| 1. |
- Marina, Neyssa M., et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of MAPIE versus MAP in patients with a poor response to preoperative chemotherapy for newly diagnosed high-grade osteosarcoma (EURAMOS-1) : an open-label, international, randomised controlled trial
- 2016
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - 1470-2045. ; 17:10, s. 1396-1408
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background We designed the EURAMOS-1 trial to investigate whether intensified postoperative chemotherapy for patients whose tumour showed a poor response to preoperative chemotherapy (≥10% viable tumour) improved event-free survival in patients with high-grade osteosarcoma. Methods EURAMOS-1 was an open-label, international, phase 3 randomised, controlled trial. Consenting patients with newly diagnosed, resectable, high-grade osteosarcoma aged 40 years or younger were eligible for randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either postoperative cisplatin, doxorubicin, and methotrexate (MAP) or MAP plus ifosfamide and etoposide (MAPIE) using concealed permuted blocks with three stratification factors: trial group; location of tumour (proximal femur or proximal humerus vs other limb vs axial skeleton); and presence of metastases (no vs yes or possible). The MAP regimen consisted of cisplatin 120 mg/m2, doxorubicin 37·5 mg/m2 per day on days 1 and 2 (on weeks 1 and 6) followed 3 weeks later by high-dose methotrexate 12 g/m2 over 4 h. The MAPIE regimen consisted of MAP as a base regimen, with the addition of high-dose ifosfamide (14 g/m2) at 2·8 g/m2 per day with equidose mesna uroprotection, followed by etoposide 100 mg/m2 per day over 1 h on days 1–5. The primary outcome measure was event-free survival measured in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00134030. Findings Between April 14, 2005, and June 30, 2011, 2260 patients were registered from 325 sites in 17 countries. 618 patients with poor response were randomly assigned; 310 to receive MAP and 308 to receive MAPIE. Median follow-up was 62·1 months (IQR 46·6–76·6); 62·3 months (IQR 46·9–77·1) for the MAP group and 61·1 months (IQR 46·5–75·3) for the MAPIE group. 307 event-free survival events were reported (153 in the MAP group vs 154 in the MAPIE group). 193 deaths were reported (101 in the MAP group vs 92 in the MAPIE group). Event-free survival did not differ between treatment groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0·98 [95% CI 0·78–1·23]); hazards were non-proportional (p=0·0003). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (268 [89%] patients in MAP vs 268 [90%] in MAPIE), thrombocytopenia (231 [78% in MAP vs 248 [83%] in MAPIE), and febrile neutropenia without documented infection (149 [50%] in MAP vs 217 [73%] in MAPIE). MAPIE was associated with more frequent grade 4 non-haematological toxicity than MAP (35 [12%] of 301 in the MAP group vs 71 [24%] of 298 in the MAPIE group). Two patients died during postoperative therapy, one from infection (although their absolute neutrophil count was normal), which was definitely related to their MAP treatment (specifically doxorubicin and cisplatin), and one from left ventricular systolic dysfunction, which was probably related to MAPIE treatment (specifically doxorubicin). One suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction was reported in the MAP group: bone marrow infarction due to methotrexate. Interpretation EURAMOS-1 results do not support the addition of ifosfamide and etoposide to postoperative chemotherapy in patients with poorly responding osteosarcoma because its administration was associated with increased toxicity without improving event-free survival. The results define standard of care for this population. New strategies are required to improve outcomes in this setting. Funding UK Medical Research Council, National Cancer Institute, European Science Foundation, St Anna Kinderkrebsforschung, Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek-Vlaanderen, Parents Organization, Danish Medical Research Council, Academy of Finland, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Semmelweis Foundation, ZonMw (Council for Medical Research), Research Council of Norway, Scandinavian Sarcoma Group, Swiss Paediatric Oncology Group, Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research, University College London Hospitals, and Biomedical Research Centre.
|
|
| 2. |
- Balduini, Carlo, et al.
