was measured by flow cytometry. The panel design allowed for participants to use their preferred staining reagents and locally established protocols for both cell labeling, data acquisition and analysis. RESULTS: We observed significant differences in both the performance characteristics of the assay and the reported frequencies of specific T cells across laboratories. These results emphasize the need to identify the critical variables important for the observed variability to allow for harmonization of the technique across institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Three key recommendations emerged that would likely reduce assay variability and thus move toward harmonizing of this assay. (1) Use of more than two colors for the staining (2) collect at least 100,000 CD8 T cells, and (3) use of a background control sample to appropriately set the analytical gates. We also provide more insight into the limitations of the assay and identified additional protocol steps that potentially impact the quality of data generated and therefore should serve as primary targets for systematic analysis in future panels. Finally, we propose initial guidelines for harmonizing assay performance which include the introduction of standard operating protocols to allow for adequate training of technical staff and auditing of test analysis procedures.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," published in 2004. DESIGN: Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. METHODS: We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation (1) indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost) or clearly do not. Weak recommendations (2) indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations, listed by category, include early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for postoperative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B), targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization (2C); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); and a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Y-90-Ibritumomab Tiuxetan (Zevalin (R)) Consolidation of First Remission In Advanced-Stage Follicular Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: Updated Results After a Median Follow-up of 66.2 Months From the International, Randomized, Phase III First-Line Indolent Trial (FIT) In 414 Patients

The FIT trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan (0.4 mCi/kg; maximum dose 32 mCi) when used as consolidation of first complete or partial remission in patients with previously untreated, advanced-stage follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients were randomly assigned to either 90Y-ibritumomab treatment (n = 207) or observation (n = 202) within 3 months (mo) of completing initial induction therapy (chemotherapy only: 86%; rituximab in combination with chemotherapy: 14%). Response status prior to randomization did not differ between the groups: 52% complete response (CR)/CR unconfirmed (CRu) to induction therapy and 48% partial response (PR) in the 90Y-ibritumomab arm vs 53% CR/CRu and 44% PR in the control arm. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) of the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results from the first extended follow-up after a median of 3.5 years revealed a significant improvement in PFS from the time of randomization with 90Y-ibritumomab consolidation compared with control (36.5 vs 13.3 mo, respectively; P < 0.0001; Morschhauser et al. JCO. 2008; 26:5156-5164). Here we report a median follow-up of 66.2 mo (5.5 years). Five-year PFS was 47% in the 90Y-ibritumomab group and 29% in the control group (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.51, 95% CI 0.39-0.65; P < 0.0001). Median PFS in the 90Y-ibritumomab group was 49 mo vs 14 mo in the control group. In patients achieving a CR/CRu after induction, 5-year PFS was 57% in the 90Y-ibritumomab group, and the median had not yet been reached at 92 months, compared with a 43% 5-year PFS in the control group and a median of 31 mo (HR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.89). For patients in PR after induction, the 5-year PFS was 38% in the 90Y-ibritumomab group with a median PFS of 30 mo vs 14% in the control group with a median PFS of 6 mo (HR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.27-0.53). Patients who had received rituximab as part of induction treatment had a 5-year PFS of 64% in the 90Y-ibritumomab group and 48% in the control group (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.30-1.47). For all patients, time to next treatment (as calculated from the date of randomization) differed significantly between both groups; median not reached at 99 mo in the 90Y-ibritumomab group vs 35 mo in the control group (P < 0.0001). The majority of patients received rituximab-containing regimens when treated after progression (63/82 [77%] in the 90Y-ibritumomab group and 102/122 [84%] in the control group). Overall response rate to second-line treatment was 79% in the 90Y-ibritumomab group (57% CR/CRu and 22% PR) vs 78% in the control arm (59% CR/CRu, 19% PR). Five-year overall survival was not significantly different between the groups; 93% and 89% in the 90Y-ibritumomab and control groups, respectively (P = 0.561). To date, 40 patients have died; 18 in the 90Y-ibritumomab group and 22 in the control group. Secondary malignancies were diagnosed in 16 patients in the 90Y-ibritumomab arm vs 9 patients in the control arm (P = 0.19). There were 6 (3%) cases of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)/acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) in the 90Y-ibritumomab arm vs 1 MDS in the control arm (P = 0.063). In conclusion, this extended follow-up of the FIT trial confirms the benefit of 90Y-ibritumomab consolidation with a nearly 3 year advantage in median PFS. A significant 5-year PFS improvement was confirmed for patients with a CR/CRu or a PR after induction. Effective rescue treatment with rituximab-containing regimens may explain the observed no difference in overall survival between both patient groups who were - for the greater part - rituximab-naïve.

Defining responses to therapy and study outcomes in clinical trials of invasive fungal diseases: Mycoses Study Group and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer consensus criteria.

Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) have become major causes of morbidity and mortality among highly immunocompromised patients. Authoritative consensus criteria to diagnose IFD have been useful in establishing eligibility criteria for antifungal trials. There is an important need for generation of consensus definitions of outcomes of IFD that will form a standard for evaluating treatment success and failure in clinical trials. Therefore, an expert international panel consisting of the Mycoses Study Group and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer was convened to propose guidelines for assessing treatment responses in clinical trials of IFDs and for defining study outcomes. Major fungal diseases that are discussed include invasive disease due to Candida species, Aspergillus species and other molds, Cryptococcus neoformans, Histoplasma capsulatum, and Coccidioides immitis. We also discuss potential pitfalls in assessing outcome, such as conflicting clinical, radiological, and/or mycological data and gaps in knowledge.