Creighton University

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to provide guidelines to clinicians for the evaluation, treatment, and prevention of vitamin D deficiency with an emphasis on the care of patients who are at risk for deficiency. PARTICIPANTS: The Task Force was composed of a Chair, six additional experts, and a methodologist. The Task Force received no corporate funding or remuneration. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Consensus was guided by systematic reviews of evidence and discussions during several conference calls and e-mail communications. The draft prepared by the Task Force was reviewed successively by The Endocrine Society's Clinical Guidelines Subcommittee, Clinical Affairs Core Committee, and cosponsoring associations, and it was posted on The Endocrine Society web site for member review. At each stage of review, the Task Force received written comments and incorporated needed changes. CONCLUSIONS: Considering that vitamin D deficiency is very common in all age groups and that few foods contain vitamin D, the Task Force recommended supplementation at suggested daily intake and tolerable upper limit levels, depending on age and clinical circumstances. The Task Force also suggested the measurement of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level by a reliable assay as the initial diagnostic test in patients at risk for deficiency. Treatment with either vitamin D(2) or vitamin D(3) was recommended for deficient patients. At the present time, there is not sufficient evidence to recommend screening individuals who are not at risk for deficiency or to prescribe vitamin D to attain the noncalcemic benefit for cardiovascular protection.

Journal of Bone and Mineral ResearchVolume 2, Issue 6 p. 595-610 Article Bone histomorphometry: Standardization of nomenclature, symbols, and units: Report of the asbmr histomorphometry nomenclature committee A. Michael Parfitt M.D., Corresponding Author A. Michael Parfitt M.D. Chairman Bone and Mineral Research Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MIBone and Mineral Research Laboratory Henry Ford Hospital 2799 West Grand Boulevard Detroit, MI 48202Search for more papers by this authorMarc K. Drezner, Marc K. Drezner Bone and Mineral Metabolism Section, Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology and Genetics, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NCSearch for more papers by this authorFrancis H. Glorieux, Francis H. Glorieux Genetics Unit, Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorJohn A. Kanis, John A. Kanis Department of Human Metabolism and Clinical Biochemistry, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UKSearch for more papers by this authorHartmut Malluche, Hartmut Malluche Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Bone and Mineral Metabolism, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KTSearch for more papers by this authorPierre J. Meunier, Pierre J. Meunier INSERM Unit 234, Faculte Alexis Carrel, Lyon, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorSusan M. Ott, Susan M. Ott Department of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WASearch for more papers by this authorRobert R. Recker, Robert R. Recker Metabolic Research Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NBSearch for more papers by this author A. Michael Parfitt M.D., Corresponding Author A. Michael Parfitt M.D. Chairman Bone and Mineral Research Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MIBone and Mineral Research Laboratory Henry Ford Hospital 2799 West Grand Boulevard Detroit, MI 48202Search for more papers by this authorMarc K. Drezner, Marc K. Drezner Bone and Mineral Metabolism Section, Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology and Genetics, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NCSearch for more papers by this authorFrancis H. Glorieux, Francis H. Glorieux Genetics Unit, Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorJohn A. Kanis, John A. Kanis Department of Human Metabolism and Clinical Biochemistry, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UKSearch for more papers by this authorHartmut Malluche, Hartmut Malluche Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Bone and Mineral Metabolism, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KTSearch for more papers by this authorPierre J. Meunier, Pierre J. Meunier INSERM Unit 234, Faculte Alexis Carrel, Lyon, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorSusan M. Ott, Susan M. Ott Department of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WASearch for more papers by this authorRobert R. Recker, Robert R. Recker Metabolic Research Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NBSearch for more papers by this author First published: December 1987 https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.5650020617Citations: 4,046AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume2, Issue6December 1987Pages 595-610 RelatedInformation

BACKGROUND: In 2002 the American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) classification of idiopathic interstitial pneumonias (IIPs) defined seven specific entities, and provided standardized terminology and diagnostic criteria. In addition, the historical "gold standard" of histologic diagnosis was replaced by a multidisciplinary approach. Since 2002 many publications have provided new information about IIPs. PURPOSE: The objective of this statement is to update the 2002 ATS/ERS classification of IIPs. METHODS: An international multidisciplinary panel was formed and developed key questions that were addressed through a review of the literature published between 2000 and 2011. RESULTS: Substantial progress has been made in IIPs since the previous classification. Nonspecific interstitial pneumonia is now better defined. Respiratory bronchiolitis-interstitial lung disease is now commonly diagnosed without surgical biopsy. The clinical course of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia is recognized to be heterogeneous. Acute exacerbation of IIPs is now well defined. A substantial percentage of patients with IIP are difficult to classify, often due to mixed patterns of lung injury. A classification based on observed disease behavior is proposed for patients who are difficult to classify or for entities with heterogeneity in clinical course. A group of rare entities, including pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis and rare histologic patterns, is introduced. The rapidly evolving field of molecular markers is reviewed with the intent of promoting additional investigations that may help in determining diagnosis, and potentially prognosis and treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This update is a supplement to the previous 2002 IIP classification document. It outlines advances in the past decade and potential areas for future investigation.

