University Health Network
Hospital / health systemToronto, Canada
Research output, citation impact, and the most-cited recent papers from University Health Network (Canada). Aggregated across the NobleBlocks index of 300M+ scholarly works.
Top-cited papers from University Health Network
BACKGROUND: Thyroid nodules are a common clinical problem, and differentiated thyroid cancer is becoming increasingly prevalent. Since the American Thyroid Association's (ATA's) guidelines for the management of these disorders were revised in 2009, significant scientific advances have occurred in the field. The aim of these guidelines is to inform clinicians, patients, researchers, and health policy makers on published evidence relating to the diagnosis and management of thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer. METHODS: The specific clinical questions addressed in these guidelines were based on prior versions of the guidelines, stakeholder input, and input of task force members. Task force panel members were educated on knowledge synthesis methods, including electronic database searching, review and selection of relevant citations, and critical appraisal of selected studies. Published English language articles on adults were eligible for inclusion. The American College of Physicians Guideline Grading System was used for critical appraisal of evidence and grading strength of recommendations for therapeutic interventions. We developed a similarly formatted system to appraise the quality of such studies and resultant recommendations. The guideline panel had complete editorial independence from the ATA. Competing interests of guideline task force members were regularly updated, managed, and communicated to the ATA and task force members. RESULTS: The revised guidelines for the management of thyroid nodules include recommendations regarding initial evaluation, clinical and ultrasound criteria for fine-needle aspiration biopsy, interpretation of fine-needle aspiration biopsy results, use of molecular markers, and management of benign thyroid nodules. Recommendations regarding the initial management of thyroid cancer include those relating to screening for thyroid cancer, staging and risk assessment, surgical management, radioiodine remnant ablation and therapy, and thyrotropin suppression therapy using levothyroxine. Recommendations related to long-term management of differentiated thyroid cancer include those related to surveillance for recurrent disease using imaging and serum thyroglobulin, thyroid hormone therapy, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, consideration for clinical trials and targeted therapy, as well as directions for future research. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed evidence-based recommendations to inform clinical decision-making in the management of thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer. They represent, in our opinion, contemporary optimal care for patients with these disorders.
The last decade has seen a sharp increase in the number of scientific publications describing physiological and pathological functions of extracellular vesicles (EVs), a collective term covering various subtypes of cell-released, membranous structures, called exosomes, microvesicles, microparticles, ectosomes, oncosomes, apoptotic bodies, and many other names. However, specific issues arise when working with these entities, whose size and amount often make them difficult to obtain as relatively pure preparations, and to characterize properly. The International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) proposed Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles ("MISEV") guidelines for the field in 2014. We now update these "MISEV2014" guidelines based on evolution of the collective knowledge in the last four years. An important point to consider is that ascribing a specific function to EVs in general, or to subtypes of EVs, requires reporting of specific information beyond mere description of function in a crude, potentially contaminated, and heterogeneous preparation. For example, claims that exosomes are endowed with exquisite and specific activities remain difficult to support experimentally, given our still limited knowledge of their specific molecular machineries of biogenesis and release, as compared with other biophysically similar EVs. The MISEV2018 guidelines include tables and outlines of suggested protocols and steps to follow to document specific EV-associated functional activities. Finally, a checklist is provided with summaries of key points.
Since the publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) practice guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in 2005, new information has emerged that requires that the guidelines be updated. The full version of the new guidelines is available on the AASLD Web site at http://www.aasld.org/practiceguidelines/Documents/Bookmarked%20Practice%20Guidelines/HCCUpdate2010.pdf. Here, we briefly describe only new or changed recommendations. AASLD, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma. In the previous guideline, groups were specified for which surveillance was likely to be cost-effective because the hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence was high enough. New data on defining HCC risk have emerged for hepatitis B virus,1, 2 hepatitis C virus,3 and autoimmune hepatitis.4 Surveillance is deemed cost-effective if the expected HCC risk exceeds 1.5% per year in patients with hepatitis C and 0.2% per year in patients with hepatitis B. Analysis of recent studies show that alpha-fetoprotein determination lacks adequate sensitivity and specificity for effective surveillance (and for diagnosis).5, 6 Thus, surveillance has to be based on ultrasound examination. The recommended screening interval is 6 months. Diagnosis of HCC should be based on imaging techniques and/or biopsy.The 2005 diagnostic algorithm has been validated and the diagnostic accuracy of a single dynamic technique showing intense arterial uptake followed by “washout” of contrast in the venous-delayed phases has been demonstrated.7-9 Contrast-enhanced US may offer false positive HCC diagnosis in patients with cholangiocarcinoma and thus, has been dropped from the diagnostic techniques. The diagnostic algorithm is shown in Fig. 1. The application of dynamic imaging criteria should be applied only to patients with cirrhosis of any etiology and to patients with chronic hepatitis B who may not have fully developed cirrhosis or have regressed cirrhosis. Interpretation of biopsies and distinction between high-grade dysplatic nodules and HCC is challenging. Expert pathology diagnosis is reinforced by staining for glypican 3, heat shock protein 70, and glutamine synthetase, because positivity for two of these three stains confirms HCC.10 Diagnostic algorithm for suspected HCC. CT, computed tomography; MDCT, multidetector CT; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; US, ultrasound. The BCLC staging system (Fig. 2)11 has come to be widely accepted in clinical practice and is also being used for many clinical trials of new drugs to treat HCC. Therefore, it has become the de facto staging system that is used. The BCLC staging system for HCC. M, metastasis classification; N, node classification; PS, performance status; RFA, radiofrequency ablation; TACE, transarterial chemoembolization. The recommendations for liver transplantation have not changed. No new data have emerged that can be used to define a new limit for expanding the patient selection criteria. The usefulness of portal pressure measurement to predict the outcome of patients and define optimal candidates for resection has been validated in Japan.12 Thus, resection should remain the first option for patients who have the optimal profile, as defined by the BCLC staging system. Although resection can be performed in some of these patients with advanced liver disease, the mortality is higher and they might be better served by liver transplantation or ablation. A cohort study of radiofrequency ablation demonstrated that complete ablation of lesions smaller than 2 cm is possible in more than 90% of cases, with a local recurrence rate of less than 1%.13 These data should be confirmed by other groups before positioning ablation as the first-line approach for very early HCC. The recommendations regarding patient selection and method of administration of chemoembolization are unchanged. Radioembolization, i.e., the intra-arterial injection of yttrium-90 bound to glass beads or to resin, has been shown to induce tumor necrosis, but there are no data comparing its efficacy to transarterial chemoembolization or to sorafenib treatment for those with portal vein invasion. However, for patients who have either failed transarterial chemoembolization or who present with more advanced HCC, new data indicates the efficacy of sorafenib (a multikinase inhibitor with activity against Raf-1, B-Raf, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, c-Kit receptors, among other kinases) in prolonging life.14, 15 Sorafenib induces a clinically relevant improvement in time to progression and in survival The magnitude of the improvement in survival compares with other established molecular targeted therapies for other advanced cancers, and the associated toxicity is easily managed without treatment-related mortality. The most frequent adverse events were diarrhea (sorafenib versus placebo: 11% versus 2%) and hand–foot skin reaction (sorafenib versus placebo: 8% versus <1%), fatigue, and weight loss. Sorafenib is now considered first-line treatment in patients with HCC who can no longer be treated with potentially more effective therapies. In summary, in the past decade HCC has gone from being an almost universal death sentence to a cancer that can be prevented, detected at an early stage, and effectively treated. Physicians caring for patients at risk need to provide high-quality screening, proper management of screen-detected lesions, and provision of therapy that is most appropriate for the stage of disease.
