| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Lotti, LV, et al.
(author)
-
A Developmental Perspective on Paragangliar Tumorigenesis
- 2019
-
In: Cancers. - : MDPI AG. - 2072-6694. ; 11:3
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In this review, we propose that paraganglioma is a fundamentally organized, albeit aberrant, tissue composed of neoplastic vascular and neural cell types that share a common origin from a multipotent mesenchymal-like stem/progenitor cell. This view is consistent with the pseudohypoxic footprint implicated in the molecular pathogenesis of the disease, is in harmony with the neural crest origin of the paraganglia, and is strongly supported by the physiological model of carotid body hyperplasia. Our immunomorphological and molecular studies of head and neck paragangliomas demonstrate in all cases relationships between the vascular and the neural tumor compartments, that share mesenchymal and immature vasculo-neural markers, conserved in derived cell cultures. This immature, multipotent phenotype is supported by constitutive amplification of NOTCH signaling genes and by loss of the microRNA-200s and -34s, which control NOTCH1, ZEB1, and PDGFRA in head and neck paraganglioma cells. Importantly, the neuroepithelial component is distinguished by extreme mitochondrial alterations, associated with collapse of the ΔΨm. Finally, our xenograft models of head and neck paraganglioma demonstrate that mesenchymal-like cells first give rise to a vasculo-angiogenic network, and then self-organize into neuroepithelial-like clusters, a process inhibited by treatment with imatinib.
|
|
| 8. |
- Sarigul, Buse, et al.
(author)
-
Prognostication and Goals of Care Decisions in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury : A Survey of The Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference Working Group
- 2023
-
In: Journal of Neurotrauma. - : Mary Ann Liebert. - 0897-7151 .- 1557-9042. ; 40:15-16, s. 1707-1717
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Best practice guidelines have advanced severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) care; however, there is little that currently informs goals of care decisions and processes despite their importance and frequency. Panelists from the Seattle International severe traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference (SIBICC) participated in a survey consisting of 24 questions. Questions queried use of prognostic calculators, variability in and responsibility for goals of care decisions, and acceptability of neurological outcomes, as well as putative means of improving decisions that might limit care. A total of 97.6% of the 42 SIBICC panelists completed the survey. Responses to most questions were highly variable. Overall, panelists reported infrequent use of prognostic calculators, and observed variability in patient prognostication and goals of care decisions. They felt that it would be beneficial for physicians to improve consensus on what constitutes an acceptable neurological outcome as well as what chance of achieving that outcome is acceptable. Panelists felt that the public should help to define what constitutes a good outcome and expressed some support for a "nihilism guard." More than 50% of panelists felt that if it was certain to be permanent, a vegetative state or lower severe disability would justify a withdrawal of care decision, whereas 15% felt that upper severe disability justified such a decision. Whether conceptualizing an ideal or existing prognostic calculator to predict death or an unacceptable outcome, on average a 64-69% chance of a poor outcome was felt to justify treatment withdrawal. These results demonstrate important variability in goals of care decision making and a desire to reduce this variability. Our panel of recognized TBI experts opined on the neurological outcomes and chances of those outcomes that might prompt consideration of care withdrawal; however, imprecision of prognostication and existing prognostication tools is a significant impediment to standardizing the approach to care-limiting decisions.
|
|
| 9. |
- Chesnut, Randall, et al.
(author)
-
A Consensus-based Interpretation of the BEST TRIP ICP Trial.
- 2015
-
In: Journal of Neurotrauma. - : Mary Ann Liebert Inc. - 1557-9042 .- 0897-7151. ; 32:22, s. 1722-1724
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Widely varying published and presented analyses of the BEST TRIP randomized controlled trial of intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring have suggested denying trial generalizability, questioning the need for ICP monitoring in severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI), re-assessing current clinical approaches to monitored ICP, and initiating a general ICP-monitoring moratorium. In response to this dissonance, 23 clinically-active, international opinion leaders in acute-care sTBI management met to draft a consensus statement to interpret this study. A Delphi-method-based approach employed iterative pre-meeting polling to codify the groups general opinions, followed by an in-person meeting wherein individual statements were refined. Statements required an agreement threshold of > 70% by blinded voting for approval. Seven precisely-worded statements resulted, with agreement levels of 83-100%. These statements, which should be read in toto to properly reflect the group's consensus positions, conclude that this study: 1) studied protocols, not ICP-monitoring per se; 2) applies only to those protocols and specific study groups and should not be generalized to other treatment approaches or patient groups; 3) strongly calls for further research on ICP interpretation and use; 4) should be applied cautiously to regions with much different treatment milieu; 5) did not investigate the utility of treating monitored ICP in the specific patient group with established intracranial hypertension; 6) should not change the practice of those currently monitoring ICP; and 7) provided a protocol, used in non-monitored study patients, that should be considered when treating without ICP monitoring. Consideration of these statements can clarify study interpretation and avoid "collateral damage".
|
|
| 10. |
- Chesnut, Randall, et al.
(author)
-
A management algorithm for adult patients with both brain oxygen and intracranial pressure monitoring : the Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference (SIBICC)
- 2020
-
In: Intensive Care Medicine. - : Springer. - 0342-4642 .- 1432-1238. ; 46:5, s. 919-929
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Current guidelines for the treatment of adult severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) consist of high-quality evidence reports, but they are no longer accompanied by management protocols, as these require expert opinion to bridge the gap between published evidence and patient care. We aimed to establish a modern sTBI protocol for adult patients with both intracranial pressure (ICP) and brain oxygen monitors in place.Methods: Our consensus working group consisted of 42 experienced and actively practicing sTBI opinion leaders from six continents. Having previously established a protocol for the treatment of patients with ICP monitoring alone, we addressed patients who have a brain oxygen monitor in addition to an ICP monitor. The management protocols were developed through a Delphi-method-based consensus approach and were finalized at an in-person meeting.Results: We established three distinct treatment protocols, each with three tiers whereby higher tiers involve therapies with higher risk. One protocol addresses the management of ICP elevation when brain oxygenation is normal. A second addresses management of brain hypoxia with normal ICP. The third protocol addresses the situation when both intracranial hypertension and brain hypoxia are present. The panel considered issues pertaining to blood transfusion and ventilator management when designing the different algorithms.Conclusions: These protocols are intended to assist clinicians in the management of patients with both ICP and brain oxygen monitors but they do not reflect either a standard-of-care or a substitute for thoughtful individualized management. These protocols should be used in conjunction with recommendations for basic care, management of critical neuroworsening and weaning treatment recently published in conjunction with the Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference.
|
|