This article summarizes the new 2011 report on dietary requirements for calcium and vitamin D from the Institute of Medicine (IOM). An IOM Committee charged with determining the population needs for these nutrients in North America conducted a comprehensive review of the evidence for both skeletal and extraskeletal outcomes. The Committee concluded that available scientific evidence supports a key role of calcium and vitamin D in skeletal health, consistent with a cause-and-effect relationship and providing a sound basis for determination of intake requirements. For extraskeletal outcomes, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and autoimmune disorders, the evidence was inconsistent, inconclusive as to causality, and insufficient to inform nutritional requirements. Randomized clinical trial evidence for extraskeletal outcomes was limited and generally uninformative. Based on bone health, Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs; covering requirements of ≥97.5% of the population) for calcium range from 700 to 1300 mg/d for life-stage groups at least 1 yr of age. For vitamin D, RDAs of 600 IU/d for ages 1-70 yr and 800 IU/d for ages 71 yr and older, corresponding to a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of at least 20 ng/ml (50 nmol/liter), meet the requirements of at least 97.5% of the population. RDAs for vitamin D were derived based on conditions of minimal sun exposure due to wide variability in vitamin D synthesis from ultraviolet light and the risks of skin cancer. Higher values were not consistently associated with greater benefit, and for some outcomes U-shaped associations were observed, with risks at both low and high levels. The Committee concluded that the prevalence of vitamin D inadequacy in North America has been overestimated. Urgent research and clinical priorities were identified, including reassessment of laboratory ranges for 25-hydroxyvitamin D, to avoid problems of both undertreatment and overtreatment.

This study describes comprehensive polling of transcription start and termination sites and analysis of previously unidentified full-length complementary DNAs derived from the mouse genome. We identify the 5' and 3' boundaries of 181,047 transcripts with extensive variation in transcripts arising from alternative promoter usage, splicing, and polyadenylation. There are 16,247 new mouse protein-coding transcripts, including 5154 encoding previously unidentified proteins. Genomic mapping of the transcriptome reveals transcriptional forests, with overlapping transcription on both strands, separated by deserts in which few transcripts are observed. The data provide a comprehensive platform for the comparative analysis of mammalian transcriptional regulation in differentiation and development.

Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC), also known as Lynch syndrome, is a common autosomal dominant syndrome characterized by early age at onset, neoplastic lesions, and microsatellite instability (MSI). Because cancers with MSI account for approximately 15% of all colorectal cancers and because of the need for a better understanding of the clinical and histologic manifestations of HNPCC, the National Cancer Institute hosted an international workshop on HNPCC in 1996, which led to the development of the Bethesda Guidelines for the identification of individuals with HNPCC who should be tested for MSI. To consider revision and improvement of the Bethesda Guidelines, another HNPCC workshop was held at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, MD, in 2002. In this commentary, we summarize the Workshop presentations on HNPCC and MSI testing; present the issues relating to the performance, sensitivity, and specificity of the Bethesda Guidelines; outline the revised Bethesda Guidelines for identifying individuals at risk for HNPCC; and recommend criteria for MSI testing.

The contribution of BRCA1 and BRCA2 to inherited breast cancer was assessed by linkage and mutation analysis in 237 families, each with at least four cases of breast cancer, collected by the Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Families were included without regard to the occurrence of ovarian or other cancers. Overall, disease was linked to BRCA1 in an estimated 52% of families, to BRCA2 in 32% of families, and to neither gene in 16% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6%-28%), suggesting other predisposition genes. The majority (81%) of the breast-ovarian cancer families were due to BRCA1, with most others (14%) due to BRCA2. Conversely, the majority of families with male and female breast cancer were due to BRCA2 (76%). The largest proportion (67%) of families due to other genes was found in families with four or five cases of female breast cancer only. These estimates were not substantially affected either by changing the assumed penetrance model for BRCA1 or by including or excluding BRCA1 mutation data. Among those families with disease due to BRCA1 that were tested by one of the standard screening methods, mutations were detected in the coding sequence or splice sites in an estimated 63% (95% CI 51%-77%). The estimated sensitivity was identical for direct sequencing and other techniques. The penetrance of BRCA2 was estimated by maximizing the LOD score in BRCA2-mutation families, over all possible penetrance functions. The estimated cumulative risk of breast cancer reached 28% (95% CI 9%-44%) by age 50 years and 84% (95% CI 43%-95%) by age 70 years. The corresponding ovarian cancer risks were 0.4% (95% CI 0%-1%) by age 50 years and 27% (95% CI 0%-47%) by age 70 years. The lifetime risk of breast cancer appears similar to the risk in BRCA1 carriers, but there was some suggestion of a lower risk in BRCA2 carriers <50 years of age.