BACKGROUND: Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials of the BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib (PLX4032) have shown response rates of more than 50% in patients with metastatic melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3 randomized clinical trial comparing vemurafenib with dacarbazine in 675 patients with previously untreated, metastatic melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either vemurafenib (960 mg orally twice daily) or dacarbazine (1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously every 3 weeks). Coprimary end points were rates of overall and progression-free survival. Secondary end points included the response rate, response duration, and safety. A final analysis was planned after 196 deaths and an interim analysis after 98 deaths. RESULTS: At 6 months, overall survival was 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78 to 89) in the vemurafenib group and 64% (95% CI, 56 to 73) in the dacarbazine group. In the interim analysis for overall survival and final analysis for progression-free survival, vemurafenib was associated with a relative reduction of 63% in the risk of death and of 74% in the risk of either death or disease progression, as compared with dacarbazine (P<0.001 for both comparisons). After review of the interim analysis by an independent data and safety monitoring board, crossover from dacarbazine to vemurafenib was recommended. Response rates were 48% for vemurafenib and 5% for dacarbazine. Common adverse events associated with vemurafenib were arthralgia, rash, fatigue, alopecia, keratoacanthoma or squamous-cell carcinoma, photosensitivity, nausea, and diarrhea; 38% of patients required dose modification because of toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: Vemurafenib produced improved rates of overall and progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation. (Funded by Hoffmann-La Roche; BRIM-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01006980.).
Analogous to checklists of recommendations such as the CONSORT statement (for randomized trials), or the QUORUM statement (for systematic reviews), which are designed to ensure the quality of reports in the medical literature, a checklist of recommendations for authors is being presented by the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) in an effort to ensure complete descriptions of Web-based surveys. Papers on Web-based surveys reported according to the CHERRIES statement will give readers a better understanding of the sample (self-)selection and its possible differences from a "representative" sample. It is hoped that author adherence to the checklist will increase the usefulness of such reports.
AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425, \nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981, \nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826, \nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376, \nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294, \nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198, \nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544, \nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107, \nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756, \nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6, \nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58, \nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007, \nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591, \nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930, \nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794, \nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727, \nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986, \nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409, \nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368, \nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884, \nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239, \nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997, \nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798, \nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909, \nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336, \nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419, \nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490, \nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401, \nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880, \nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913, \nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381, \nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112, \nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812, \nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287, \nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308, \nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901, \nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141, \nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374, \nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822, \nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480, \nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171, \nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789, \nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217, \nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24, \nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700, \nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983, \nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002, \nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318, \nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462, \nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884, \nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996, \nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628, \nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003, \nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434, \nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783, \nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514, \nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172, \nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113, \nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135, \nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702, \nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703, \nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308, \nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290, \nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105, \nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563, \nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936, \nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657, \nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254, \nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694, \nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781, \nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533, \nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829, \nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395, \nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566, \nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767, \nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301, \nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919, \nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576, \nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572, \nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940, \nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340, \nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254, \nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604, \nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182, \nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775, \nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,