(författare)
-
The EHA research roadmap : Platelet disorders
- 2021
-
Ingår i: HemaSphere. - 2572-9241. ; 5:7
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- In 2016, the European Hematology Association (EHA) published the EHA Roadmap for European Hematology Research1 aiming to highlight achievements in the diagnostics and treatment of blood disorders, and to better inform European policy makers and other stakeholders about the urgent clinical and scientific needs and priorities in the field of hematology. Each section was coordinated by 1 to 2 section editors who were leading international experts in the field. In the 5 years that have followed, advances in the field of hematology have been plentiful. As such, EHA is pleased to present an updated Research Roadmap, now including 11 sections, each of which will be published separately. The updated EHA Research Roadmap identifies the most urgent priorities in hematology research and clinical science, therefore supporting a more informed, focused, and ideally a more funded future for European hematology research. The 11 EHA Research Roadmap sections include Normal Hematopoiesis; Malignant Lymphoid Diseases; Malignant Myeloid Diseases; Anemias and Related Diseases; Platelet Disorders; Blood Coagulation and Hemostatic Disorders; Transfusion Medicine; Infections in Hematology; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; CAR-T and Other Cellbased Immune Therapies; and Gene Therapy.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bréchignac, Francois, et al.
(författare)
-
Addressing ecological effects of radiation on populations and ecosystems to improve protection of the environment against radiation : Agreed statements from a Consensus Symposium
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. - : Elsevier BV. - 0265-931X .- 1879-1700. ; 158, s. 21-29
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper reports the output of a consensus symposium organized by the International Union of Radioecology in November 2015. The symposium gathered an academically diverse group of 30 scientists to consider the still debated ecological impact of radiation on populations and ecosystems. Stimulated by the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters' accidental contamination of the environment, there is increasing interest in developing environmental radiation protection frameworks. Scientific research conducted in a variety of laboratory and field settings has improved our knowledge of the effects of ionizing radiation on the environment. However, the results from such studies sometimes appear contradictory and there is disagreement about the implications for risk assessment. The Symposium discussions therefore focused on issues that might lead to different interpretations of the results, such as laboratory versus field approaches, organism versus population and ecosystemic inference strategies, dose estimation approaches and their significance under chronic exposure conditions. The participating scientists, from across the spectrum of disciplines and research areas, extending also beyond the traditional radioecology community, successfully developed a constructive spirit directed at understanding discrepancies. From the discussions, the group has derived seven consensus statements related to environmental protection against radiation, which are supplemented with some recommendations. Each of these statements is contextualized and discussed in view of contributing to the orientation and integration of future research, the results of which should yield better consensus on the ecological impact of radiation and consolidate suitable approaches for efficient radiological protection of the environment.
|
|
| 4. |
- Koch, Raphael, et al.
(författare)
-
Zoledronic Acid Add-on Therapy for Standard-Risk Ewing Sarcoma Patients in the Ewing 2008R1 Trial
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. - 1078-0432. ; 29:24, s. 5057-5068
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: The phase III, open-label, prospective, multicenter, randomized Ewing 2008R1 trial (EudraCT2008-003658-13) was conducted in 12 countries to evaluate the effect of zoledronic acid (ZOL) maintenance therapy compared with no add-on regarding event-free survival (EFS, primary endpoint) and overall survival (OS) in standard-risk Ewing sarcoma (EWS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had localized EWS with either good histologic response to induction chemotherapy and/or small tumors (<200 mL). Patients received six cycles of VIDE induction and eight cycles of VAI (male) or eight cycles of VAC (female) consolidation. ZOL treatment started parallel to the sixth consolidation cycle. Randomization was stratified by tumor site (pelvis/other). The two-sided adaptive inverse-normal four-stage design (planned sample size 448 patients, significance level 5%, power 80%) was changed after the first interim analysis using the Müller-Schäfer method. RESULTS: Between April 2010 and November 2018, 284 patients were randomized (142 ZOL/142 no add-on). With a median follow-up of 3.9 years, EFS was not significantly different between ZOL and no add-on group in the adaptive design (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.43-1.28, P = 0.27, intention-to-treat). Three-year EFS rates were 84.0% (95% CI, 77.7%-90.8%) for ZOL vs. 81.7% (95% CI, 75.2%-88.8%) for no add-on. Results were similar in the per-protocol collective. OS was not different between groups. The 3-year OS was 92.8% (95% CI, 88.4%-97.5%) for ZOL and 94.6% (95% CI, 90.9%-98.6%) for no add-on. Noticeable more renal, neurologic, and gastrointestinal toxicities were observed for ZOL (P < 0.05). Severe renal toxicities occurred more often in the ZOL arm (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with standard-risk localized EWS, there is no additional benefit from maintenance treatment with ZOL.
