Perfusion and diffusion MRI of glioblastoma progression in a four-year prospective temozolomide clinical trial

RESUME BUT Cette étude a été menée sur le suivi de patients traités pour un glioblastome nouvellement diagnostiqué. Son objectif a été de déterminer l'impact des séquences de perfusion et de diffusion en imagerie par résonance magnétique (IRM). Un intérêt particulier a été porté au potentiel de ces nouvelles techniques d'imagerie dans l'anticipation de la progression de la maladie. En effet, l'intervalle de temps libre de progression est une mesure alternative de pronostic fréquemment utilisée. MATERIEL ET METHODE L'étude a porté sur 41 patients participant à un essai clinique de phase II de traitement par temozolomide. Leur suivi radiologique a comporté un examen IRM dans les 21 à 28 jours après radiochimiothérapie et tous les 2 mois par la suite. L'évaluation des images s'est faite sur la base de l'évaluation de l'effet de masse ainsi que de la mesure de la taille de la lésion sur les images suivantes : T1 avec produit de contraste, T2, diffusion, perfusion. Afin de déterminer la date de progression de la maladie, les critères classiques de variation de taille adjoints aux critères cliniques habituels ont été utilisés. RESULAT 311 examens IRM ont été revus. Au moment de la progression (32 patients), une régression multivariée selon Cox a permis de déterminer deux paramètres de survie : diamètre maximal en T1 (p>0.02) et variation de taille en T2 (p<0.05). L'impact de la perfusion et de la diffusion n'a pas été démontré de manière statistiquement significative. CONCLUSION Les techniques de perfusion et de diffusion ne peuvent pas être utilisées pour anticiper la progression tumorale. Alors que la prise de décision au niveau thérapeutique est critique au moment de la progression de la maladie, l'IRM classique en T1 et en T2 reste la méthode d'imagerie de choix. De manière plus spécifique, une prise de contraste en T1 supérieure à 3 cm dans son plus grand diamètre associée à un hypersignal T2 en augmentation forment un marqueur de mauvais pronostic.

Clinical benefit and quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine versus gemcitabine alone: a randomized multicenter phase III clinical trial--SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral Cap 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks or until progression. CBR criteria and QOL indicators were assessed over this period. CBR was defined as improvement from baseline for >or= 4 consecutive weeks in pain (pain intensity or analgesic consumption) and Karnofsky performance status, stability in one but improvement in the other, or stability in pain and performance status but improvement in weight. RESULTS: Of 319 patients, 19% treated with GemCap and 20% treated with Gem experienced a CBR, with a median duration of 9.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively (P < .02); 54% of patients treated with GemCap and 60% treated with Gem had no CBR (remaining patients were not assessable). There was no treatment difference in QOL (n = 311). QOL indicators were improving under chemotherapy (P < .05). These changes differed by the time to failure, with a worsening 1 to 2 months before treatment failure (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: There is no indication of a difference in CBR or QOL between GemCap and Gem. Regardless of their initial condition, some patients experience an improvement in QOL on chemotherapy, followed by a worsening before treatment failure.

Clinical trial substantiates the predictive value of O-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation in glioblastoma patients treated with temozolomide.

PURPOSE: In the setting of a prospective clinical trial, we determined the predictive value of the methylation status of the O-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter for outcome in glioblastoma patients treated with the alkylating agent temozolomide. Expression of this excision repair enzyme has been associated with resistance to alkylating chemotherapy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The methylation status of MGMT in the tumor biopsies was evaluated in 38 patients undergoing resection for newly diagnosed glioblastoma and enrolled in a Phase II trial testing concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide and radiation. The epigenetic silencing of the MGMT gene was determined using methylation-specific PCR. RESULTS: Inactivation of the MGMT gene by promoter methylation was associated with longer survival (P = 0.0051; Log-rank test). At 18 months, survival was 62% (16 of 26) for patients testing positive for a methylated MGMT promoter but reached only 8% (1 of 12) in absence of methylation (P = 0.002; Fisher's exact test). In the presence of other clinically relevant factors, methylation of the MGMT promoter remains the only significant predictor (P = 0.017; Cox regression). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective clinical trial identifies MGMT-methylation status as an independent predictor for glioblastoma patients treated with a methylating agent. The association of the epigenetic inactivation of the DNA repair gene MGMT with better outcome in this homogenous cohort may have important implications for the design of future trials and supports efforts to deplete MGMT by O-6-benzylguanine, a noncytotoxic substrate of this enzyme.