CLT, Cadaveric liver transplantation; LDLT, live donor liver transplantation; PEI, Percutanoeus ethanol injection; RF, radiofrequency; TACE, Transarterial chemoembolization; PS, Performance Status. These recommendations provide a data-supported approach to the diagnosis, staging and treatment of patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). They are based on the following: (a) formal review and analysis of the recently-published world literature on the topic (Medline search through early 2005); (b) American College of Physicians Manual for Assessing Health Practices and Designing Practice Guidelines.1 (c) guideline policies, including the AASLD Policy on the Development and Use of Practice Guidelines and the AGA Policy Statement on Guidelines2; (d) the experience of the authors in the specified topic. We have also reviewed the guidelines prepared at the time of the Monothematic Conference of the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL)3 and the practice of authors experienced in the field. Intended for use by physicians, these recommendations suggest preferred approaches to the diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive aspects of care. They are intended to be flexible, in contrast to standards of care, which are inflexible policies to be followed in every case. Specific recommendations are based on relevant published information. In an attempt to characterize the quality of evidence supporting recommendations, the Practice Guidelines Committee of the AASLD requires a category to be assigned and reported with each recommendation (Table 1). These recommendations are fully endorsed by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Over the last 5 to 8 years evidence has been accumulating in different countries that the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is rising.4-9 Traditionally, the care of patients with HCC has been undertaken by hepatobiliary surgeons, interventional radiologists, and oncologists. Hepatologists in North America are not trained to perform the procedures required to treat HCC, such as alcohol injection, radiofrequency ablation, or hepatic artery catheterization, although hepatologists in Japan and elsewhere may perform many of these procedures. As a result, the role of the hepatologist traditionally has been limited to making the diagnosis and providing care of the underlying liver disease. However, more recently, the role of the hepatologist has changed. First, in many centers the development of multidisciplinary clinics has emphasized the role of the hepatologist in assessing the patient's liver disease status, and carefully managing the liver disease before and during treatment. The hepatologist has also become more actively involved in deciding what form of therapy is most appropriate and whether the patient's liver function would allow that form of therapy to be given. In addition, arising out of caring for patients with end stage liver disease, hepatologists also institute surveillance for HCC and manage the investigation of abnormal results. Finally, hepatologists are involved in the decision whether or not to offer liver transplantation to patients with HCC. There have been many reviews of various aspects of the care of patients with HCC, but only one clinical practice guideline has been published in the Western literature. The European Association for Study of the Liver (EASL) sponsored a single topic conference on HCC in 2000. The proceedings of this conference were published in 2001.3 This document largely reflected practices in Europe, and possibly North America, whereas practices in Japan are somewhat different. Definitions of the terms used in this section are given in Table 2. Surveillance for HCC involves more than simply applying a screening test or tests. Surveillance should be offered in the setting of a program or a process in which screening tests and recall procedures have been standardized and in which quality control procedures are in place. The process of surveillance also involves deciding what level of risk of HCC is high enough to trigger surveillance, what screening tests to apply and how frequently (surveillance interval), and how abnormal results should be dealt with (diagnosis and/or recall). Surveillance for HCC has become widely applied despite, until recently, the absence of evidence of benefit. There is a single randomized controlled trial of surveillance versus no surveillance that has shown a survival benefit to a strategy of 6-monthly surveillance with alphafetoprotein (AFP) and ultrasound.10 This study, which was performed in China, recruited 18,816 patients who had markers of current or prior hepatitis B infection. Adherence to surveillance was suboptimal (less than 60%) but in the subjects in the surveillance arm the HCC related mortality was reduced by 37%. These results probably represent the minimum benefit that can be expected from surveillance, because of poor compliance. In contrast, an earlier study, also conducted in China failed to show benefit, largely because patients who were diagnosed with HCC did not undergo appropriate treatment.11 Ideally, these results should be validated in other geographical areas and therefore, additional randomized controlled trials (RCT) assessing the benefits of surveillance are still considered necessary. Such trials would be difficult to undertake, but are essential to unequivocally determine the benefit of surveillance in reducing HCC mortality. The objective of HCC surveillance must be to decrease mortality from the disease. Fewer people should die from HCC, or if this is not possible, surveillance should at a minimum provide a meaningful improvement in survival duration. Other endpoints, such as stage migration (detecting earlier disease) and 5-year mortality rates are not appropriate surrogate endpoints. This has clearly been shown by analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which demonstrated that these endpoints did not correlate with a reduction in disease-specific mortality.12 There are several sources of bias to be considered in assessing reports of surveillance studies, such as lead-time bias and length bias. Only a RCT can eliminate these biases completely. Several studies have shown that surveillance does detect earlier disease (stage migration).13-16 However, as discussed above, this does not correlate well with reduction in disease-specific mortality. Uncontrolled studies, all subject to lead-time bias, have suggested that survival is improved after surveillance.13, 16 Surveillance for HCC is widely practiced and can generally be recommended for certain at-risk groups. HCC detected after the onset of symptoms has a dismal prognosis (0%-10% 5-year survival).17 In contrast, small HCCs can be cured with an appreciable frequency.17-21 Five-year disease-free survival exceeding 50% has been reported for both resection and liver transplantation.17, 22-30 Patients surviving free of disease for this duration must be considered cured. For these patients it is highly likely that surveillance did indeed decrease mortality. Since major advances in our ability to treat HCC are less likely to come from treating late stage disease it is therefore important to find early stage disease. The decision to enter a patient into a surveillance program is determined by the level of risk for HCC. This, in turn, is related to the incidence of HCC, and it is incidence that most people use to assess risk. However, there are no experimental data to indicate what level of risk or what incidence of HCC should trigger surveillance. Instead, decision analysis has been used to provide some guidelines as to the incidence of HCC at which surveillance may become effective. An intervention is considered effective if it provides an increase in longevity of about 100 days, i.e., about 3 months.31 Although the levels were set years ago, and may not be appropriate today, interventions that can be achieved at a cost of less than about $50,000/year of life gained are considered cost-effective.32 There are now several published decision analysis/cost-efficacy models for HCC surveillance. The models differ in the nature of the theoretical population being analyzed, and in the intervention being applied. Nonetheless, these models have several results in common. They all find that surveillance is