| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
|
|
| 21. |
|
|
| 22. |
|
|
| 23. |
- Chen, F, et al.
(författare)
-
Interval cancers in nasopharyngeal carcinoma screening: comparing two screening intervals after a negative initial screening result
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Journal of medical screening. - : SAGE Publications. - 1475-5793 .- 0969-1413. ; 19:4, s. 195-200
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To examine the optimal screening interval among the individuals who received a negative Epstein-Barr virus immunoglobulin A antibodies against viral capsid antigen (VCA-IgA) serum test result and who comprised the majority of the population screened for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Methods Screening was performed in Sihui, Guangdong, China, offering a repeated screening for participants with an initial negative test either after 4-5 years in one centre (short interval centre), or 9-10 years in another (long interval centre). The characteristics and incidence rates (IRs) of interval NPCs (defined as cases diagnosed outside the screening protocol while within the screening interval) were compared between these two centres. Standard incidence ratios (SIRs) were also calculated using the general Sihui population as the reference. Results Seven interval NPCs were detected in the short interval centre (IR: 17.8/10 5 person-years) and 20 in the long interval centre (IR: 20.8/10 5 person-years during the first four years and 43.5/10 5 person-years during the remaining years). The SIR in the short interval centre was 0.43 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17-0.89); SIR in the long interval centre was 0.47 (95% CI: 0.17-1.02) during the first four years and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.49-1.51) during the remaining years. No aggressive interval NPC was observed in the short interval centre; four were identified in the long interval centre. Conclusions The incidence of NPC, especially aggressive NPC, was low during the first few years after a negative screening; the incidence increased to the general population level afterwards. A screening interval of 4-5 years may therefore be more suitable than 9–10 years after a negative VCA-IgA test in NPC screening.
|
|
| 24. |
|
|
| 25. |
|
|
| 26. |
|
|
| 27. |
|
|
| 28. |
|
|
| 29. |
|
|
| 30. |
|
|
| 31. |
|
|
| 32. |
|
|
| 33. |
- Wu, K, et al.
(författare)
-
Frequent alterations in cytoskeleton remodelling genes in primary and metastatic lung adenocarcinomas
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Nature communications. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2041-1723. ; 6, s. 10131-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The landscape of genetic alterations in lung adenocarcinoma derived from Asian patients is largely uncharacterized. Here we present an integrated genomic and transcriptomic analysis of 335 primary lung adenocarcinomas and 35 corresponding lymph node metastases from Chinese patients. Altogether 13 significantly mutated genes are identified, including the most commonly mutated gene TP53 and novel mutation targets such as RHPN2, GLI3 and MRC2. TP53 mutations are furthermore significantly enriched in tumours from patients harbouring metastases. Genes regulating cytoskeleton remodelling processes are also frequently altered, especially in metastatic samples, of which the high expression level of IQGAP3 is identified as a marker for poor prognosis. Our study represents the first large-scale sequencing effort on lung adenocarcinoma in Asian patients and provides a comprehensive mutational landscape for both primary and metastatic tumours. This may thus form a basis for personalized medical care and shed light on the molecular pathogenesis of metastatic lung adenocarcinoma.
|
|
| 34. |
- Zhang, JR, et al.
(författare)
-
Systematic bias between blinded independent central review and local assessment: literature review and analyses of 76 phase III randomised controlled trials in 45 688 patients with advanced solid tumour
- 2018
-
Ingår i: BMJ open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 8:9, s. e017240-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Unbiased assessment of tumour response is crucial in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Blinded independent central review is usually used as a supplemental or monitor to local assessment but is costly. The aim of this study is to investigate whether systematic bias existed in RCTs by comparing the treatment effects of efficacy endpoints between central and local assessments.DesignLiterature review, pooling analysis and correlation analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesEligible articles are phase III RCTs comparing anticancer agents for advanced solid tumours. Additionally, the articles should report objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) or time to progression (TTP); the treatment effect of these endpoints, OR or HR, should be based on central and local assessments.ResultsOf 76 included trials involving 45 688 patients, 17 (22%) trials reported their endpoints with statistically inconsistent inferences (p value lower/higher than the probability of type I error) between central and local assessments; among them, 9 (53%) trials had statistically significant inference based on central assessment. Pooling analysis presented no systematic bias when comparing treatment effects of both assessments (ORR: OR=1.02 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.07), p=0.42, I2=0%; DCR: OR=0.97 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.03), p=0.32, I2=0%); PFS: HR=1.01 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.02), p=0.32, I2=0%; TTP: HR=1.04 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.14), p=0.37, I2=0%), regardless of funding source, mask, region, tumour type, study design, number of enrolled patients, response assessment criteria, primary endpoint and trials with statistically consistent/inconsistent inferences. Correlation analysis also presented no sign of systematic bias between central and local assessments (ORR, DCR, PFS: r>0.90, p<0.01; TTP: r=0.90, p=0.29).ConclusionsNo systematic bias could be found between local and central assessments in phase III RCTs on solid tumours. However, statistically inconsistent inferences could be made in many trials between both assessments.
|
|
| 35. |
|
|