Brief alcohol intervention and alcohol assessment do not influence alcohol use in injured patients treated in the emergency department: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the effectiveness of brief alcohol intervention (BAI) in reducing alcohol use among hazardous drinkers treated in the emergency department (ED) after an injury; in addition it tests whether assessment of alcohol use without BAI is sufficient to reduce hazardous drinking. DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial with 12-month follow-up conducted between January 2003 and June 2005. SETTING: Urban academic emergency department (ED) of the Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 5136 consecutive patients attending ED after an injury completed a seven-item general and a three-item alcohol screen and 1472 (28.7%) were positive for hazardous drinking according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Addiction definition; of these 987 (67.1%) were randomized into a BAI group (n = 310) or a control group with screening and assessment (n = 342) or a control group with screening only (n = 335) and then a total of 770 patients (78.0%) completed the 12-month follow-up procedures. INTERVENTION: A single 10-15-minute session of standardized BAI conducted by a trained research assistant. MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of participants who have changed to low-risk drinking at follow-up. FINDINGS: Data obtained at 12 months indicated that similar proportions were low-risk drinkers in BAI versus control groups with and without assessment (35.6%, 34.0%, 37.0%, respectively, P = 0.71). Data also indicated similar reductions in drinking frequency, quantity, binge drinking frequency and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) scores across groups. All groups reported similar numbers of days hospitalized and numbers of medical consults in the last 12 months. A model including age groups, gender, AUDIT and injury severity scores indicated that BAI had no influence on the main alcohol use outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the evidence that a 10-15-minute BAI does not decrease alcohol use and health resource utilization in hazardous drinkers treated in the ED, and demonstrates that commonly found decreases in hazardous alcohol use in control groups cannot be attributed to the baseline alcohol assessment.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa serotypes in nosocomial pneumonia: prevalence and clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Pseudomonas aeruginosa frequently causes nosocomial pneumonia and is associated with poor outcome. The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence and clinical outcome of nosocomial pneumonia caused by serotype-specific P. aeruginosa in critically ill patients under appropriate antimicrobial therapy management. METHODS: A retrospective, non-interventional epidemiological multicenter cohort study involving 143 patients with confirmed nosocomial pneumonia caused by P. aeruginosa. Patients were analyzed for a period of 30 days from time of nosocomial pneumonia onset. Fourteen patients fulfilling the same criteria from a phase IIa studyconducted at the same time/centers were included in the prevalence calculations but not in the clinical outcome analysis. RESULTS: The prevalence of serotypes was: O6 (29%), O11 (23%), O10 (10%), O2 (9%), and O1 (8%). Serotypes with a prevalence of less than 5% were found in 13% of patients, 8% were classified as not typeable. Across all serotypes, 19% mortality, 70% clinical resolution, 11% clinical continuation, and 5% clinical recurrence were recorded. Age and higher APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) were predictive risk factors associated with probability of death and lower clinical resolution for P. aeruginosa nosocomial pneumonia. Mortality tends to be higher with O1 (40%) and lower with O2 (0%); clinical resolution tends to be better with O2 (82%) compared to other serotypes. Persisting pneumonia with O6 and O11 was, respectively, 8% and 21%; clinical resolution with O6 and O11 was, respectively, 75% and 57%. CONCLUSIONS: In P. aeruginosa nosocomial pneumonia, the most prevalent serotypes were O6 and O11. Further studies including larger group sizes are needed to correlate clinical outcome with virulence factors of P. aeruginosa in patients with nosocomial pneumonia caused by various serotypes; and to compare O6 and O11, the two serotypes most frequently encountered in critically ill patients.

A randomised controlled clinical trial and gait analysis of fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee replacements with a five-year follow-up.

This study compared the outcome of total knee replacement (TKR) in adult patients with fixed- and mobile-bearing prostheses during the first post-operative year and at five years' follow-up, using gait parameters as a new objective measure. This double-blind randomised controlled clinical trial included 55 patients with mobile-bearing (n = 26) and fixed-bearing (n = 29) prostheses of the same design, evaluated pre-operatively and post-operatively at six weeks, three months, six months, one year and five years. Each participant undertook two walking trials of 30 m and completed the EuroQol questionnaire, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, Knee Society score, and visual analogue scales for pain and stiffness. Gait analysis was performed using five miniature angular rate sensors mounted on the trunk (sacrum), each thigh and calf. The study population was divided into two groups according to age (≤ 70 years versus > 70 years). Improvements in most gait parameters at five years' follow-up were greater for fixed-bearing TKRs in older patients (> 70 years), and greater for mobile-bearing TKRs in younger patients (≤ 70 years). These findings should be confirmed by an extended age controlled study, as the ideal choice of prosthesis might depend on the age of the patient at the time of surgery.