cost-effective, although in some cases only marginally so, and most find that the efficacy of surveillance is highly dependent on the incidence of HCC. For example, Sarasin et al.33 studied a theoretical cohort of patients with Child–Pugh A cirrhosis and found that if the incidence of HCC was 1.5%/year surveillance resulted in an increase in longevity of about 3 months. However, if the incidence of HCC was 6% the increase in survival was about 9 months. This study did not include transplantation as a treatment option. Arguedas et al.,34 using a similar analysis which did include liver transplantation in a population of hepatitis C patients with cirrhosis and normal liver function, found that surveillance with either CT scanning alone or CT scanning plus ultrasound became cost-effective when the incidence of HCC was more than 1.4%. However, this study has to be interpreted cautiously, because the performance characteristics of CT scanning were derived from diagnostic studies, not surveillance studies (see Surveillance Tests). Lin et al.35 found that surveillance with AFP and ultrasound was cost-effective regardless of HCC incidence. Thus, for patients with cirrhosis of varying etiologies, surveillance should be offered when the risk of HCC is 1.5%/year or greater. Table 3 describes the groups of patients in which these limits are exceeded. These groups of patients are also discussed in more detail below. The above cost-efficacy analyses, which were restricted to cirrhotic populations, cannot be applied to hepatitis B carriers without cirrhosis. These patients, particularly in Asia and Africa, are also at risk for HCC. A cost-efficacy analysis of surveillance of hepatitis B carriers using ultrasound and AFP levels suggested that surveillance became cost-effective once the incidence of HCC exceeded 0.2%/year (Collier J and Sherman M, unpublished observations). The subgroups of hepatitis B carriers in which the incidence of HCC exceeds 0.2%/year are given in Table 3. These groups are discussed in more detail below. Beasley et al., in a prospective controlled study showed that the annual incidence of HCC in hepatitis B carriers was 0.5%.36-38 The annual incidence increased with age, so that at age 70 the incidence was 1%. The incidence in patients with known cirrhosis was 2.5%/year. The relative risk of HCC was about 100, i.e., hepatitis B carriers were 100 times more likely to develop HCC than the uninfected. Sakuma et al.39 found the incidence of HCC in male Japanese railway workers was 0.4%/year. Both these populations were male and Asian, with the hepatitis B infection likely acquired at birth or in early childhood. Uncontrolled prospective cohort studies in North America, where the epidemiology of hepatitis B is different, i.e., hepatitis is acquired later in life, have indicated that the incidence of HCC in HBV carriers varies widely.40-42 Villeneuve et al.40 found no tumors in a cohort infected with HBV and followed for 16 years. McMahon et al.41 reported an incidence of HCC of 0.26%/year in a study of HBV-infected individuals in Alaska. Sherman et al.42 described an incidence of 0.46%/year in their cohort. In Europe HCC in hepatitis B carriers occurs mainly in patients with established cirrhosis.43, 44 Non- Asian chronic carriers who are anti-HBe-positive with long-term inactive viral replication and who do not have cirrhosis seem to have little risk of developing HCC.45-48 Whether surveillance is worthwhile in this population is not clear. This is not true for Asian hepatitis B carriers without cirrhosis, who remain at risk for HCC regardless of replication status.45, 49-51 Similarly, the risk of HCC persists in long-term HBV carriers from Asia who lose HBsAg, and these patients should continue to undergo surveillance.52 In Caucasian hepatitis B carriers who lose surface antigen the risk of HCC seems to decline dramatically.53, 54 The annual incidence of HCC in male hepatitis B carriers from South East Asia only starts to exceed 0.2% at about age 4038 irrespective of presence of cirrhosis or disease activity. In contrast, in Caucasians the risk is related to inflammatory activity and the presence of cirrhosis. Therefore Asian men should undergo surveillance from age 40 onwards. HCC will occur in younger patients, but the efficacy of providing surveillance to all carriers younger than age 40 is likely to be low. The incidence of HCC in women is lower than in men, although age-specific incidence rates are hard to come by. Nonetheless, it seems appropriate to start surveillance at about age 50 in Asian women. All hepatitis B carriers with cirrhosis, regardless of age should be screened for HCC. In the presence of a history of a first degree relative with HCC surveillance should start at a younger age than 40,55 although what that age should be is hard to define. Africans with hepatitis B seem to get HCC at a younger age.56, 57 Expert opinion suggests that surveillance in these populations should also start at a younger age. Whether this is true in Blacks born elsewhere is uncertain. In Caucasian hepatitis B carriers with no cirrhosis and with inactive hepatitis, as determined by a long term normal ALT and low HBV DNA concentration44, 46, 47, 58 the incidence of HCC is probably too low to make surveillance worthwhile. However, there are additional risk factors that have to be taken into account, including older age, persistence of viral replication and co-infection with hepatitis C or HIV, or the presence of other liver diseases. Nevertheless, even in the absence of cirrhosis, adult Caucasian patients with active disease are likely at risk for HCC, and should be screened. The risk of HCC in patients with chronic hepatitis C is highest and has been best studied in patients who have established cirrhosis,59-62 in whom the incidence of HCC is between 2%-8% per year. It should be noted that these data come from clinic-based studies. There is a single prospective population-based study of the risk of HCC in patients with hepatitis C.63 In this study of 12,008 men being anti-HCV-positive conferred a 20-fold increased risk of HCC compared to anti-HCV-negative subjects. The presence or absence of cirrhosis was not evaluated. Hepatitis C infected individuals who do not have cirrhosis have a much lower risk of developing HCC.64 However, the transition from bridging fibrosis to cirrhosis cannot be determined clinically so that the clinician cannot easily determine when these patients start to develop a significant increase in risk of HCC. For this reason the EASL conference3 suggested that surveillance may be offered to patients with hepatitis C and cirrhosis or with bridging fibrosis or transition to cirrhosis. The cost-efficacy of this recommendation has not been evaluated. Based on current knowledge, all patients with hepatitis C and cirrhosis should undergo surveillance. Whether patients with bridging fibrosis should also undergo surveillance remains controversial. There have been several attempts to develop non-invasive markers to predict the stage of fibrosis65-67 and if properly validated, these could be used to determine when to initiate surveillance. Similarly, several other markers may predict a significant risk of HCC. One such marker may be the platelet count. It has been suggested that the incidence of HCC in hepatitis C cirrhosis only increases substantially once the platelet count is less than 100×109/L,62, 68, 69 regardless of liver function. This needs to be validated. Others have attempted to develop predictive indices based on panels of commonly performed serological tests such as alpha 2-macroglobulin, apolipoprotein A1, haptoglobin, bilirubin and gamma-glutamyl-transpeptidase and the AST/ALT ratio.67, 70 However, these indices have still to be validated before entering general use and cannot be recommended at present. Patients who are co-infected with HIV and either hepatitis B or hepatitis C may have more rapidly progressive liver disease71 and when they reach cirrhosis they are also at increased risk of HCC.72 The MORTAVIC study indicated that HCC was responsible for 25% of all liver deaths