Before publication of the original version of this report in 1987, practitioners of bone histomorphometry communicated with each other in a variety of arcane languages, which in general were unintelligible to those outside the field. The need for standardization of nomenclature had been recognized for many years,1 during which there had been much talk but no action. To satisfy this need, B Lawrence Riggs (ASBMR President, 1985 to 1986) asked A Michael Parfitt to convene an ASBMR committee to develop a new and unified system of terminology, suitable for adoption by the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (JBMR) as part of its Instructions to Authors. The resulting recommendations were published in 19872 and were quickly adopted not only by JBMR but also by all respected journals in the bone field. The recommendations improved markedly the ability of histomorphometrists to communicate with each other and with nonhistomorphometrists, leading to a broader understanding and appreciation of histomorphometric data. In 2012, 25 years after the development of the standardized nomenclature system, Thomas L Clemens (Editor in Chief of JBMR) felt that it was time to revise and update the recommendations. The original committee was reconvened by David W Dempster, who appointed one new member, Juliet E Compston. The original document was circulated to the committee members and was extensively revised according to their current recommendations. The key revisions include omission of terminology used before 1987, recommendations regarding the parameters and technical information that should be included in all histomorphometry articles, recommendations on how to handle dynamic parameters of bone formation in settings of low bone turnover, and updating of references. It is generally agreed that a bone is an individual organ of the skeletal system, but the term "bone" has at least three meanings. The first is mineralized bone matrix excluding osteoid; this usage conforms rigorously to the definition of bone as a hard tissue. Osteoid is bone matrix that will be (but is not yet) mineralized, and is sometimes referred to as pre-bone. The second meaning of "bone," and the one we have adopted, is bone matrix, whether mineralized or not, ie, including both mineralized bone and osteoid. The third meaning of "bone" is a tissue including bone marrow and other soft tissue, as well as bone as just defined. We refer to the combination of bone and associated soft tissue or marrow as "bone tissue." "Tissue" is defined3 as "an aggregation of similarly specialized cells united in the performance of a particular function." In this sense, bone, bone marrow, and the contents of osteonal canals are certainly not the same tissue, but in a more general sense, most textbooks of histology recognize only four fundamental tissues—epithelium, nerve, muscle, and connective tissue4—of which the last-named includes bone and all its accompanying nonmineralized tissue. In current clinical and radiologic parlance, "trabecular" and "cortical" refer to contrasting structural types of bone. But "trabecular" does not appear in any standard textbook of anatomy or histology as a name for a type of bone; rather, "spongy" or "cancellous" is used. "Spongiosa" (primary or secondary) is best restricted to the stages of endochondral ossification; "cancellous" is most commonly used in textbooks4, 5 and is the term we have chosen. We retain the noun "trabecula" and its associated adjective "trabecular" to refer to an individual structural element of cancellous bone, in accordance with current practice in histology,4 pathology,6 and biomechanics.7 Etymologically, a trabecula is a beam or rod, and in young people plates rather than rods are the predominant structural elements, both in the spine8 and in the ilium,9 but no convenient alternative is available. The size, shape, and orientation of trabeculae (as just defined) vary considerably between different types of cancellous bone.9, 10 "Density" is a frequent source of confusion in discussions about bone. We propose that the term should be restricted as far as possible to its primary meaning in physics of mass per unit volume,11, 12 with a subsidiary meaning analogous to population density, which is applied mainly to cells. This precludes the use of "density" in its stereologic sense, as will be discussed later. Corresponding to the definitions given earlier, the volume to which mass is referred can be of mineralized bone, bone, bone tissue (cortical or cancellous), or a whole bone. Mineralized bone density is slightly less than true bone density, which excludes the volume of osteocyte lacunae and canaliculi.11 This volume is small and generally ignored; lacunar volume can be readily measured,13 but canalicular volume is inaccessible to light microscopy. Bone density reflects the volumetric proportion of osteoid; bone matrix volume, excluding lacunar and canalicular volume, has been referred to as absolute bone volume.14 Bone tissue density reflects the volumetric proportion of soft tissue, or porosity. Whole bone density, often referred to as apparent bone density, reflects the volumetric proportions of cortical bone tissue, cancellous bone tissue, and diaphyseal marrow within a bone, the organ volume of which is usually measured by Archimedes' principle.15 "Osteoblast" is defined differently in the clinical and experimental literature. In young, rapidly growing small animals, most bone surfaces are undergoing either resorption or formation and virtually all cells on the surface are either osteoclasts or osteoblasts,16 but in the adult human, most bone surfaces are quiescent with respect to bone remodeling. We refer to the flat cells that cover quiescent internal (nonperiosteal) bone surfaces as lining cells and restrict the term "osteoblast" to cells that are making bone matrix currently or with only temporary interruption, rather than including all surface cells that are not osteoclasts.16 Lining cells are of osteoblast lineage and are thought to have osteogenic potential.17 The term "osteoclast" is restricted to bone-resorbing cells containing lysosomes and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase; they are usually multinucleated, although some osteoclast profiles may have only one or no nucleus. Criteria for identification of osteoblasts and osteoclasts, whether morphologic or histochemical,18, 19 should always be stated or referenced. A two-dimensional histological section displays profiles of three-dimensional structures. Four types of primary measurement can be made on these profiles—area, length (usually of a perimeter or boundary), distance between points or between lines, and number.20 Some histomorphometrists report all results only in these two-dimensional terms because the assumptions needed for extrapolation to three dimensions may be difficult to justify and because the diagnostic significance of the measurements or the statistical significance of an experimental result are not affected. For these limited objectives, this is a reasonable view, but bone cannot be fully understood unless conceived in three-dimensional terms. In every other branch of science that uses microscopy as an investigative tool, the ultimate goal is to understand three-dimensional reality by the application of stereology, which is the relevant mathematical discipline.20-22 We believe that this also should be the goal of bone histomorphometry. Accurate three-dimensional data are necessary for proper comparison between species, between bones, and between different types of bone, for input into finite element models of bone strength, for realistic estimation of radiation burdens, and for many aspects of bone physiology, such as the calculation of diffusion distances and the measurement of individual cell work. But as a practical matter, it is unrealistic to insist on universal adoption of a three-dimensional format. All stereologic theorems require that sampling be random and unbiased, a condition only rarely fulfilled in bone histomorphometry; the closest feasible approach is to rotate the cylindrical bone sample randomly around its longitudinal axis before embedding.20, 23 In the past, the use of a hemispherical grid20-22 in the ocular lens was a convenient way of ensuring randomness of test line orientation, but even this cannot compensate for sampling bias introduced at an earlier stage. With the exception of the conversion of area fractions to volume fractions, most stereologic theorems also require that the structure be isotropic, meaning that a perpendicular to any element of surface has an equal likelihood of pointing in any direction in space.20, 24 Although not true for all cancellous bone, in the ilium there is only moderate deviation from isotropy, and stereologic theorems may be used with acceptable error.24, 25 But it is more accurate to apply the theory of vertical sections; a cycloid test grid is required, which is incompatible with the use of a digitizer,23, 26 but there is no other way of obtaining truly unbiased estimates. Because Haversian canals generally do not deviate from the long axis by more than 10°, stereologic problems in diaphyseal cortical bone are minimal, but investigation of the correct stereologic approach to iliac cortical bone has not been done. Accordingly, we recommend that everyone reporting histomorphometric data should select one of two options: either present all results strictly and consistently in two dimensions, using the terms perimeter (for length), area, and width (for distance), or (as favored by the committee) present only the corresponding three-dimensional results using the terms surface, volume, and thickness; with the latter option, an explanation is needed for each type of measurement of exactly how it was derived from the primary two-dimensional measurement, as described later. A mixture of two- and three-dimensional terms should not be used in the same article. The only exception is number, the fourth type of primary measurement, for which there is no convenient way of extrapolating to three dimensions without making assumptions concerning the three-dimensional shape of the objects counted.21, 22 Direct enumeration of number in three dimensions is possible if the same object can be identified in serial sections of known thickness and separation,27 but this method has not yet been applied to bone. Topological properties such as connectivity also cannot be determined from two-dimensional sections.28 The original committee chose not to adopt the terminology of the International Society of Stereology, as was suggested at the First International Workshop on Bone Morphometry.29 Stereologists use the term "density" in a very general sense to identify any measurement referred to some defined containing volume,21, 22 so that fractional volume is "volume density" (Vv) and surface area per unit volume is "surface density" (Sv). Although the unification of scientific terminology is desirable in the long term, the practical disadvantage of using "density" in two different senses outweighs the theoretical advantage. Nevertheless, all investigators wishing to remain at the cutting edge of bone histomorphometry will need to be thoroughly familiar with the terminologic conventions of stereology because many important methodologic articles applicable to bone are published in the Journal of Microscopy, which is the official journal of the International Society of Stereology.26-28 Primary two-dimensional measurements of perimeter, area, and number are indices of the amount of tissue examined and can be compared between subjects only when related to a common referent, which will be some clearly defined area or perimeter within the section. Absolute perimeter length and absolute area in two dimensions have no corresponding absolute surface area and absolute volume in three dimensions, but it is convenient to refer to perimeters as surfaces and to areas as volumes if the appropriate referent is clear from the context. Primary two-dimensional measurements of width (and corresponding three-dimensional thicknesses) and mean profile areas of individual structures have meaning in isolation and are the only type that do not require a referent. Different referents serve different purposes and lead to different interpretations, so that use of multiple referents is unavoidable, and it is important to clearly distinguish between