Efficacy and safety of a phospholipid emulsion (GR270773) in Gram-negative severe sepsis: results of a phase II multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-finding clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the survival benefit and safety profile of low-dose (850 mg/kg) and high-dose (1350 mg/kg) phospholipid emulsion vs. placebo administered as a continuous 3-day infusion in patients with confirmed or suspected Gram-negative severe sepsis. Preclinical and ex vivo studies show that lipoproteins bind and neutralize endotoxin, and experimental animal studies demonstrate protection from septic death when lipoproteins are administered. Endotoxin neutralization correlates with the amount of phospholipid in the lipoprotein particles. DESIGN: A three-arm, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Conducted at 235 centers worldwide between September 2004 and April 2006. PATIENTS: A total of 1379 patients participated in the study, 598 patients received low-dose phospholipid emulsion, and 599 patients received placebo. The high-dose phospholipid emulsion arm was stopped, on the recommendation of the Independent Data Monitoring Committee, due to an increase in life-threatening serious adverse events at the fourth interim analysis and included 182 patients. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A 28-day all-cause mortality and new-onset organ failure. There was no significant treatment benefit for low- or high-dose phospholipid emulsion vs. placebo for 28-day all-cause mortality, with rates of 25.8% (p = .329), 31.3% (p = .879), and 26.9%, respectively. The rate of new-onset organ failure was not statistically different among groups at 26.3%, 31.3%, 20.4% with low- and high-dose phospholipid emulsion, and placebo, respectively (one-sided p = .992, low vs. placebo; p = .999, high vs. placebo). Of the subjects treated, 45% had microbiologically confirmed Gram-negative infections. Maximal changes in mean hemoglobin levels were reached on day 10 (-1.04 g/dL) and day 5 (-1.36 g/dL) with low- and high-dose phospholipid emulsion, respectively, and on day 14 (-0.82 g/dL) with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with phospholipid emulsion did not reduce 28-day all-cause mortality, or reduce the onset of new organ failure in patients with suspected or confirmed Gram-negative severe sepsis.

Subgroup And Quality Of Life Analyses Of The Phase Iii Clinical Trial Of Novottf-100a Versus Best Standard Chemotherapy For Recurrent Glioblastoma

BACKGROUND: NovoTTF is a portable device delivering low-intensity, intermediate-frequency, electric fields using noninvasive, disposable scalp electrodes. These fields physically interfere with cell division. Preliminary studies in recurrent and newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) have shown promising results. A phase III study in recurrent GBM has recently been concluded. METHODS: Adults (KPS ≥ 70%) with recurrent GBM (any recurrence) were randomized (stratified by surgery and center) to either NovoTTF administered continuously (20-24 hours/day, 7 days/week) or the best available chemotherapy (best physician choice [BPC]). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6), 1-year survival, and QOL were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-seven patients were randomized (28 centers in the United States and Europe) to either NovoTTF alone (120 patients) or BPC (117 patients). Patient characteristics were balanced, median age was 54 years (range, 23-80 years), median KPS was 80% (range, 50-100). One quarter had surgery for recurrence, and over half were at their second or more recurrence. A survival advantage for the device group was seen in patients treated according to protocol (median OS, 7.8 months vs. 6.1 months; n = 185; p = 0.01). Moreover, subgroup analysis in patients with better prognostic baseline characteristics (KPS ≥ 80%; age ≤ 60; 1st-3rd recurrence) demonstrated a robust survival benefit for NovoTTF patients compared to matched BPC patients (median OS, 8.8 months vs. 6.6 months; n = 110; p < 0.01). In this group, 1-year survival was 35% vs. 20% and PFS6 was 25.6% vs. 7.7%. Interestingly, in patients who failed bevacizumab prior to the trial, OS was also significantly extended by NovoTTF (4.4 months vs. 3.1 months; n = 23 vs. n = 21; p < 0.02). Quality of life was equivalent or superior in NovoTTF patients. CONCLUSIONS: NovoTTF, a noninvasive, novel cancer treatment modality shows significant therapeutic efficacy with improved quality of life. The impact of NovoTTF was more pronounced when patients with better baseline prognostic factors were treated. A large scale phase III clinical trial in newly diagnosed GBM is currently being conducted.

