scholarly journals The importance of aggressive lipid management in patients at risk: Evidence from recent clinical trials

2004 ◽  
Vol 27 (S3) ◽  
pp. 12-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith C. Ferdinand
Vaccine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 536-544
Author(s):  
Vanessa W. Stevens ◽  
Ellyn M. Russo ◽  
Yinong Young-Xu ◽  
Molly Leecaster ◽  
Yue Zhang ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S184-S184
Author(s):  
Vanessa Stevens ◽  
Ellyn Russo ◽  
Yinong Young-Xu ◽  
Molly Leecaster ◽  
Yue Zhang ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (22) ◽  
pp. 3721-3726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Mathoulin-Pelissier ◽  
Sophie Gourgou-Bourgade ◽  
Franck Bonnetain ◽  
Andrew Kramar

Purpose Several publications showed that the standards for reporting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) might not be entirely suitable. Our aim was to evaluate the reporting of survival end points in cancer RCTs. Methods A search in MEDLINE databases identified 274 cancer RCTs published in 2004 in four general medical journals and four clinical oncology journals. Eligible articles were those that reported primary analyses of RCT with survival end points. Methodologists reviewed and scored the articles according to seven key points: prevalence of complete definition of survival end points (time of origin, survival events, censoring events) and relevant information about their analyses (estimation or effect size, precision, number of events, patients at risk). Concordance of key points was evaluated from a random subsample. Results After screening, 125 articles were selected; 104 trials were phase III (83%) and 98 publications (78%) were obtained from oncology journals. Among these RCTs, a total of 267 survival end points were recorded, and overall survival (OS) was the most frequent outcome (118 terms, 44%). Survival terms were totally defined for 113 end points (42%) in 65 articles (52%). Accurate information about analysis was retrieved for 73 end points (27%) in 40 articles (32%). The less well-defined information was the number of patients at risk (55%). The reliability was good (κ = 0.72). Finally, according to the key points, optimal reporting was found in 33 end points (12%) or 10 publications. Conclusion A majority of articles failed to provide a complete reporting of survival end points, thus adding another source of uncontrolled variability.


Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 343-343
Author(s):  
Annette M. Staiger ◽  
Michael Altenbuchinger ◽  
Marita Ziepert ◽  
Christian Kohler ◽  
Heike Horn ◽  
...  

Abstract Diffuse large B-cell-lymphoma (DLBCL) is a heterogeneous disease in its sites of origin, genetic alterations, and clinical behavior. Gene expression profiling (GEP) has led to the identification of two molecular subtypes, GCB-like and ABC-like DLBCL, that follow different molecular circuits and hence, likely represent different diseases. Next to the ABC-like GEP, the rearrangement and/or expression of MYC and TP53 mutations in tumors characterize patient subsets with inferior prognosis. However, the clinical impact of cell of origin (COO) subtyping and the identification of prognostic biomarkers differ between studies. In many clinical trials, patients identified "at risk" experience cure and long-time survival. Important factors modulating the impact of tumor cell-specific factors may be conferred by the host microenvironment, and stromal signatures have been shown to be correlated to survival in DLBCL. The robust analysis of stromal signatures is hampered by the lack of assays applicable to routinely used formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) materials. We have constructed a molecular signature applicable to FFPE, interrogating the quantitative and qualitative composition of the microenvironment in DLBCL. The signature was trained using an algorithm that extracts prognostic information out of the ratios of pairs of genes. The genes that drive prognosis are expressed in T-cells and macrophages and have function in the communication between both cell types. The model was validated using the NanoString assay in a cohort of 466 DLBCL patients enrolled in 7 prospective clinical trials (MInT, MegaCHOEP phase III and observation, RICOVER-60, RICOVER-noRTh, DENSER, SMARTER) of the German High grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma study group (DSHNHL). Grouping of the patients into quartiles according to the expression of the continuous stromal signature score (ranging from -1.880to 4.441) resulted in three quartiles (Q1-3) with comparable clinical behavior (stromal signature low). Patients from quartile 4 (Q4), however, characterized by high expression of the signature (stromal signature high), showed a clearly inferior outcome in EFS, PFS and OS (Figure 1 a-c). This result could be independently reproduced in the seven clinical trials named above, thus clearly depicting the robustness of the signature. Multivariate analysis revealed that high expression of the stromal signature is a prognostic risk factor independent of the IPI factors in EFS (HR 1.7, 95 % CI 1.2-2.4, p-value =0.001), PFS (HR 1.8, 95 % CI 1.2-2.5, p-value =0.001) and OS (HR1.8, 95 % CI 1.3-2.7, p-value =0.001). Combining stromal signature count with IPI-score led to the identification of a high-risk cohort (Fig. 1 d-f). Of importance, additional multivariate analyses adjusted for the IPI factors performed within selected trials showed that the stromal signature provides prognostic information independent of the COO status, MYC and dual MYC/BCL2 rearrangements, TP53 mutations and the MYC/BCL2 double expresser status. In summary, our data from prospectively randomized trials of the DSHNHL underline the importance of the microenvironment in the prognostic stratification of DLBCL patients and suggest that the composition and quality of the tumor stroma is an independent risk factor in DLBCL. Analysis of stromal features, therefore, may provide a rationale for targeted treatment approaches, e.g. with immunomodulatory substances (IMIDs), in patients at risk. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Klapper: Regeneron: Honoraria, Research Funding; HTG Molecular Diagnostics, Inc.: Research Funding; F.Hoffman-La Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Richter:HTG Molecular Diagnostics, Inc.: Research Funding. Poeschel:Roche: Other: Travel grants; Amgen: Other: Travel grants. Held:BMS: Consultancy, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy.


2005 ◽  
Vol 173 (4S) ◽  
pp. 455-455
Author(s):  
Anthony V. D’Amico ◽  
Ming-Hui Chen ◽  
Kimberly A. Roehl ◽  
William J. Catalona

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document