them.30 Commonly used referents include tissue volume (TV), bone volume (BV), bone surface (BS), and osteoid surface (OS) and their corresponding two-dimensional areas or perimeters. With explicit identification of the referent, the use of "relative" as a qualifying term becomes redundant. The volume of the cylindrical biopsy core is not commonly used as a referent at present but is needed for comparison with physical methods of measuring bone density,31 for comparing the absolute amounts of cortical and cancellous bone lost because of aging or disease,31 for determining the contributions of different types of bone and different surfaces to various histological indices, such as amount of osteoid and surface extent of osteoblasts,32 and for examining in detail the relationships between histological and biochemical indices of whole-body bone remodeling.32 Use of the core volume (CV) as a referent provides the closest approach possible from an iliac biopsy to the in vivo level of organization corresponding to bone as an organ. An intact, full-thickness transiliac biopsy can be regarded as representative of the entire bone18, 33 because the length of the cylindrical biopsy core perpendicular to the external surface depends mainly on the width of the iliac bone at the site of sampling. Cortical thickness can be measured with a vertical biopsy through the iliac crest,5 but the proportions of cortical and cancellous tissue in the bone cannot be measured. However, with either type of biopsy, the results can be weighted by the proportions of cortical and cancellous bone tissue in the entire skeleton.34 The same principle can be applied to rib biopsies and to long bone cross sections by using the whole area enclosed by the periosteum as the referent. The recommended individual terms are listed in Table 1 in alphabetical order of their abbreviations or symbols. Several general comments are in order. First, like a dictionary, the lexicon is intended to be consulted, rather than memorized. Second, the use of abbreviations is always discretionary, never compulsory. Although designed mainly to save time or space, there is a more subtle reason for abbreviations, as for other symbols. Words frequently carry unwanted implications from their use in other contexts, but confusion is less likely with symbols that can be approached with fewer preconceptions.1 Nevertheless, our purpose is not to encourage or discourage the use of abbreviations and symbols but to ensure that the same ones are used by everybody. To this end, we have made the lexicon comprehensive to anticipate future needs and forestall the introduction of new abbreviations with different meanings. We have included metals frequently identified in bone (with their usual elemental abbreviations) and terms commonly used in quantitative microscopy and stereology, as well as terms for all the major structural features of bone and of bones and for some important concepts of bone physiology. Terms with unfamiliar meanings are explained and defined in relation to their use. With one exception, the abbreviations and symbols in Table 1 consist of only two letters; "BMU" (basic multicellular unit) is retained because it is important and widely used and lacks a suitable alternative. The most commonly used descriptive terms are given a single capital letter. Other terms have an additional lowercase letter, chosen in many cases to emphasize the second or later syllable and usually avoiding the second letter of the word abbreviated by the single capital letter. Single lowercase letters are used for terms that are in some sense related to time, for the primary data of classical grid counting (hit and intersection), and for n in its usual statistical sense. When used in combination, double-letter abbreviations should be demarcated by a period; in the absence of periods, each letter is to be construed as an individual abbreviation. In this way, any combination of abbreviations can be unambiguously deciphered without having to determine which terms are included in the lexicon. Bone histomorphometry can be applied to many types of material, but the most common are sections of cylindrical biopsy samples of iliac bone obtained from human subjects and sections of long bones obtained from experimental animals. For orientation, we first present the terminology for describing these sections. "Core" (C) refers to the entire biopsy specimen (Fig. 1). For transiliac biopsies, the distance between external (Ex) and internal (In) periosteum is termed "width" (Wi) because it is related to the thickness of the iliac bone at the biopsy site; for vertical biopsies through the iliac crest, the term "length" (Le) is more appropriate. Core width is subdivided into cortical (Ct) widths and cancellous (Cn) width; for transiliac biopsies, measurements on the two cortices (including their width) are usually pooled, but it is possible to keep track of their identity and examine them separately. In this case, the two cortices are generally distinguished by their width (thick versus thin). Identification of the inner and outer cortex would require that one be marked in some way (eg, by ink or cotton thread) at the time of the biopsy, but this is seldom done. The outer cortex generally has more attached fibrous and muscle tissue than the inner cortex. The other dimension of the core is referred to as "diameter" (Dm), although only sections through the central axis of the cylinder have the same diameter as the trephine; the more accurate term "chord length" is too cumbersome. If the axis of the transiliac core is oblique to the plane of the ilium, its dimensions are apparently changed (Fig. It is convenient to core diameter as mean length" and of because true for cortical and cancellous width for are given by the relationships between length and area in the to of representative bone biopsies from different transiliac cortex on vertical on by transiliac biopsy from and with of sections through cylindrical biopsy core of of perpendicular on oblique on core width; core cortical width; cancellous to core area cortical area cancellous area the inner and outer periosteum do not from and their mean length is used for these relationships remain true for the oblique section because the areas enclosed by the and are the relationships can be used to and without measuring the of For long bone cross sections (Fig. bone diameter is similarly subdivided into two cortical widths and either cancellous diameter for cross or marrow diameter for diaphyseal cross sections. The relationships between these and bone area, cortical area, and cancellous or marrow area depends on the of the cross section. For such measurements may be needed at multiple in relation to the in vivo For both iliac and long bone it is necessary for purposes to recognize a between cortical and cancellous bone tissue and in and This is not in or because methods of its are not yet fully A has been used to this in quantitative This may be applicable to iliac bone biopsy but this has not yet been For all bones, all surfaces in with bone marrow are referred to as and are subdivided into cancellous bone surface and the latter is the inner of the cortex. between these is to unless made in accordance with some and will also on whether the is measured separately. surfaces not in with bone marrow are generally referred to as cortical with as the cortical surface can also be referred to as the Haversian or osteonal of cross sections through the of a long bone; is on the and diaphyseal is on the For the cancellous bone of the is not bone cortical width; cancellous marrow The standard and applicable method for reporting all data should be that the of to as well as to the and are used only as and are used only as described refers to the structure on which the measurement was whether this was a particular surface or a particular type of tissue. of the commonly used have been defined many are by using the lexicon 1). If measurements are restricted to some of a such as the outer of a or the central of cancellous the same can be but the appropriate should be made in the of For measurements made on the entire the source is identified as it will not be necessary to the source each time a particular is referred only one source is used in an it need only be If are their can be used as for of results in or and in most cases will need to be only if measurements from are discussed such that confusion between them is For some such as only one source is possible and its is redundant. The three and the two are the key needed to from one referent to is to in stereologic terminology, and and are to in stereologic are derived from the corresponding two-dimensional and either by which is correct for or by which has been determined for human iliac cancellous The with so that the always be stated and and to in stereologic terminology and are with the corresponding and For some a of the bone surface is needed as a referent surface and surface are often related to osteoid surface usually and it can be to osteoclasts to the mineralized surface as an alternative to the more usual referents bone surface and surface indices of bone formation can be related to the osteoblast surface or to the number of osteoblast profiles as well as to osteoid surface or bone it may be appropriate to use the between mineralized bone and or bone as a referent for the length of or of because the is these features are In many as when only one referent is used for each measurement, the referent need only be and not each time the measurement is If more than one referent is measurements with the same referent can be to are listed with abbreviations in both and in Table have been defined but some need additional is used for of mineralized bone volume and is given by volume osteoid Osteoid may need to be as or as the in the lexicon between which refers to a and which refers to a for all measurements are with the indices discussed is a general term applicable to all tissue that is not and includes marrow in cancellous bone and Haversian and canals in cortical bone. For both types of tissue, can with area measurements on individual such as cells or cortical The profiles can be as an of tissue, by use of the appropriate referent. For is the area of all cell profiles referred to the area of tissue and in terms. The profiles can also be as individual by absence of a is the mean area of individual If confusion is the term be as or mean areas in cannot be to mean volumes in unless the structures are in cylindrical mean area can be used to but it is to this as described later. Osteoid do not so that some width should be for measurement of osteoid surface We the terms formation surface and resorption surface because the implications of current may be and for the same reason we the surface is with or lacunar surface and the osteoclast surface and the surface individual can also be as osteoclast or osteoclast Some cells and methods are needed for and the cells on the surface or cells. surface is with or the term that will at some future The of connective tissue the flat lining cells on quiescent surfaces should not be referred to as It is possible that some surface by flat lining cells should be as quiescent surface rather than as In all distance measurements can be obtained in two by measurement at multiple or by calculation from measurements of area and The method is more and can a and a standard deviation as well as a mean but that measurement be randomly The method is less and less to sampling The method is usually used for distance between and cell and dimensions, and the method is usually used for thickness diameter and methods are widely used for osteoid thickness and cortical The method is for the from the relationships between individual measurement at particular and at particular during the The mean determined by either method in an individual be distinguished from the mean in a of Mineralized thickness is the distance from the line to the between bone and It is used in and in different types of osteoid and different stages of in the mean should be to the between thickness and osteoid thickness is measured on an individual it has been used in the for calculation of the of and in human subjects as an of in thickness is the mean distance between on of a usually as for the is an of bone from the cortical surface, but too is known of the internal of iliac cortical bone to

