Heterogeneity analysis of Metastasis Associated in Colon Cancer 1 (MACC1) for survival prognosis of colorectal cancer patients: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND Metastasis of colorectal cancer (CRC) is directly linked to patient survival. We previously identified the novel gene Metastasis Associated in Colon Cancer 1 (MACC1) in CRC and demonstrated its importance as metastasis inducer and prognostic biomarker. Here, we investigate the geographic expression pattern of MACC1 in colorectal adenocarcinoma and tumor buds in correlation with clinicopathological and molecular features for improvement of survival prognosis. METHODS We performed geographic MACC1 expression analysis in tumor center, invasive front and tumor buds on whole tissue sections of 187 well-characterized CRCs by immunohistochemistry. MACC1 expression in each geographic zone was analyzed with Mismatch repair (MMR)-status, BRAF/KRAS-mutations and CpG-island methylation. RESULTS MACC1 was significantly overexpressed in tumor tissue as compared to normal mucosa (p < 0.001). Within colorectal adenocarcinomas, a significant increase of MACC1 from tumor center to front (p = 0.0012) was detected. MACC1 was highly overexpressed in 55% tumor budding cells. Independent of geographic location, MACC1 predicted advanced pT and pN-stages, high grade tumor budding, venous and lymphatic invasion (p < 0.05). High MACC1 expression at the invasive front was decisive for prediction of metastasis (p = 0.0223) and poor survival (p = 0.0217). The geographic pattern of MACC1 did not correlate with MMR-status, BRAF/KRAS-mutations or CpG-island methylation. CONCLUSION MACC1 is differentially expressed in CRC. At the invasive front, MACC1 expression predicts best aggressive clinicopathological features, tumor budding, metastasis formation and poor survival outcome.

Space debris attitude simulation - ιOTA (In-Orbit Tumbling Analysis)

Today, there is little knowledge on the attitude state of decommissioned intact objects in Earth orbit. Observational means have advanced in the past years, but are still limited with respect to an accurate estimate of motion vector orientations and magnitude. Especially for the preparation of Active Debris Removal (ADR) missions as planned by ESA’s Clean Space initiative or contingency scenarios for ESA spacecraft like ENVISAT, such knowledge is needed. ESA's “Debris Attitude Motion Measurements and Modelling” project (ESA Contract No. 40000112447), led by the Astronomical Institute of the University of Bern (AIUB), addresses this problem. The goal of the project is to achieve a good understanding of the attitude evolution and the considerable internal and external effects which occur. To characterize the attitude state of selected targets in LEO and GTO, multiple observation methods are combined. Optical observations are carried out by AIUB, Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR) is performed by the Space Research Institute of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (IWF) and radar measurements and signal level determination are provided by the Fraunhofer Institute for High Frequency Physics and Radar Techniques (FHR). The In-Orbit Tumbling Analysis tool (ιOTA) is a prototype software, currently in development by Hyperschall Technologie Göttingen GmbH (HTG) within the framework of the project. ιOTA will be a highly modular software tool to perform short-(days), medium-(months) and long-term (years) propagation of the orbit and attitude motion (six degrees-of-freedom) of spacecraft in Earth orbit. The simulation takes into account all relevant acting forces and torques, including aerodynamic drag, solar radiation pressure, gravitational influences of Earth, Sun and Moon, eddy current damping, impulse and momentum transfer from space debris or micro meteoroid impact, as well as the optional definition of particular spacecraft specific influences like tank sloshing, reaction wheel behaviour, magnetic torquer activity and thruster firing. The purpose of ιOTA is to provide high accuracy short-term simulations to support observers and potential ADR missions, as well as medium-and long-term simulations to study the significance of the particular internal and external influences on the attitude, especially damping factors and momentum transfer. The simulation will also enable the investigation of the altitude dependency of the particular external influences. ιOTA's post-processing modules will generate synthetic measurements for observers and for software validation. The validation of the software will be done by cross-calibration with observations and measurements acquired by the project partners.

Time-varying signal analysis to detect high-altitude periodic breathing in climbers ascending to extreme altitude.

This work investigates the performance of cardiorespiratory analysis detecting periodic breathing (PB) in chest wall recordings in mountaineers climbing to extreme altitude. The breathing patterns of 34 mountaineers were monitored unobtrusively by inductance plethysmography, ECG and pulse oximetry using a portable recorder during climbs at altitudes between 4497 and 7546 m on Mt. Muztagh Ata. The minute ventilation (VE) and heart rate (HR) signals were studied, to identify visually scored PB, applying time-varying spectral, coherence and entropy analysis. In 411 climbing periods, 30-120 min in duration, high values of mean power (MP(VE)) and slope (MSlope(VE)) of the modulation frequency band of VE, accurately identified PB, with an area under the ROC curve of 88 and 89%, respectively. Prolonged stay at altitude was associated with an increase in PB. During PB episodes, higher peak power of ventilatory (MP(VE)) and cardiac (MP(LF)(HR) ) oscillations and cardiorespiratory coherence (MP(LF)(Coher)), but reduced ventilation entropy (SampEn(VE)), was observed. Therefore, the characterization of cardiorespiratory dynamics by the analysis of VE and HR signals accurately identifies PB and effects of altitude acclimatization, providing promising tools for investigating physiologic effects of environmental exposures and diseases.

