Avaliação de microcalcificações mamárias de acordo com as classificações do Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS TM) e de Le Gal

OBJETIVO: avaliar a acurácia da mamografia para o diagnóstico de microcalcificações mamárias suspeitas, com as classificações do Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS TM) e Le Gal em comparação com o resultado histopatológico utilizado como padrão-ouro. MÉTODOS: foram selecionados dos arquivos dos blocos cirúrgicos, 130 casos operados com mamografias contendo somente microcalcificações mamárias, inicialmente classificadas como suspeitas sem lesões detectáveis ao exame clínico. Estas foram reclassificadas por dois examinadores, utilizando as classificações de Le Gal e BI-RADS TM, obtendo-se diagnóstico de consenso. As biópsias foram revistas por dois patologistas e foi obtido diagnóstico de consenso. A leitura das mamografias e a revisão das lâminas foram feitas em duplo-cego. As análises estatísticas utilizadas neste estudo foram o teste do chi2, o modelo Fleiss quadrático para VPP e o programa Epi-Info 6.0. RESULTADOS: a correlação entre a análise histopatológica e mamográfica, usando BI-RADS TM e Le Gal, mostrou a mesma sensibilidade de 96,4%, especificidade de 55,9 e 30,3%, valor preditivo positivo (VPP) de 37,5% e 27,5% e acurácia de 64,6 e 44,6%, respectivamente. Quando discriminamos por categorias de BI-RADS TM, obtivemos VPPs: categoria 2, 0%; categoria 3, 1,8%; categoria 4, 31,6% e categoria 5, 60%. Os VPPs pela classificação de Le Gal foram: categoria 2, 3,1%; categoria 3, 18,1 %; categoria 4, 26,4%; categoria 5, 66,7% e não classificável, 5,2%. CONCLUSÕES: observou-se uma maior precisão com a classificação de BI-RADS TM, porém não se conseguiu reduzir a ambigüidade na avaliação das microcalcificações mamárias.

Reporting on methods of subgroup analysis in clinical trials: a survey of four scientific journals

Results of subgroup analysis (SA) reported in randomized clinical trials (RCT) cannot be adequately interpreted without information about the methods used in the study design and the data analysis. Our aim was to show how often inaccurate or incomplete reports occur. First, we selected eight methodological aspects of SA on the basis of their importance to a reader in determining the confidence that should be placed in the author's conclusions regarding such analysis. Then, we reviewed the current practice of reporting these methodological aspects of SA in clinical trials in four leading journals, i.e., the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, and the American Journal of Public Health. Eight consecutive reports from each journal published after July 1, 1998 were included. Of the 32 trials surveyed, 17 (53%) had at least one SA. Overall, the proportion of RCT reporting a particular methodological aspect ranged from 23 to 94%. Information on whether the SA preceded/followed the analysis was reported in only 7 (41%) of the studies. Of the total possible number of items to be reported, NEJM, JAMA, Lancet and AJPH clearly mentioned 59, 67, 58 and 72%, respectively. We conclude that current reporting of SA in RCT is incomplete and inaccurate. The results of such SA may have harmful effects on treatment recommendations if accepted without judicious scrutiny. We recommend that editors improve the reporting of SA in RCT by giving authors a list of the important items to be reported.

The use and misuse of the "impact factor" as a parameter for evaluation of scientific publication quality: a proposal to rationalize its application

We present a critical analysis of the generalized use of the "impact factor". By means of the Kruskal-Wallis test, it was shown that it is not possible to compare distinct disciplines using the impact factor without adjustments. After assigning the median journal the value of one (1.000), the impact factor value for each journal was calculated by the rule of three. The adjusted values were homogeneous, thus permitting comparison among distinct disciplines.

Pim-1 kinase inhibits the activation of reporter gene expression in Elk-1 and c-Fos reporting systems but not the endogenous gene expression: an artifact of the reporter gene assay by transient co-transfection

We have studied the molecular mechanism and signal transduction of pim-1, an oncogene encoding a serine-threonine kinase. This is a true oncogene which prolongs survival and inhibits apoptosis of hematopoietic cells. In order to determine whether the effects of Pim-1 occur by regulation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway, we used a transcriptional reporter assay by transient co-transfection as a screening method. In this study, we found that Pim-1 inhibited the Elk-1 and NFkappaB transcriptional activities induced by activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade in reporter gene assays. However, Western blots showed that the induction of Elk-1-regulated expression of endogenous c-Fos was not affected by Pim-1. The phosphorylation and activation of neither Erk1/2 nor Elk-1 was influenced by Pim-1. Also, in the gel shift assay, the pattern of endogenous NFkappaB binding to its probe was not changed in any manner by Pim-1. These data indicate that Pim-1 does not regulate the activation of Erk1/2, Elk-1 or NFkappaB. These contrasting results suggest a pitfall of the transient co-transfection reporter assay in analyzing the regulation of transcription factors outside of the chromosome context. It ensures that results from reporter gene expression assay should be verified by study of endogenous gene expression.

Publication in a Brazilian journal by Brazilian scientists whose papers have international impact

Nine Brazilian scientists with an outstanding profile of international publications were invited to publish an original article in the same issue of a Brazilian Journal (Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências). The objective was to measure the impact of the papers on the number of citations to the articles, the assumption being that these authors would carry their international prestige to the Brazilian periodical. In a 2-year period there was a larger number of citations of these articles compared to others published in the same journal. Nevertheless, the number of citations in Brazilian journals did not equal the number of citations obtained by the other papers by the same authors in their international publications within the same 2-year period. The reasons for this difference in the number of citations could be either that less significant invited articles were submitted or that it was due to the intrinsic lack of visibility of the Brazilian journals, but this could not be fully determined with the present data. Also relevant was a comparison between the citations of Brazilian journals and the publication in Brazilian journals by these selected authors. A clear imbalance due to a remarkable under-citation of Brazilian authors by authors publishing in Brazilian journals raises the possibility that psychological factors may affect the decision of citing Brazilian journals.