| 1. |
- Anlauf, Martin, et al.
(författare)
-
Primary lymph node Gastrinoma or occult duodenal microgastrinoma with lymph node Metastases in a MEN1 patient - The need for a systematic search for the primary tumor
- 2008
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Surgical Pathology. - 0147-5185 .- 1532-0979. ; 32:7, s. 1101-1105
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Gastrinoma tissue has been found frequently in lymph nodes located near the duodenum without a known primary tumor. Therefore, it has been suggested that a primary lymph node gastrinoma exists. We report on a 38-year-old woman suffering from multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN 1) confirmed by menin gene mutation analysis. MEN1 disease started with primary hyperparathyroidism followed by Cushing disease, the detection of tumors of the pituitary, adrenal cortex, and the pancreas and also an elevated serum gastrin level. An octreotide scan revealed 4 tumors in the upper abdomen. A selective arterial calcium stimulation test located the source of the hypergastrinemia to the area of the gastroduodenal and the superior mesenteric arteries. Total pancreatoduodenectomy was performed and conventional histopathologic examination revealed a well-differentiated cystic neuroendocrine tumor of the pancreas expressing glucagon and accompanied by several microadenomas. In addition, 3 suprapancreatic lymph nodes with gastrin-positive endocrine tissue were found. None of the pancreatic microadenomas expressed gastrin and no duodenal endocrine tumor was found despite careful macroscopic examination. Only after complete embedding of the duodenal and pancreatic tissue in 65 paraffin blocks, 2 microgastrinomas (0.45 and 0.8 mm in diameter) were identified in the duodenum. It is concluded that duodenal gastrinomas that give rise to lymph node metastases may be so tiny that they are easily overlooked in a routine examination and that systematic tissue monitoring is required to identify them.
|
|
| 2. |
- de Boo, Leonora W., et al.
(författare)
-
Adjuvant capecitabine-containing chemotherapy benefit and homologous recombination deficiency in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer patients
- 2022
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Cancer. - : Springer Nature. - 0007-0920 .- 1532-1827. ; 126:10, s. 1401-1409
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The addition of adjuvant capecitabine to standard chemotherapy of early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients has improved survival in a few randomised trials and in meta-analyses. However, many patients did not benefit. We evaluated the BRCA1-like DNA copy number signature, indicative of homologous recombination deficiency, as a predictive biomarker for capecitabine benefit in the TNBC subgroup of the FinXX trial.Methods Early-stage TNBC patients were randomised between adjuvant capecitabine-containing (TX + CEX: capecitabine-docetaxel, followed by cyclophosphamide-epirubicin-capecitabine) and conventional chemotherapy (T + CEF: docetaxel, followed by cyclophosphamide-epirubicin-fluorouracil). Tumour BRCA1-like status was determined on low-coverage, whole genome next-generation sequencing data using an established DNA comparative genomic hybridisation algorithm.Results For 129/202 (63.9%) patients the BRCA1-like status could be determined, mostly due to lack of tissue. During a median follow-up of 10.7 years, 35 recurrences and 32 deaths occurred. Addition of capecitabine appears to improve recurrence-free survival more among 61 (47.3%) patients with non-BRCA1-like tumours (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08-0.70) compared to 68 (52.7%) patients with BRCA1-like tumours (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.24-1.81) (P-interaction = 0.17).Conclusion Based on our data, patients with non-BRCA1-like TNBC appear to benefit from the addition of capecitabine to adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with BRCA1-like TNBC may also benefit. Additional research is needed to define the subgroup within BRCA1-like TNBC patients who may not benefit from adjuvant capecitabine.
|
|
| 3. |
- Kok, Marleen, et al.
(författare)
-
Estrogen receptor-alpha phosphorylation at serine-118 and tamoxifen response in breast cancer.
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1460-2105 .- 0027-8874. ; 101:24, s. 1725-9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Although estrogen receptor-alpha (ER) [corrected] is a marker used to identify breast cancer patients most likely to benefit from endocrine therapy, approximately 50% of ER-positive [corrected] breast carcinomas are resistant to tamoxifen. Preclinical studies have shown that phosphorylation of ER [corrected] at serine-118 (ER alpha S118-P) is required for tamoxifen-mediated inhibition of ER-induced [corrected] gene expression. We evaluated the association between recurrence-free survival after tamoxifen treatment and ER alpha S118-P expression by use of Cox proportional hazards regression. Data were from 239 premenopausal patients with breast cancer who participated in a randomized trial of 2 years of adjuvant tamoxifen treatment vs no systemic treatment. ER alpha S118-P expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry and categorized by use of the Allred score (low expression = score of 0-6; high expression = score of 7-8). All statistical tests were two-sided. Compared with systemically untreated patients, we found evidence of a benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen among patients whose tumors had high ER alpha S118-P expression (23.7 recurrences per 1000 person-years versus 72.2 recurrences per 1000 person-years, hazard ratio [HR] of recurrence = 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.20 to 0.65) but not among patients whose tumors had low expression (51.0 recurrences per 1000 person-years versus 57.0 recurrences per 1000 person-years, HR of recurrence = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.51 to 1.48), a statistically significant difference (P for interaction = .037). ER alpha 118-P was not associated with recurrence-free survival among untreated patients. Thus, ER alpha S118-P expression appears to be associated with response to tamoxifen. [corrected]
|
|
| 4. |
- Kok, Marleen, et al.