BACKGROUND: Niraparib is an oral poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) 1/2 inhibitor that has shown clinical activity in patients with ovarian cancer. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of niraparib versus placebo as maintenance treatment for patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, patients were categorized according to the presence or absence of a germline BRCA mutation (gBRCA cohort and non-gBRCA cohort) and the type of non-gBRCA mutation and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive niraparib (300 mg) or placebo once daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Of 553 enrolled patients, 203 were in the gBRCA cohort (with 138 assigned to niraparib and 65 to placebo), and 350 patients were in the non-gBRCA cohort (with 234 assigned to niraparib and 116 to placebo). Patients in the niraparib group had a significantly longer median duration of progression-free survival than did those in the placebo group, including 21.0 vs. 5.5 months in the gBRCA cohort (hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17 to 0.41), as compared with 12.9 months vs. 3.8 months in the non-gBRCA cohort for patients who had tumors with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.59) and 9.3 months vs. 3.9 months in the overall non-gBRCA cohort (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.61; P<0.001 for all three comparisons). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events that were reported in the niraparib group were thrombocytopenia (in 33.8%), anemia (in 25.3%), and neutropenia (in 19.6%), which were managed with dose modifications. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer, the median duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer among those receiving niraparib than among those receiving placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of gBRCA mutations or HRD status, with moderate bone marrow toxicity. (Funded by Tesaro; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01847274 .).