in the post-HAART era.73, 74 The criteria for entering co-infected patients into programs for HCC screening are the same as for mono-infected patients, i.e., criteria based on the stage and grade of liver disease as described above. The incidence of HCC in cirrhosis caused by diseases other than viral hepatitis is, with some exceptions, not accurately known. Most of the studies of the incidence of HCC in alcoholic cirrhosis date from before the identification of the hepatitis C virus. Given that hepatitis C is relatively frequent in alcoholics75-77 most of the reported HCC incidence rates in earlier studies must be over-estimates. That alcoholic cirrhosis is a risk factor for HCC is clear. In one study alcoholic liver disease accounted for 32% of all HCCs.78 In an Austrian cohort with HCC alcoholic liver disease was the risk factor in 35% of subjects.79 In the United States the approximate hospitalization rate for HCC related to alcoholic cirrhosis is 8-9/100,000/year compared to about 7/100,000/year for hepatitis C.80 This study did not determine the incidence of HCC in alcoholic liver disease, but it does confirm that alcoholic cirrhosis is a significant risk factor for HCC, probably sufficient to warrant surveillance for HCC. With the recognition of steatohepatitis as a cause of cirrhosis, has come the suspicion that this too is a risk factor for HCC. No study to date has followed a sufficiently large group of such patients for long enough to describe an incidence rate for HCC. In one cohort study of patients with HCC81 diabetes was found in 20% as the only risk factor for HCC. Whether or not these patients were cirrhotic was not noted. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has been described in cohorts of patients with HCC.82, 83 Since the incidence of HCC in cirrhosis due to NAFLD is unknown it is not possible to assess whether surveillance might be effective or cost-efficient. No recommendations can be made whether this group should be screened for HCC or not. This does not preclude the possibility that surveillance is beneficial in this group, and future data may change this recommendation. Patients with genetic hemochromatosis (GH) who have established cirrhosis have an increased risk of HCC.84-86 The relative risk of HCC is about 20. The standardized incidence ratio for HCC in cirrhotic GH is 92.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 25-237.9). The incidence of HCC in cirrhosis due to GH is sufficiently high (about 3%-4%/year) that these patients should be included in surveillance programs. The incidence of HCC in stage 4 primary biliary cirrhosis is about the same as in cirrhosis due to hepatitis C.87 For cirrhosis due to alpha 1-antitrypsin (AAT) or hepatitis there are data from cohort studies to accurately assess HCC incidence. There is as no evidence that treatment of chronic hepatitis B the incidence of HCC. in Europe suggested that therapy for chronic hepatitis B improved survival and reduced the incidence of A study from also indicated that i.e., the development of was with a reduced incidence of However, in these studies the rate was and the were relatively In contrast, a but controlled study from that included a cohort followed for found that the incidence of HCC was not in the A single RCT suggests that treatment of chronic hepatitis B carriers with cirrhosis does the incidence of but whether the risk reduction is sufficient that surveillance is not clear. a patient is a for surveillance before the of it seems to continue to offer surveillance even after or of inflammatory activity. There are a of studies the of treatment of chronic hepatitis C on the incidence of HCC. A single RCT in Japan suggested that the incidence of HCC was reduced in both and to These results could not be in a RCT from The results of these other studies were in a which that the benefit is mainly in who were i.e., had a and even the was A of studies in Japan compared the incidence of HCC in patients with that in These have suggested that there is a reduced incidence of HCC in However, no data that treating or hepatitis C the risk for HCC. it seems that patients with hepatitis C and cirrhosis who have achieved viral on therapy at for continue to undergo surveillance. that patients with or chronic hepatitis B or C may show of fibrosis sufficient to suggest of cirrhosis. The risk of HCC in these patients probably does not decrease with the improvement in There are many about the of HCC in these patients, but one factor seems to be that of and are necessary. The required to initiate the probably occur many years before the disease and so the of HCC remains even if fibrosis fibrosis is not a reason to surveillance. There are a of factors with an increased risk of HCC that are in patients at risk for developing HCC. These include an AFP presence of small and large on to and increased for antigen or of the Although such patients are at more risk of developing HCC they will likely be in surveillance programs because of other risk factors such as cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis The increased does not a change in surveillance Patients at high risk for developing HCC should be into surveillance programs The at-risk groups are in There are several for screening patients on the liver Patients should be screened for HCC to small tumors that might and to patients who develop that exceeds the guidelines for In addition, in the United the current criteria the development of HCC provides liver Thus, it would seem to be in a patient's to have a small HCC diagnosed on the liver One cost-efficacy analysis has suggested that the increase in longevity the cohort of patients is because although there may be an increase in longevity in who develop HCC, it is by the of longevity in other patients on the are so that the patient with HCC can have In contrast, identification of HCC that exceeds and of such patients, is beneficial to other patients on the analysis suggested that there were benefits to treating patients with HCC on the with either resection or The benefit in on the length of the The the the the benefit of In the United States patients to be for liver transplantation with an AFP without of HCC, even in the absence of a on It is important to that AFP is being used for diagnosis, not surveillance. Nonetheless, the performance characteristics of even as a diagnostic test are particularly in the absence of a on (see 2. Patients on the should be screened for HCC because in the the development of HCC increased for and because to for HCC that patients may develop HCC and criteria without the being that is used to determine the presence or absence of a disease must be validated using a of that determine how well the test in the disease no test is The are the and which are For single test and the underlying disease, as the diagnostic of test is related to the of the underlying disease in the population being This is by the and predictive i.e., the rates at which or results are An of the of a test can also be free of the of disease incidence by using the This is a of the and the performance characteristics of a test the of the test results the for diagnosis can be from the a of the of the test results. An important additional is that the history of liver is not the same as for clinical In rates of may be different than rates in clinically may not to clinically in all it cannot be that all found on surveillance will develop into Similarly, the performance characteristics of a test used to disease as a screening are not the same as when the test is used for Therefore one cannot the performance characteristics of a test used in diagnosis CT and the and to the surveillance tests into serological and the serological tests the performance characteristics of AFP have been best analysis of AFP used as a diagnostic test suggests that a of about provides the between and However, at this level the is only i.e., AFP surveillance would of HCC if a of is used as the trigger for This is for general a is used a of HCCs will be the AFP is the to reducing the that more HCCs would be but at the cost of a progressive increase in the This analysis was performed in a control study where the of HCC was set at this the predictive of an AFP of was However, if the HCC rates were more in most liver i.e., about the predictive of an AFP of is only and even at a of the is only In cohorts surveillance the incidence of HCC may be even lower than on the criteria for into surveillance. For example, in hepatitis B carriers infected at birth the incidence of HCC is less than 1%. AFP is an screening AFP still has a role in the diagnosis of HCC, in cirrhotic patients with a in the liver an AFP than has a high predictive for a AFP has been clearly shown to be a risk factor for Thus, the AFP can be used to patients at but to have limited as a screening serological test used to HCC is the also known as by Most reports on the use of have the use of this test in a diagnostic than for surveillance. Although there are reports of use in a surveillance these do not provide sufficient for use of this There are also reports that is a marker for by this would also suggest that is not a screening A screening test should be to early