|
|
| 5. |
- Moschovitis, Giorgio, et al.
(författare)
-
Heart rate and adverse outcomes in patients with prevalent atrial fibrillation
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Open Heart. - : BMJ. - 2053-3624. ; 8:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: The optimal target heart rate in patients with prevalent atrial fibrillation (AF) is not well defined. The aim of this study was to analyse the associations between heart rate and adverse outcomes in a large contemporary cohort of patients with prevalent AF.METHODS: From two prospective cohort studies, we included stable AF outpatients who were in AF on the baseline ECG. The main outcome events assessed during prospective follow-up were heart failure hospitalisation, stroke or systemic embolism and death. The associations between heart rate and adverse outcomes were evaluated using multivariable Cox regression models.RESULTS: The study population consisted of 1679 patients who had prevalent AF at baseline. Mean age was 74 years, and 24.6% were women. The mean heart rate on the baseline ECG was 78 (±19) beats per minute (bpm). The median follow-up was 3.9 years (IQR 2.2-5.0). Heart rate was not significantly associated with heart failure hospitalisation (adjusted HR (aHR) per 10 bpm increase, 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07, p=0.95), stroke or systemic embolism (aHR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07, p=0.38) or death (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09, p=0.66). There was no evidence of a threshold effect for heart rates <60 bpm or >100 bpm.CONCLUSIONS: In this large contemporary cohort of outpatients with prevalent AF, we found no association between heart rate and adverse outcome events. These data are in line with recommendations that strict heart rate control is not needed in otherwise stable outpatients with AF.
|
|
| 6. |
- Rhodes, Olin E., et al.
(författare)
-
Integration of ecosystem science into radioecology : A consensus perspective
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Science of the Total Environment. - : Elsevier BV. - 0048-9697 .- 1879-1026. ; 740
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In the Fall of 2016 a workshop was held which brought together over 50 scientists from the ecological and radiological fields to discuss feasibility and challenges of reintegrating ecosystem science into radioecology. There is a growing desire to incorporate attributes of ecosystem science into radiological risk assessment and radioecological research more generally, fueled by recent advances in quantification of emergent ecosystem attributes and the desire to accurately reflect impacts of radiological stressors upon ecosystem function. This paper is a synthesis of the discussions and consensus of the workshop participant's responses to three primary questions, which were: 1) How can ecosystem science support radiological risk assessment? 2) What ecosystem level endpoints potentially could be used for radiological risk assessment? and 3) What inference strategies and associated methods would be most appropriate to assess the effects of radionuclides on ecosystem structure and function? The consensus of the participants was that ecosystem science can and should support radiological risk assessment through the incorporation of quantitative metrics that reflect ecosystem functions which are sensitive to radiological contaminants. The participants also agreed that many such endpoints exit or are thought to exit and while many are used in ecological risk assessment currently, additional data need to be collected that link the causal mechanisms of radiological exposure to these endpoints. Finally, the participants agreed that radiological risk assessments must be designed and informed by rigorous statistical frameworks capable of revealing the causal inference tying radiological exposure to the endpoints selected for measurement.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