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor is a key promoter of angiogenesis and disease progression in epithelial ovarian cancer. Bevacizumab, a humanized anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody, has shown single-agent activity in women with recurrent tumors. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the addition of bevacizumab to standard front-line therapy. METHODS: In our double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned eligible patients with newly diagnosed stage III (incompletely resectable) or stage IV epithelial ovarian cancer who had undergone debulking surgery to receive one of three treatments. All three included chemotherapy consisting of intravenous paclitaxel at a dose of 175 mg per square meter of body-surface area, plus carboplatin at an area under the curve of 6, for cycles 1 through 6, plus a study treatment for cycles 2 through 22, each cycle of 3 weeks' duration. The control treatment was chemotherapy with placebo added in cycles 2 through 22; bevacizumab-initiation treatment was chemotherapy with bevacizumab (15 mg per kilogram of body weight) added in cycles 2 through 6 and placebo added in cycles 7 through 22. Bevacizumab-throughout treatment was chemotherapy with bevacizumab added in cycles 2 through 22. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Overall, 1873 women were enrolled. The median progression-free survival was 10.3 months in the control group, 11.2 in the bevacizumab-initiation group, and 14.1 in the bevacizumab-throughout group. Relative to control treatment, the hazard ratio for progression or death was 0.908 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.795 to 1.040; P=0.16) with bevacizumab initiation and 0.717 (95% CI, 0.625 to 0.824; P<0.001) with bevacizumab throughout. At the time of analysis, 76.3% of patients were alive, with no significant differences in overall survival among the three groups. The rate of hypertension requiring medical therapy was higher in the bevacizumab-initiation group (16.5%) and the bevacizumab-throughout group (22.9%) than in the control group (7.2%). Gastrointestinal-wall disruption requiring medical intervention occurred in 1.2%, 2.8%, and 2.6% of patients in the control group, the bevacizumab-initiation group, and the bevacizumab-throughout group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of bevacizumab during and up to 10 months after carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy prolongs the median progression-free survival by about 4 months in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00262847.).