Evaluation of Racial Differences in Seat Belt and Child Restraint Use: A Review of Current Literature, 2004

This report presents the results of a literature review conducted to evaluate differences in seat belt use by race. A literature review was conducted to evaluate overall seat belt use, racial differences in seat belt use, overall child restraint use, racial differences in child restraint use, and information about seat belt and child restraint use specific to Iowa. A number of national studies and regional studies were found and are presented. Mixed results were found as to whether racial differences exist in both seat belt use and child restraint use. However, in the course of the literature review, several items that are of interest to safety in Iowa have emerged, although little data specific to Iowa was encountered. First, national seat belt use appears to be lower among African-Americans than for Caucasians or Hispanics. Second, national crash rates among Hispanics appear to be higher than those for Caucasians, particularly when population and lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are considered. One issue that should be considered throughout this literature review is that the Hispanic population may be higher than reported due to large numbers of undocumented persons who do not appear in population estimates, driver’s license, or other databases.

Levetiracetam versus Phenobarbital. Effects in the neurodevelopment in newborns treated for neonatal seizures: a clinical trial

Purpose: To analyze if the use of Phenobarbital compared with Levetiracetam, it’s associated with more neurodevelopmental problems in newborns treated for neonatal seizures. As a secondary objective identify which are the most affected areas of the neurodevelopment: cognition, socio-­‐emotional, motor or language skills.Design: A 5 years long clinical trial administering, with double-­‐blind and a randomized distribution of the sample, Phenobarbital or Levetiracetam for the management of neonatal seizures

Safety of intramuscular influenza vaccine in patients receiving oral anticoagulation therapy: a single blinded multi-centre randomized controlled clinical trial

Influenza vaccines are recommended for administration by the intramuscular route. However, many physicians use the subcutaneous route for patients receiving an oral anticoagulant because this route is thought to induce fewer hemorrhagic side effects. Our aim is to assess the safety of intramuscular administration of influenza vaccine in patients on oral anticoagulation therapy. Methods: Design: Randomised, controlled, single blinded, multi-centre clinical trial. Setting: 4 primary care practices in Barcelona, Spain. Participants: 229 patients on oral anticoagulation therapy eligible for influenza vaccine during the 20032004 season. Interventions: intramuscular administration of influença vaccine in the experimental group (129 patients) compared to subcutaneous administration in the control group (100 patients). Primary outcome: change in the circumference of the arm at the site of injection at 24 hours. Secondary outcomes: appearance of local reactions and pain at 24 hours and at 10 days; change in INR (International Normalized Ratio) at 24 hours and at 10 days. Analysis was by intention to treat using the 95% confidence intervals of the proportions or mean differences. Results: Baseline variables in the two groups were similar. No major side effects or major haemorrhage during the follow-up period were reported. No significant differences were observed in the primary outcome between the two groups. The appearance of local adverse reactions was more frequent in the subcutaneous administration group (37,4% vs. 17,4%, 95% confidence interval of the difference 8,2% to 31,8%). Conclusion: This study shows that the intramuscular administration route of influenza vaccine in patients on anticoagulant therapy does not have more side effects than the subcutaneous administration route

