| 2. |
- Diaz-Galvan, P., et al.
(författare)
-
Differential response to donepezil in MRI subtypes of mild cognitive impairment
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Alzheimer's Research & Therapy. - 1758-9193. ; 15:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundDonepezil is an approved therapy for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Results across clinical trials have been inconsistent, which may be explained by design-methodological issues, the pathophysiological heterogeneity of AD, and diversity of included study participants. We investigated whether response to donepezil differs in mild cognitive impaired (MCI) individuals demonstrating different magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) subtypes.MethodsFrom the Hippocampus Study double-blind, randomized clinical trial, we included 173 MCI individuals (donepezil = 83; placebo = 90) with structural MRI data, at baseline and at clinical follow-up assessments (6-12-month). Efficacy outcomes were the annualized percentage change (APC) in hippocampal, ventricular, and total grey matter volumes, as well as in the AD cortical thickness signature. Participants were classified into MRI subtypes as typical AD, limbic-predominant, hippocampal-sparing, or minimal atrophy at baseline. We primarily applied a subtyping approach based on continuous scale of two subtyping dimensions. We also used the conventional categorical subtyping approach for comparison.ResultsDonepezil-treated MCI individuals showed slower atrophy rates compared to the placebo group, but only if they belonged to the minimal atrophy or hippocampal-sparing subtypes. Importantly, only the continuous subtyping approach, but not the conventional categorical approach, captured this differential response.ConclusionsOur data suggest that individuals with MCI, with hippocampal-sparing or minimal atrophy subtype, may have improved benefit from donepezil, as compared with MCI individuals with typical or limbic-predominant patterns of atrophy. The newly proposed continuous subtyping approach may have advantages compared to the conventional categorical approach. Future research is warranted to demonstrate the potential of subtype stratification for disease prognosis and response to treatment.
|
|
| 3. |
- Smith, H. G., et al.
(författare)
-
Variations in the definition and perceived importance of positive resection margins in patients with colorectal cancer - an EYSAC international survey
- 2023
-
Ingår i: EJSO. - 0748-7983 .- 1532-2157. ; 49:11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Microscopically positive resection margins (R1) are associated with poorer outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer. However, different definitions of R1 margins exist. It is unclear to what extent the definitions used in everyday clinical practice differ within and between nations. This study sought to investigate variations in the definition of R1 margins in colorectal cancer and the importance of margin status in clinical decision-making.Materials and methods: A 14-point survey was developed by members of The European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO) Youngs Surgeons and Alumni Club (EYSAC) Research Academy targeting all members of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) treating patients with colorectal cancer. The survey was distributed on social media, in ESSO's monthly newsletter and via national societies.Results: In total, 137 responses were received. Most respondents were from Europe (89.7%), with the majority from Denmark (56.9%). Less than 2/3 of respondents defined R1 margins as the presence of viable cancer cells <= 1 mm of the margin. Only 60% reported that subdivisions of R1 margins (primary tumour vs tumour deposit vs metastatic lymph node) are routinely available. More than 20% of respondents reported that pathology reports are not routinely reviewed at MDT meetings. Less than half of respondents considered margin status in decisionmaking for type and duration of adjuvant chemotherapy in Stage III colon cancer.Conclusion: The definitions and perceived clinical importance of microscopically positive margins in patients with colorectal cancer appear to vary. Adoption of an international dataset for pathology reporting may help to standardise current practices.
|
|