IMPORTANCE: Limited information exists about the epidemiology, recognition, management, and outcomes of patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate intensive care unit (ICU) incidence and outcome of ARDS and to assess clinician recognition, ventilation management, and use of adjuncts-for example prone positioning-in routine clinical practice for patients fulfilling the ARDS Berlin Definition. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE) was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients undergoing invasive or noninvasive ventilation, conducted during 4 consecutive weeks in the winter of 2014 in a convenience sample of 459 ICUs from 50 countries across 5 continents. EXPOSURES: Acute respiratory distress syndrome. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was ICU incidence of ARDS. Secondary outcomes included assessment of clinician recognition of ARDS, the application of ventilatory management, the use of adjunctive interventions in routine clinical practice, and clinical outcomes from ARDS. RESULTS: Of 29,144 patients admitted to participating ICUs, 3022 (10.4%) fulfilled ARDS criteria. Of these, 2377 patients developed ARDS in the first 48 hours and whose respiratory failure was managed with invasive mechanical ventilation. The period prevalence of mild ARDS was 30.0% (95% CI, 28.2%-31.9%); of moderate ARDS, 46.6% (95% CI, 44.5%-48.6%); and of severe ARDS, 23.4% (95% CI, 21.7%-25.2%). ARDS represented 0.42 cases per ICU bed over 4 weeks and represented 10.4% (95% CI, 10.0%-10.7%) of ICU admissions and 23.4% of patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Clinical recognition of ARDS ranged from 51.3% (95% CI, 47.5%-55.0%) in mild to 78.5% (95% CI, 74.8%-81.8%) in severe ARDS. Less than two-thirds of patients with ARDS received a tidal volume 8 of mL/kg or less of predicted body weight. Plateau pressure was measured in 40.1% (95% CI, 38.2-42.1), whereas 82.6% (95% CI, 81.0%-84.1%) received a positive end-expository pressure (PEEP) of less than 12 cm H2O. Prone positioning was used in 16.3% (95% CI, 13.7%-19.2%) of patients with severe ARDS. Clinician recognition of ARDS was associated with higher PEEP, greater use of neuromuscular blockade, and prone positioning. Hospital mortality was 34.9% (95% CI, 31.4%-38.5%) for those with mild, 40.3% (95% CI, 37.4%-43.3%) for those with moderate, and 46.1% (95% CI, 41.9%-50.4%) for those with severe ARDS. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among ICUs in 50 countries, the period prevalence of ARDS was 10.4% of ICU admissions. This syndrome appeared to be underrecognized and undertreated and associated with a high mortality rate. These findings indicate the potential for improvement in the management of patients with ARDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02010073.
BACKGROUND: Surgery has become an integral part of global health care, with an estimated 234 million operations performed yearly. Surgical complications are common and often preventable. We hypothesized that a program to implement a 19-item surgical safety checklist designed to improve team communication and consistency of care would reduce complications and deaths associated with surgery. METHODS: Between October 2007 and September 2008, eight hospitals in eight cities (Toronto, Canada; New Delhi, India; Amman, Jordan; Auckland, New Zealand; Manila, Philippines; Ifakara, Tanzania; London, England; and Seattle, WA) representing a variety of economic circumstances and diverse populations of patients participated in the World Health Organization's Safe Surgery Saves Lives program. We prospectively collected data on clinical processes and outcomes from 3733 consecutively enrolled patients 16 years of age or older who were undergoing noncardiac surgery. We subsequently collected data on 3955 consecutively enrolled patients after the introduction of the Surgical Safety Checklist. The primary end point was the rate of complications, including death, during hospitalization within the first 30 days after the operation. RESULTS: The rate of death was 1.5% before the checklist was introduced and declined to 0.8% afterward (P=0.003). Inpatient complications occurred in 11.0% of patients at baseline and in 7.0% after introduction of the checklist (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the checklist was associated with concomitant reductions in the rates of death and complications among patients at least 16 years of age who were undergoing noncardiac surgery in a diverse group of hospitals.
BACKGROUND: The effect of endovascular thrombectomy that is performed more than 6 hours after the onset of ischemic stroke is uncertain. Patients with a clinical deficit that is disproportionately severe relative to the infarct volume may benefit from late thrombectomy. METHODS: We enrolled patients with occlusion of the intracranial internal carotid artery or proximal middle cerebral artery who had last been known to be well 6 to 24 hours earlier and who had a mismatch between the severity of the clinical deficit and the infarct volume, with mismatch criteria defined according to age (<80 years or ≥80 years). Patients were randomly assigned to thrombectomy plus standard care (the thrombectomy group) or to standard care alone (the control group). The coprimary end points were the mean score for disability on the utility-weighted modified Rankin scale (which ranges from 0 [death] to 10 [no symptoms or disability]) and the rate of functional independence (a score of 0, 1, or 2 on the modified Rankin scale, which ranges from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) at 90 days. RESULTS: A total of 206 patients were enrolled; 107 were assigned to the thrombectomy group and 99 to the control group. At 31 months, enrollment in the trial was stopped because of the results of a prespecified interim analysis. The mean score on the utility-weighted modified Rankin scale at 90 days was 5.5 in the thrombectomy group as compared with 3.4 in the control group (adjusted difference [Bayesian analysis], 2.0 points; 95% credible interval, 1.1 to 3.0; posterior probability of superiority, >0.999), and the rate of functional independence at 90 days was 49% in the thrombectomy group as compared with 13% in the control group (adjusted difference, 33 percentage points; 95% credible interval, 24 to 44; posterior probability of superiority, >0.999). The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two groups (6% in the thrombectomy group and 3% in the control group, P=0.50), nor did 90-day mortality (19% and 18%, respectively; P=1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute stroke who had last been known to be well 6 to 24 hours earlier and who had a mismatch between clinical deficit and infarct, outcomes for disability at 90 days were better with thrombectomy plus standard care than with standard care alone. (Funded by Stryker Neurovascular; DAWN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02142283 .).
