| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Wu, K, et al.
(author)
-
Frequent alterations in cytoskeleton remodelling genes in primary and metastatic lung adenocarcinomas
- 2015
-
In: Nature communications. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2041-1723. ; 6, s. 10131-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 6. |
- Zhang, JR, et al.
(author)
-
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
-
In: BMJ open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 8:9, s. e017240-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