BACKGROUND: mutations. The efficacy of niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer after a response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy is unknown. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer in a 2:1 ratio to receive niraparib or placebo once daily after a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival in patients who had tumors with homologous-recombination deficiency and in those in the overall population, as determined on hierarchical testing. A prespecified interim analysis for overall survival was conducted at the time of the primary analysis of progression-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 733 patients who underwent randomization, 373 (50.9%) had tumors with homologous-recombination deficiency. Among the patients in this category, the median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the niraparib group than in the placebo group (21.9 months vs. 10.4 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 0.59; P<0.001). In the overall population, the corresponding progression-free survival was 13.8 months and 8.2 months (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.76; P<0.001). At the 24-month interim analysis, the rate of overall survival was 84% in the niraparib group and 77% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.11). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were anemia (in 31.0% of the patients), thrombocytopenia (in 28.7%), and neutropenia (in 12.8%). No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer who had a response to platinum-based chemotherapy, those who received niraparib had significantly longer progression-free survival than those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of homologous-recombination deficiency. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02655016.).

BACKGROUND: Postmenopausal osteoporosis is a serious health problem, and additional treatments are needed. METHODS: We studied the effects of oral alendronate, an aminobisphosphonate, on bone mineral density and the incidence of fractures and height loss in 994 women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. The women were treated with placebo or alendronate (5 or 10 mg daily for three years, or 20 mg for two years followed by 5 mg for one year); all the women received 500 mg of calcium daily. Bone mineral density was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. The occurrence of new vertebral fractures and the progression of vertebral deformities were determined by an analysis of digitized radiographs, and loss of height was determined by sequential height measurements. RESULTS: The women receiving alendronate had significant, progressive increases in bone mineral density at all skeletal sites, whereas those receiving placebo had decreases in bone mineral density. At three years, the mean (+/- SE) differences in bone mineral density between the women receiving 10 mg of alendronate daily and those receiving placebo were 8.8 +/- 0.4 percent in the spine, 5.9 +/- 0.5 percent in the femoral neck, 7.8 +/- 0.6 percent in the trochanter, and 2.5 +/- 0.3 percent in the total body (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). The 5-mg dose was less effective than the 10-mg dose, and the regimen of 20 mg followed by 5 mg was similar in efficacy to the 10-mg dose. Overall, treatment with alendronate was associated with a 48 percent reduction in the proportion of women with new vertebral fractures (3.2 percent, vs. 6.2 percent in the placebo group; P = 0.03), a decreased progression of vertebral deformities (33 percent, vs. 41 percent in the placebo group; P = 0.028), and a reduced loss of height (P = 0.005) and was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Daily treatment with alendronate progressively increases the bone mass in the spine, hip, and total body and reduces the incidence of vertebral fractures, the progression of vertebral deformities, and height loss in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Recent studies have shown that a locus responsible for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is on chromosome 2p and that tumors developing in these patients contain alterations in microsatellite sequences (RER+ phenotype). We have used chromosome microdissection to obtain highly polymorphic markers from chromosome 2p16. These and other markers were ordered in a panel of somatic cell hybrids and used to define a 0.8 Mb interval containing the HNPCC locus. Candidate genes were then mapped, and one was found to lie within the 0.8 Mb interval. We identified this candidate by virtue of its homology to mutS mismatch repair genes. cDNA clones were obtained and the sequence used to detect germline mutations, including those producing termination codons, in HNPCC kindreds. Somatic as well as germline mutations of the gene were identified in RER+ tumor cells. This mutS homolog is therefore likely to be responsible for HNPCC.

Twelve hundred ninety-six patients with resected colon cancer that either was locally invasive (Stage B2) or had regional nodal involvement (Stage C) were randomly assigned to observation or to treatment for one year with levamisole combined with fluorouracil. Patients with Stage C disease could also be randomly assigned to treatment with levamisole alone. The median follow-up time at this writing is 3 years (range, 2 to 5 1/2). Among the patients with Stage C disease, therapy with levamisole plus fluorouracil reduced the risk of cancer recurrence by 41 percent (P less than 0.0001). The overall death rate was reduced by 33 percent (P approximately 0.006). Treatment with levamisole alone had no detectable effect. The results in the patients with Stage B2 disease were equivocal and too preliminary to allow firm conclusions. Toxic effects of levamisole alone were infrequent, usually consisting of mild nausea with occasional dermatitis or leukopenia, and those of levamisole plus fluorouracil were essentially the same as those of fluorouracil alone--i.e., nausea, vomiting, stomatitis, diarrhea, dermatitis, and leukopenia. These reactions were usually not severe and did not greatly impede patients' compliance with their regimen. We conclude that adjuvant therapy with levamisole and fluorouracil should be standard treatment for Stage C colon carcinoma. Since most patients in our study were treated by community oncologists, this approach should be readily adaptable to conventional medical practice.