BACKGROUND: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to determine whether the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor erlotinib prolongs survival in non-small-cell lung cancer after the failure of first-line or second-line chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer, with performance status from 0 to 3, were eligible if they had received one or two prior chemotherapy regimens. The patients were stratified according to center, performance status, response to prior chemotherapy, number of prior regimens, and prior platinum-based therapy and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral erlotinib, at a dose of 150 mg daily, or placebo. RESULTS: The median age of the 731 patients who underwent randomization was 61.4 years; 49 percent had received two prior chemotherapy regimens, and 93 percent had received platinum-based chemotherapy. The response rate was 8.9 percent in the erlotinib group and less than 1 percent in the placebo group (P<0.001); the median duration of the response was 7.9 months and 3.7 months, respectively. Progression-free survival was 2.2 months and 1.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.61, adjusted for stratification categories; P<0.001). Overall survival was 6.7 months and 4.7 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.70; P<0.001), in favor of erlotinib. Five percent of patients discontinued erlotinib because of toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: Erlotinib can prolong survival in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer after first-line or second-line chemotherapy.
OBJECTIVE: The Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) group revised and validated the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria in order to improve clinical relevance, meet stringent methodology requirements, and incorporate new knowledge regarding the immunology of SLE. METHODS: The classification criteria were derived from a set of 702 expert-rated patient scenarios. Recursive partitioning was used to derive an initial rule that was simplified and refined based on SLICC physician consensus. The SLICC group validated the classification criteria in a new validation sample of 690 new expert-rated patient scenarios. RESULTS: Seventeen criteria were identified. In the derivation set, the SLICC classification criteria resulted in fewer misclassifications compared with the current ACR classification criteria (49 versus 70; P = 0.0082) and had greater sensitivity (94% versus 86%; P < 0.0001) and equal specificity (92% versus 93%; P = 0.39). In the validation set, the SLICC classification criteria resulted in fewer misclassifications compared with the current ACR classification criteria (62 versus 74; P = 0.24) and had greater sensitivity (97% versus 83%; P < 0.0001) but lower specificity (84% versus 96%; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The new SLICC classification criteria performed well in a large set of patient scenarios rated by experts. According to the SLICC rule for the classification of SLE, the patient must satisfy at least 4 criteria, including at least one clinical criterion and one immunologic criterion OR the patient must have biopsy-proven lupus nephritis in the presence of antinuclear antibodies or anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies.
BACKGROUND: Among patients with acute ischemic stroke due to occlusions in the proximal anterior intracranial circulation, less than 40% regain functional independence when treated with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) alone. Thrombectomy with the use of a stent retriever, in addition to intravenous t-PA, increases reperfusion rates and may improve long-term functional outcome. METHODS: We randomly assigned eligible patients with stroke who were receiving or had received intravenous t-PA to continue with t-PA alone (control group) or to undergo endovascular thrombectomy with the use of a stent retriever within 6 hours after symptom onset (intervention group). Patients had confirmed occlusions in the proximal anterior intracranial circulation and an absence of large ischemic-core lesions. The primary outcome was the severity of global disability at 90 days, as assessed by means of the modified Rankin scale (with scores ranging from 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]). RESULTS: The study was stopped early because of efficacy. At 39 centers, 196 patients underwent randomization (98 patients in each group). In the intervention group, the median time from qualifying imaging to groin puncture was 57 minutes, and the rate of substantial reperfusion at the end of the procedure was 88%. Thrombectomy with the stent retriever plus intravenous t-PA reduced disability at 90 days over the entire range of scores on the modified Rankin scale (P<0.001). The rate of functional independence (modified Rankin scale score, 0 to 2) was higher in the intervention group than in the control group (60% vs. 35%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in 90-day mortality (9% vs. 12%, P=0.50) or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (0% vs. 3%, P=0.12). CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving intravenous t-PA for acute ischemic stroke due to occlusions in the proximal anterior intracranial circulation, thrombectomy with a stent retriever within 6 hours after onset improved functional outcomes at 90 days. (Funded by Covidien; SWIFT PRIME ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01657461.).
Abstract Somatic mutations in cancer genomes are caused by multiple mutational processes, each of which generates a characteristic mutational signature 1 . Here, as part of the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium 2 of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), we characterized mutational signatures using 84,729,690 somatic mutations from 4,645 whole-genome and 19,184 exome sequences that encompass most types of cancer. We identified 49 single-base-substitution, 11 doublet-base-substitution, 4 clustered-base-substitution and 17 small insertion-and-deletion signatures. The substantial size of our dataset, compared with previous analyses 3–15 , enabled the discovery of new signatures, the separation of overlapping signatures and the decomposition of signatures into components that may represent associated—but distinct—DNA damage, repair and/or replication mechanisms. By estimating the contribution of each signature to the mutational catalogues of individual cancer genomes, we revealed associations of signatures to exogenous or endogenous exposures, as well as to defective DNA-maintenance processes. However, many signatures are of unknown cause. This analysis provides a systematic perspective on the repertoire of mutational processes that contribute to the development of human cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To provide recommendations for the core outcome domains that should be considered by investigators conducting clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments for chronic pain. Development of a core set of outcome domains would facilitate comparison and pooling of data, encourage more complete reporting of outcomes, simplify the preparation and review of research proposals and manuscripts, and allow clinicians to make informed decisions regarding the risks and benefits of treatment. METHODS: Under the auspices of the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT), 27 specialists from academia, governmental agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry participated in a consensus meeting and identified core outcome domains that should be considered in clinical trials of treatments for chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS: There was a consensus that chronic pain clinical trials should assess outcomes representing six core domains: (1) pain, (2) physical functioning, (3) emotional functioning, (4) participant ratings of improvement and satisfaction with treatment, (5) symptoms and adverse events, (6) participant disposition (e.g. adherence to the treatment regimen and reasons for premature withdrawal from the trial). Although consideration should be given to the assessment of each of these domains, there may be exceptions to the general recommendation to include all of these domains in chronic pain trials. When this occurs, the rationale for not including domains should be provided. It is not the intention of these recommendations that assessment of the core domains should be considered a requirement for approval of product applications by regulatory agencies or that a treatment must demonstrate statistically significant effects for all of the relevant core domains to establish evidence of its efficacy.