(författare)
-
PKA-induced phosphorylation of ER alpha at serine 305 and high PAK1 levels is associated with sensitivity to tamoxifen in ER-positive breast cancer
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1573-7217 .- 0167-6806. ; 125:1, s. 1-12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Phosphorylation of estrogen receptor alpha at serine 305 (ER alpha S305-P) by protein kinase A (PKA) or p21-activated kinase 1 (PAK1) has experimentally been associated with tamoxifen sensitivity. Here, we investigated the clinical application of this knowledge to predict tamoxifen resistance in ER-positive breast cancer patients. Using immunohistochemistry, a score including PAK1 and co-expression of PKA and ER alpha S305-P (PKA/ER alpha S305-P) was developed on a training set consisting of 103 patients treated with tamoxifen for metastatic disease, and validated on 231 patients randomized between adjuvant tamoxifen or no treatment. In the training set, PAK1 levels were associated with tumor progression after tamoxifen (HR 1.57, 95% CI 0.99-2.48), as was co-expression of PKA and ER alpha S305-P (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.14-3.52). In the validation set, a significant tamoxifen benefit was found among the 73% patients negative for PAK1 and PKA/ER alpha S305-P (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34-0.87), while others (27%) were likely to have no benefit from tamoxifen (HR 0.88, 95% 0.42-1.82). The test for interaction showed a significant difference in recurrence-free survival between groups defined by PAK1 and PKA/ER alpha S305-P (P = 0.037). Elevated PAK1 and PKA/ER alpha S305-P appeared to influence tamoxifen sensitivity. Both PAK1 and PKA/ER alpha S305-P levels were associated with sensitivity to tamoxifen in breast tumors and the combination of these variables should be considered in predicting tamoxifen benefit.
|
|
| 5. |
- Kristan, M., et al.
(författare)
-
The Eighth Visual Object Tracking VOT2020 Challenge Results
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Computer Vision. - Cham : Springer International Publishing. - 9783030682378 ; , s. 547-601
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Visual Object Tracking challenge VOT2020 is the eighth annual tracker benchmarking activity organized by the VOT initiative. Results of 58 trackers are presented; many are state-of-the-art trackers published at major computer vision conferences or in journals in the recent years. The VOT2020 challenge was composed of five sub-challenges focusing on different tracking domains: (i) VOT-ST2020 challenge focused on short-term tracking in RGB, (ii) VOT-RT2020 challenge focused on “real-time” short-term tracking in RGB, (iii) VOT-LT2020 focused on long-term tracking namely coping with target disappearance and reappearance, (iv) VOT-RGBT2020 challenge focused on short-term tracking in RGB and thermal imagery and (v) VOT-RGBD2020 challenge focused on long-term tracking in RGB and depth imagery. Only the VOT-ST2020 datasets were refreshed. A significant novelty is introduction of a new VOT short-term tracking evaluation methodology, and introduction of segmentation ground truth in the VOT-ST2020 challenge – bounding boxes will no longer be used in the VOT-ST challenges. A new VOT Python toolkit that implements all these novelites was introduced. Performance of the tested trackers typically by far exceeds standard baselines. The source code for most of the trackers is publicly available from the VOT page. The dataset, the evaluation kit and the results are publicly available at the challenge website (http://votchallenge.net ).
|
|
| 6. |
- Pearce, Neil E, et al.
(författare)
-
IARC Monographs : 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. - : Environmental Health Perspectives. - 0091-6765 .- 1552-9924. ; 123:6, s. 507-514
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Recently the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups' failures to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.OBJECTIVES: The authors of this paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DISCUSSION: We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.CONCLUSIONS: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.
|
|
| 7. |
- Wojcik, Andrzej, et al.
(författare)
-
Considerations on the use of the terms radiosensitivity and radiosusceptibility
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Radiological Protection. - : IOP Publishing. - 0952-4746 .- 1361-6498. ; 38:3, s. N25-N29
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The separate use of the terms 'radiosensitivity' and 'radiosusceptibility' has been suggested to describe variability in the risk of, respectively, adverse tissue reactions (deterministic effect) following radiotherapy and radiationinduced cancer (stochastic effect). The aim of this note is to present arguments against such distinction. We feel that it is premature to make a concrete final judgement on these definitions because of the limited understanding of the mechanisms underlying individual sensitivity to both radiation-related cancers and radiation-related tissue injury. Moreover, the exclusive application of 'radiosensitivity' in relation to deterministic effects and the term 'radiosusceptibility' in relation to cancer carries the risk of being wrongly interpreted as evidence for a high, genetically driven sensitivity to radiation in all patients who develop adverse tissue reactions and a high genetic susceptibility to cancer in those who develop radiation-induced malignancies. There is a need for further research to better define these phenomena and their interrelationships.
|
|
