Pretargeted radioimmunotherapy using genetically engineered antibody-streptavidin fusion proteins for treatment of non-hodgkin lymphoma.

Purpose: Pretargeted radioimmunotherapy (PRIT) using streptavidin (SAv)-biotin technology can deliver higher therapeutic doses of radioactivity to tumors than conventional RIT. However, "endogenous" biotin can interfere with the effectiveness of this approach by blocking binding of radiolabeled biotin to SAv. We engineered a series of SAv FPs that downmodulate the affinity of SAv for biotin, while retaining high avidity for divalent DOTA-bis-biotin to circumvent this problem.Experimental Design: The single-chain variable region gene of the murine 1F5 anti-CD20 antibody was fused to the wild-type (WT) SAv gene and to mutant SAv genes, Y43A-SAv and S45A-SAv. FPs were expressed, purified, and compared in studies using athymic mice bearing Ramos lymphoma xenografts.Results: Biodistribution studies showed delivery of more radioactivity to tumors of mice pretargeted with mutant SAv FPs followed by (111)In-DOTA-bis-biotin [6.2 +/- 1.7% of the injected dose per gram (%ID/gm) of tumor 24 hours after Y43A-SAv FP and 5.6 +/- 2.2%ID/g with S45A-SAv FP] than in mice on normal diets pretargeted with WT-SAv FP (2.5 +/- 1.6%ID/g; P = 0.01). These superior biodistributions translated into superior antitumor efficacy in mice treated with mutant FPs and (90)Y-DOTA-bis-biotin [tumor volumes after 11 days: 237 +/- 66 mm(3) with Y43A-SAv, 543 +/- 320 mm(3) with S45A-SAv, 1129 +/- 322 mm(3) with WT-SAv, and 1435 +/- 212 mm(3) with control FP (P < 0.0001)].Conclusions: Genetically engineered mutant-SAv FPs and bis-biotin reagents provide an attractive alternative to current SAv-biotin PRIT methods in settings where endogenous biotin levels are high. Clin Cancer Res; 17(23); 7373-82. (C)2011 AACR.

Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries

BACKGROUND: The synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decision-making. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peer-reviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Four bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%-52.4%, I2 = 94.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%-65.9%, I2 = 98.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2-3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6-2.5). The probability of publication within two years after study completion ranged from 7% to 30%. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished. Due to the large heterogeneity a prediction of the publication probability for a future study is very uncertain. Non-publication of research is not a random process, e.g., it is associated with the direction of study findings. Our findings suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased.

Institutional legacies, employment and professional integration of non EU/EEA doctors in France

Internationally, policies for attracting highly-skilled migrants have become the guidelines mainly used by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Governments are implementing specific procedures to capture and facilitate their mobility. However, all professions are not equal when it comes to welcoming highly-skilled migrants. The medical profession, as a protective market, is one of these. Taking the case of non-EU/EEA doctors in France, this paper shows that the medical profession defined as the closed labour market, remains the most controversial in terms of professional integration of migrants, protectionist barriers to migrant competition and challenge of medical shortage. Based on the path-dependency approach, this paper argues that non-EU/EEA doctors' issues in France derive from a complex historical process of interaction between standards settled in the past, particularly the historical power of medical corporatism, the unexpected long-term effects of French hospital reforms of 1958, and budgetary pressures. Theoretically, this paper shows two significant findings. Firstly, the French medical system has undergone a series of transformations unthinkable in the strict sense of a path-dependence approach: an opening of the medical profession to foreign physicians in the context of the Europeanisation of public policy, acceptance of non-EU/EEA doctors in a context of medical shortage and budgetary pressures. Secondly, there is no change of the overall paradigm: significantly, the recruitment policies of non-EU/EEA doctors continue to highlight the imprint of the past and reveal a significant persistence of prejudices. Non-EU/EEA doctors are not considered legitimate doctors even if they have the qualifications of physicians which are legitimate in their country and which can be recognised in other receiving countries.