Abstract Cancer is driven by genetic change, and the advent of massively parallel sequencing has enabled systematic documentation of this variation at the whole-genome scale 1–3 . Here we report the integrative analysis of 2,658 whole-cancer genomes and their matching normal tissues across 38 tumour types from the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We describe the generation of the PCAWG resource, facilitated by international data sharing using compute clouds. On average, cancer genomes contained 4–5 driver mutations when combining coding and non-coding genomic elements; however, in around 5% of cases no drivers were identified, suggesting that cancer driver discovery is not yet complete. Chromothripsis, in which many clustered structural variants arise in a single catastrophic event, is frequently an early event in tumour evolution; in acral melanoma, for example, these events precede most somatic point mutations and affect several cancer-associated genes simultaneously. Cancers with abnormal telomere maintenance often originate from tissues with low replicative activity and show several mechanisms of preventing telomere attrition to critical levels. Common and rare germline variants affect patterns of somatic mutation, including point mutations, structural variants and somatic retrotransposition. A collection of papers from the PCAWG Consortium describes non-coding mutations that drive cancer beyond those in the TERT promoter 4 ; identifies new signatures of mutational processes that cause base substitutions, small insertions and deletions and structural variation 5,6 ; analyses timings and patterns of tumour evolution 7 ; describes the diverse transcriptional consequences of somatic mutation on splicing, expression levels, fusion genes and promoter activity 8,9 ; and evaluates a range of more-specialized features of cancer genomes 8,10–18 .
BACKGROUND: Beta-blocking agents reduce the risk of hospitalization and death in patients with mild-to-moderate heart failure, but little is known about their effects in severe heart failure. METHODS: We evaluated 2289 patients who had symptoms of heart failure at rest or on minimal exertion, who were clinically euvolemic, and who had an ejection fraction of less than 25 percent. In a double-blind fashion, we randomly assigned 1133 patients to placebo and 1156 patients to treatment with carvedilol for a mean period of 10.4 months, during which standard therapy for heart failure was continued. Patients who required intensive care, had marked fluid retention, or were receiving intravenous vasodilators or positive inotropic drugs were excluded. RESULTS: There were 190 deaths in the placebo group and 130 deaths in the carvedilol group. This difference reflected a 35 percent decrease in the risk of death with carvedilol (95 percent confidence interval, 19 to 48 percent; P=0.00013, unadjusted; P=0.0014, adjusted for interim analyses). A total of 507 patients died or were hospitalized in the placebo group, as compared with 425 in the carvedilol group. This difference reflected a 24 percent decrease in the combined risk of death or hospitalization with carvedilol (95 percent confidence interval, 13 to 33 percent; P<0.001). The favorable effects on both end points were seen consistently in all the subgroups we examined, including patients with a history of recent or recurrent cardiac decompensation. Fewer patients in the carvedilol group than in the placebo group withdrew because of adverse effects or for other reasons (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The previously reported benefits of carvedilol with regard to morbidity and mortality in patients with mild-to-moderate heart failure were also apparent in the patients with severe heart failure who were evaluated in this trial.
A workshop was convened by the AACR to discuss the rapidly emerging cancer stem cell model for tumor development and progression. The meeting participants were charged with evaluating data suggesting that cancers develop from a small subset of cells with self-renewal properties analogous to organ
IMPORTANCE: Since publication of the report by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine in 1996, researchers have advanced the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis, and policy makers have experimented with its application. The need to deliver health care efficiently and the importance of using analytic techniques to understand the clinical and economic consequences of strategies to improve health have increased in recent years. OBJECTIVE: To review the state of the field and provide recommendations to improve the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses. The intended audiences include researchers, government policy makers, public health officials, health care administrators, payers, businesses, clinicians, patients, and consumers. DESIGN: In 2012, the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine was formed and included 2 co-chairs, 13 members, and 3 additional members of a leadership group. These members were selected on the basis of their experience in the field to provide broad expertise in the design, conduct, and use of cost-effectiveness analyses. Over the next 3.5 years, the panel developed recommendations by consensus. These recommendations were then reviewed by invited external reviewers and through a public posting process. FINDINGS: The concept of a "reference case" and a set of standard methodological practices that all cost-effectiveness analyses should follow to improve quality and comparability are recommended. All cost-effectiveness analyses should report 2 reference case analyses: one based on a health care sector perspective and another based on a societal perspective. The use of an "impact inventory," which is a structured table that contains consequences (both inside and outside the formal health care sector), intended to clarify the scope and boundaries of the 2 reference case analyses is also recommended. This special communication reviews these recommendations and others concerning the estimation of the consequences of interventions, the valuation of health outcomes, and the reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The Second Panel reviewed the current status of the field of cost-effectiveness analysis and developed a new set of recommendations. Major changes include the recommendation to perform analyses from 2 reference case perspectives and to provide an impact inventory to clarify included consequences.
BACKGROUND: There have been few detailed, in-person interviews and examinations to obtain follow-up data on 5-year outcomes among survivors of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: We evaluated 109 survivors of ARDS at 3, 6, and 12 months and at 2, 3, 4, and 5 years after discharge from the intensive care unit. At each visit, patients were interviewed and examined; underwent pulmonary-function tests, the 6-minute walk test, resting and exercise oximetry, chest imaging, and a quality-of-life evaluation; and reported their use of health care services. RESULTS: At 5 years, the median 6-minute walk distance was 436 m (76% of predicted distance) and the Physical Component Score on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey was 41 (mean norm score matched for age and sex, 50). With respect to this score, younger patients had a greater rate of recovery than older patients, but neither group returned to normal predicted levels of physical function at 5 years. Pulmonary function was normal to near-normal. A constellation of other physical and psychological problems developed or persisted in patients and family caregivers for up to 5 years. Patients with more coexisting illnesses incurred greater 5-year costs. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise limitation, physical and psychological sequelae, decreased physical quality of life, and increased costs and use of health care services are important legacies of severe lung injury.