he annual incidence of colorectal cancer in the unitedStates is approximately 148,300 (affecting 72,600 males and 75,700 females), with 56,600 deaths (in 27,800 males and 28,800 females).1 The lifetime risk of colorectal cancer in the general population is about 5 to 6 percent. 1 Patients with a familial risk -those who have two or more first-or second-degree relatives (or both) with colorectal cancer -make up approximately 20 percent of all patients with colorectal cancer, whereas approximately 5 to 10 percent of the total annual burden of colorectal cancer is mendelian in nature -that is, it is inherited in an autosomal dominant manner.In this review we will focus on the two major forms of hereditary colorectal cancer, familial adenomatous polyposis and hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer.The most important step leading to the diagnosis of a hereditary cancer syndrome is the compilation of a thorough family history of cancer.2-4 A patient and his or her key relatives, working either alone or with a trained nurse or genetic counselor, can compile such a detailed family history.The focus should be on identifying cancer of all types and sites; the family member's age at the onset of cancer; any pattern of multiple primary cancers; any association with phenotypic features that may be related to cancer, such as colonic adenomas; and documentation of pathological findings whenever possible.This information will frequently identify a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome in the family, should it exist.Molecular genetic testing may then provide verification of the diagnosis, when a germ-line mutation is present in the family.5,6 The primary care physician may wish to refer the patient to a hereditary-cancer specialist and genetic counselor for further evaluation should there be any remaining question about the disorder's clinical or molecular genetic diagnosis and the need for targeted surveillance and management.Once a diagnosis of a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome is established, the proband's high-risk relatives should be notified, and genetic counseling and DNA testing should be performed in consenting relatives, when such testing is appropriate.In an attempt to reduce morbidity and mortality, surveillance measures may then be instituted that reflect the natural history of the disorder.7 Once it is clear that a patient has a familial form of colorectal cancer, genetic counseling is mandatory and must provide the patient and his or her extended family with important details about their genetic risk of cancer at specific sites, on the basis of the natural history of the hereditary cancer syndrome; the options for surveillance and management; and the availability of genetic testing.8,9 Counseling should be face to face, but a session may include multiple family members.8 The concept of informed consent implies that a patient has received counseling, information, and putative test results and t overall clinical approach

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to verify an autophagic response.

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to verify an autophagic response.

A small proportion of breast cancer, in particular those cases arising at a young age, is due to the inheritance of dominant susceptibility genes conferring a high risk of the disease. A genomic linkage search was performed with 15 high-risk breast cancer families that were unlinked to the BRCA1 locus on chromosome 17q21. This analysis localized a second breast cancer susceptibility locus, BRCA2, to a 6-centimorgan interval on chromosome 13q12-13. Preliminary evidence suggests that BRCA2 confers a high risk of breast cancer but, unlike BRCA1, does not confer a substantially elevated risk of ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy as an adjunct to surgery for rectal cancer has been shown to reduce local recurrence but has not improved survival. In a previous study, combined radiation and chemotherapy improved survival significantly as compared with surgery alone, but not as compared with adjuvant radiation, which many regard as standard therapy. We designed a combination regimen to optimize the contribution of chemotherapy, decrease recurrence, and improve survival as compared with adjuvant radiation alone. METHODS: Two hundred four patients with rectal carcinoma that was either deeply invasive or metastatic to regional lymph nodes were randomly assigned to postoperative radiation alone (4500 to 5040 cGy) or to radiation plus fluorouracil, which was both preceded and followed by a cycle of systemic therapy with fluorouracil plus semustine (methyl-CCNU). RESULTS: After a median follow-up of more than seven years, the combined therapy had reduced the recurrence of rectal cancer by 34 percent (P = 0.0016; 95 percent confidence interval, 12 to 50 percent). Initial local recurrence was reduced by 46 percent (P = 0.036; 95 percent confidence interval, 2 to 70 percent), and distant metastasis by 37 percent (P = 0.011; 95 percent confidence interval, 9 to 57 percent). In addition, combined therapy reduced the rate of cancer-related deaths by 36 percent (P = 0.0071; 95 percent confidence interval, 14 to 53 percent) and the overall death rate by 29 percent (P = 0.025; 95 percent confidence interval, 7 to 45 percent). Its acute toxic effects included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia. These effects were seldom severe. Severe, delayed treatment-related reactions, usually small-bowel obstruction requiring surgery, occurred in 6.7 percent of all patients receiving radiation, and the frequencies of these complications were comparable in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of postoperative local therapy with radiation plus fluorouracil and systemic therapy with a fluorouracil-based regimen significantly and substantively improves the results of therapy for rectal carcinoma with a poor prognosis, as compared with postoperative radiation alone.

Some cases of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) are due to alterations in a mutS-related mismatch repair gene. A search of a large database of expressed sequence tags derived from random complementary DNA clones revealed three additional human mismatch repair genes, all related to the bacterial mutL gene. One of these genes (hMLH1) resides on chromosome 3p21, within 1 centimorgan of markers previously linked to cancer susceptibility in HNPCC kindreds. Mutations of hMLH1 that would disrupt the gene product were identified in such kindreds, demonstrating that this gene is responsible for the disease. These results suggest that defects in any of several mismatch repair genes can cause HNPCC.