Optimisation of energy provision with supplemental parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients: a randomised controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Enteral nutrition (EN) is recommended for patients in the intensive-care unit (ICU), but it does not consistently achieve nutritional goals. We assessed whether delivery of 100% of the energy target from days 4 to 8 in the ICU with EN plus supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) could optimise clinical outcome. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial was undertaken in two centres in Switzerland. We enrolled patients on day 3 of admission to the ICU who had received less than 60% of their energy target from EN, were expected to stay for longer than 5 days, and to survive for longer than 7 days. We calculated energy targets with indirect calorimetry on day 3, or if not possible, set targets as 25 and 30 kcal per kg of ideal bodyweight a day for women and men, respectively. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive EN or SPN. The primary outcome was occurrence of nosocomial infection after cessation of intervention (day 8), measured until end of follow-up (day 28), analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00802503. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 153 patients to SPN and 152 to EN. 30 patients discontinued before the study end. Mean energy delivery between day 4 and 8 was 28 kcal/kg per day (SD 5) for the SPN group (103% [SD 18%] of energy target), compared with 20 kcal/kg per day (7) for the EN group (77% [27%]). Between days 9 and 28, 41 (27%) of 153 patients in the SPN group had a nosocomial infection compared with 58 (38%) of 152 patients in the EN group (hazard ratio 0·65, 95% CI 0·43-0·97; p=0·0338), and the SPN group had a lower mean number of nosocomial infections per patient (-0·42 [-0·79 to -0·05]; p=0·0248). INTERPRETATION: Individually optimised energy supplementation with SPN starting 4 days after ICU admission could reduce nosocomial infections and should be considered as a strategy to improve clinical outcome in patients in the ICU for whom EN is insufficient. FUNDING: Foundation Nutrition 2000Plus, ICU Quality Funds, Baxter, and Fresenius Kabi.

Randomized clinical trial on epidural versus patient-controlled analgesia for laparoscopic colorectal surgery within an enhanced recovery pathway.

OBJECTIVE: To compare epidural analgesia (EDA) to patient-controlled opioid-based analgesia (PCA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. BACKGROUND: EDA is mainstay of multimodal pain management within enhanced recovery pathways [enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)]. For laparoscopic colorectal resections, the benefit of epidurals remains debated. Some consider EDA as useful, whereas others perceive epidurals as unnecessary or even deleterious. METHODS: A total of 128 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal resections were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial comparing EDA versus PCA. Primary end point was medical recovery. Overall complications, hospital stay, perioperative vasopressor requirements, and postoperative pain scores were secondary outcome measures. Analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Final analysis included 65 EDA patients and 57 PCA patients. Both groups were similar regarding baseline characteristics. Medical recovery required a median of 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3-7.5 days) in EDA patients and 4 days (IQR, 3-6 days) in the PCA group (P = 0.082). PCA patients had significantly less overall complications [19 (33%) vs 35 (54%); P = 0.029] but a similar hospital stay [5 days (IQR, 4-8 days) vs 7 days (IQR, 4.5-12 days); P = 0.434]. Significantly more EDA patients needed vasopressor treatment perioperatively (90% vs 74%, P = 0.018), the day of surgery (27% vs 4%, P < 0.001), and on postoperative day 1 (29% vs 4%, P < 0.001), whereas no difference in postoperative pain scores was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Epidurals seem to slow down recovery after laparoscopic colorectal resections without adding obvious benefits. EDA can therefore not be recommended as part of ERAS pathways in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Positive Outcomes Influence the Rate and Time to Publication, but Not the Impact Factor of Publications of Clinical Trial Results

Objectives: Publication bias may affect the validity of evidence based medical decisions. The aim of this study is to assess whether research outcomes affect the dissemination of clinical trial findings, in terms of rate, time to publication, and impact factor of journal publications. Methods and Findings: All drug-evaluating clinical trials submitted to and approved by a general hospital ethics committee between 1997 and 2004 were prospectively followed to analyze their fate and publication. Published articles were identified by searching Pubmed and other electronic databases. Clinical study final reports submitted to the ethics committee, final reports synopses available online and meeting abstracts were also considered as sources of study results. Study outcomes were classified as positive (when statistical significance favoring experimental drug was achieved), negative (when no statistical significance was achieved or it favored control drug) and descriptive (for non-controlled studies). Time to publication was defined as time from study closure to publication. A survival analysis was performed using a Cox regression model to analyze time to publication. Journal impact factors of identified publications were recorded. Publication rate was 48·4% (380/785). Study results were identified for 68·9% of all completed clinical trials (541/785). Publication rate was 84·9% (180/212) for studies with results classified as positive and 68·9% (128/186) for studies with results classified as negative (p<0·001). Median time to publication was 2·09 years (IC95 1·61-2·56) for studies with results classified as positive and 3·21 years (IC95 2·69-3·70) for studies with results classified as negative (hazard ratio 1·99 (IC95 1·55-2·55). No differences were found in publication impact factor between positive (median 6·308, interquartile range: 3·141-28·409) and negative result studies (median 8·266, interquartile range: 4·135-17·157). Conclusions: Clinical trials with positive outcomes have significantly higher rates and shorter times to publication than those with negative results. However, no differences have been found in terms of impact factor.