Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group.

Currently, the most widely used criteria for assessing response to therapy in high-grade gliomas are based on two-dimensional tumor measurements on computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in conjunction with clinical assessment and corticosteroid dose (the Macdonald Criteria). It is increasingly apparent that there are significant limitations to these criteria, which only address the contrast-enhancing component of the tumor. For example, chemoradiotherapy for newly diagnosed glioblastomas results in transient increase in tumor enhancement (pseudoprogression) in 20% to 30% of patients, which is difficult to differentiate from true tumor progression. Antiangiogenic agents produce high radiographic response rates, as defined by a rapid decrease in contrast enhancement on CT/MRI that occurs within days of initiation of treatment and that is partly a result of reduced vascular permeability to contrast agents rather than a true antitumor effect. In addition, a subset of patients treated with antiangiogenic agents develop tumor recurrence characterized by an increase in the nonenhancing component depicted on T2-weighted/fluid-attenuated inversion recovery sequences. The recognition that contrast enhancement is nonspecific and may not always be a true surrogate of tumor response and the need to account for the nonenhancing component of the tumor mandate that new criteria be developed and validated to permit accurate assessment of the efficacy of novel therapies. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group is an international effort to develop new standardized response criteria for clinical trials in brain tumors. In this proposal, we present the recommendations for updated response criteria for high-grade gliomas.

How to assign a likelihood ratio in a footwear mark case: an analysis and discussion in the light of R v T

This article analyses and discusses issues that pertain to the choice of relevant databases for assigning values to the components of evaluative likelihood ratio procedures at source level. Although several formal likelihood ratio developments currently exist, both case practitioners and recipients of expert information (such as judiciary) may be reluctant to consider them as a framework for evaluating scientific evidence in context. The recent ruling R v T and ensuing discussions in many forums provide illustrative examples for this. In particular, it is often felt that likelihood ratio-based reasoning amounts to an application that requires extensive quantitative information along with means for dealing with technicalities related to the algebraic formulation of these approaches. With regard to this objection, this article proposes two distinct discussions. In a first part, it is argued that, from a methodological point of view, there are additional levels of qualitative evaluation that are worth considering prior to focusing on particular numerical probability assignments. Analyses will be proposed that intend to show that, under certain assumptions, relative numerical values, as opposed to absolute values, may be sufficient to characterize a likelihood ratio for practical and pragmatic purposes. The feasibility of such qualitative considerations points out that the availability of hard numerical data is not a necessary requirement for implementing a likelihood ratio approach in practice. It is further argued that, even if numerical evaluations can be made, qualitative considerations may be valuable because they can further the understanding of the logical underpinnings of an assessment. In a second part, the article will draw a parallel to R v T by concentrating on a practical footwear mark case received at the authors' institute. This case will serve the purpose of exemplifying the possible usage of data from various sources in casework and help to discuss the difficulty associated with reconciling the depth of theoretical likelihood ratio developments and limitations in the degree to which these developments can actually be applied in practice.

Neuropeptide Y and corticotropin-releasing hormone in CSF mark response to antidepressive treatment with citalopram.

Neuropeptides appear to play a role in the pathophysiology of depression and electroconvulsive treatment and lithium affect these compounds in human cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and rodent brain. Consequently, we investigated whether long-term treatment with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) citalopram (Cit) would also affect neuropeptides in CSF of depressed patients. Changes in CSF monoamine metabolites were also explored. CSF concentrations of corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH)-like immunoreactivity (-LI), neuropeptide Y (NPY)-LI, and Cit were determined in 21 patients with major depression. Lumbar puncture was performed in the morning at baseline and was repeated after at least 4 wk of Cit treatment (40 mg/d). The severity of depression was assessed by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD). Cit treatment was associated with a significant increase in NPY-LI and decrease in CRH-LI. An evaluation of the relationship between changes in concentrations of NPY-LI, CRH-LI, and the clinical response showed significant correlations between these parameters. Significant NPY and CRH changes in CSF following treatment as well as correlations to changes in HAMD support the hypothesis that these two peptides play a role in affective disorders and are markers of therapeutic response.