Safety and Efficacy of New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Women at High Risk for Atherothrombosis: From the Women in Innovation and Drug-Eluting Stents Collaborative Patient-Level Pooled Analysis

BACKGROUND The safety and efficacy of new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in women with multiple atherothrombotic risk (ATR) factors is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS We pooled patient-level data for women enrolled in 26 randomized trials. Study population was categorized based on the presence or absence of high ATR, which was defined as having history of diabetes mellitus, prior percutaneous or surgical coronary revascularization, or prior myocardial infarction. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization at 3 years of follow-up. Out of 10 449 women included in the pooled database, 5333 (51%) were at high ATR. Compared with women not at high ATR, those at high ATR had significantly higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (15.8% versus 10.6%; adjusted hazard ratio: 1.53; 95% confidence interval: 1.34-1.75; P=0.006) and all-cause mortality. In high-ATR risk women, the use of new-generation DES was associated with significantly lower risk of 3-year major adverse cardiovascular events (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.52-0.92) compared with early-generation DES. The benefit of new-generation DES on major adverse cardiovascular events was uniform between high-ATR and non-high-ATR women, without evidence of interaction (Pinteraction=0.14). At landmark analysis, in high-ATR women, stent thrombosis rates were comparable between DES generations in the first year, whereas between 1 and 3 years, stent thrombosis risk was lower with new-generation devices. CONCLUSIONS Use of new-generation DES even in women at high ATR is associated with a benefit consistent over 3 years of follow-up and a substantial improvement in very-late thrombotic safety.

Psychological therapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Panic disorder is characterised by the presence of recurrent unexpected panic attacks, discrete periods of fear or anxiety that have a rapid onset and include symptoms such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating and shaking. Panic disorder is common in the general population, with a lifetime prevalence of 1% to 4%. A previous Cochrane meta-analysis suggested that psychological therapy (either alone or combined with pharmacotherapy) can be chosen as a first-line treatment for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. However, it is not yet clear whether certain psychological therapies can be considered superior to others. In order to answer this question, in this review we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA), in which we compared eight different forms of psychological therapy and three forms of a control condition. OBJECTIVES To assess the comparative efficacy and acceptability of different psychological therapies and different control conditions for panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia, in adults. SEARCH METHODS We conducted the main searches in the CCDANCTR electronic databases (studies and references registers), all years to 16 March 2015. We conducted complementary searches in PubMed and trials registries. Supplementary searches included reference lists of included studies, citation indexes, personal communication to the authors of all included studies and grey literature searches in OpenSIGLE. We applied no restrictions on date, language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on adults with a formal diagnosis of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. We considered the following psychological therapies: psychoeducation (PE), supportive psychotherapy (SP), physiological therapies (PT), behaviour therapy (BT), cognitive therapy (CT), cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), third-wave CBT (3W) and psychodynamic therapies (PD). We included both individual and group formats. Therapies had to be administered face-to-face. The comparator interventions considered for this review were: no treatment (NT), wait list (WL) and attention/psychological placebo (APP). For this review we considered four short-term (ST) outcomes (ST-remission, ST-response, ST-dropouts, ST-improvement on a continuous scale) and one long-term (LT) outcome (LT-remission/response). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS As a first step, we conducted a systematic search of all relevant papers according to the inclusion criteria. For each outcome, we then constructed a treatment network in order to clarify the extent to which each type of therapy and each comparison had been investigated in the available literature. Then, for each available comparison, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis. Subsequently, we performed a network meta-analysis in order to synthesise the available direct evidence with indirect evidence, and to obtain an overall effect size estimate for each possible pair of therapies in the network. Finally, we calculated a probabilistic ranking of the different psychological therapies and control conditions for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS We identified 1432 references; after screening, we included 60 studies in the final qualitative analyses. Among these, 54 (including 3021 patients) were also included in the quantitative analyses. With respect to the analyses for the first of our primary outcomes, (short-term remission), the most studied of the included psychological therapies was CBT (32 studies), followed by BT (12 studies), PT (10 studies), CT (three studies), SP (three studies) and PD (two studies).The quality of the evidence for the entire network was found to be low for all outcomes. The quality of the evidence for CBT vs NT, CBT vs SP and CBT vs PD was low to very low, depending on the outcome. The majority of the included studies were at unclear risk of bias with regard to the randomisation process. We found almost half of the included studies to be at high risk of attrition bias and detection bias. We also found selective outcome reporting bias to be present and we strongly suspected publication bias. Finally, we found almost half of the included studies to be at high risk of researcher allegiance bias.Overall the networks appeared to be well connected, but were generally underpowered to detect any important disagreement between direct and indirect evidence. The results showed the superiority of psychological therapies over the WL condition, although this finding was amplified by evident small study effects (SSE). The NMAs for ST-remission, ST-response and ST-improvement on a continuous scale showed well-replicated evidence in favour of CBT, as well as some sparse but relevant evidence in favour of PD and SP, over other therapies. In terms of ST-dropouts, PD and 3W showed better tolerability over other psychological therapies in the short term. In the long term, CBT and PD showed the highest level of remission/response, suggesting that the effects of these two treatments may be more stable with respect to other psychological therapies. However, all the mentioned differences among active treatments must be interpreted while taking into account that in most cases the effect sizes were small and/or results were imprecise. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is no high-quality, unequivocal evidence to support one psychological therapy over the others for the treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults. However, the results show that CBT - the most extensively studied among the included psychological therapies - was often superior to other therapies, although the effect size was small and the level of precision was often insufficient or clinically irrelevant. In the only two studies available that explored PD, this treatment showed promising results, although further research is needed in order to better explore the relative efficacy of PD with respect to CBT. Furthermore, PD appeared to be the best tolerated (in terms of ST-dropouts) among psychological treatments. Unexpectedly, we found some evidence in support of the possible viability of non-specific supportive psychotherapy for the treatment of panic disorder; however, the results concerning SP should be interpreted cautiously because of the sparsity of evidence regarding this treatment and, as in the case of PD, further research is needed to explore this issue. Behaviour therapy did not appear to be a valid alternative to CBT as a first-line treatment for patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia.