| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
In: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
- Chinot, Olivier L., et al.
(author)
-
Bevacizumab plus radiotherapy-temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma
- 2014
-
In: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 370:8, s. 709-722
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BackgroundStandard therapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma is radiotherapy plus temozolomide. In this phase 3 study, we evaluated the effect of the addition of bevacizumab to radiotherapy-temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma. MethodsWe randomly assigned patients with supratentorial glioblastoma to receive intravenous bevacizumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks) or placebo, plus radiotherapy (2 Gy 5 days a week; maximum, 60 Gy) and oral temozolomide (75 mg per square meter of body-surface area per day) for 6 weeks. After a 28-day treatment break, maintenance bevacizumab (10 mg per kilogram intravenously every 2 weeks) or placebo, plus temozolomide (150 to 200 mg per square meter per day for 5 days), was continued for six 4-week cycles, followed by bevacizumab monotherapy (15 mg per kilogram intravenously every 3 weeks) or placebo until the disease progressed or unacceptable toxic effects developed. The coprimary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival. ResultsA total of 458 patients were assigned to the bevacizumab group, and 463 patients to the placebo group. The median progression-free survival was longer in the bevacizumab group than in the placebo group (10.6 months vs. 6.2 months; stratified hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 0.74; P<0.001). The benefit with respect to progression-free survival was observed across subgroups. Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.02; P=0.10). The respective overall survival rates with bevacizumab and placebo were 72.4% and 66.3% at 1 year (P=0.049) and 33.9% and 30.1% at 2 years (P=0.24). Baseline health-related quality of life and performance status were maintained longer in the bevacizumab group, and the glucocorticoid requirement was lower. More patients in the bevacizumab group than in the placebo group had grade 3 or higher adverse events (66.8% vs. 51.3%) and grade 3 or higher adverse events often associated with bevacizumab (32.5% vs. 15.8%). ConclusionsThe addition of bevacizumab to radiotherapy-temozolomide did not improve survival in patients with glioblastoma. Improved progression-free survival and maintenance of baseline quality of life and performance status were observed with bevacizumab; however, the rate of adverse events was higher with bevacizumab than with placebo.
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
- Ellingson, Benjamin M., et al.
(author)
-
Post-chemoradiation volumetric response predicts survival in newly diagnosed glioblastoma treated with radiation, temozolomide, and bevacizumab or placebo
- 2018
-
In: Neuro-Oncology. - : Oxford University Press. - 1522-8517 .- 1523-5866. ; 20:11, s. 1525-1535
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background. In the current study we used contrast-enhanced T1 subtraction maps to test whether early changes in enhancing tumor volume are prognostic for overall survival (OS) in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) patients treated with chemoradiation with or without bevacizumab (BV). Methods. Seven hundred ninety-eight patients (404 BV and 394 placebo) with newly diagnosed GBM in the AVAglio trial (NCT00943826) had baseline MRI scans available, while 337 BV-treated and 269 placebo-treated patients had > 4 MRI scans for response evaluation. The volume of contrast-enhancing tumor was quantified and used for subsequent analyses. Results. A decrease in tumor volume during chemoradiation was associated with a longer OS in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.578, P < 0.0001) but not BV-treated group (HR = 1.135, P = 0.4889). Results showed a higher OS in patients on the placebo arm with a sustained decrease in tumor volume using a post-chemoradiation baseline (HR = 1.692, P = 0.0005), and a trend toward longer OS was seen in BV-treated patients (HR = 1.264, P = 0.0724). Multivariable Cox regression confirmed that sustained response or stable disease was prognostic for OS (HR = 0.7509, P = 0.0127) when accounting for age (P = 0.0002), KPS (P = 0.1516), postsurgical tumor volume (P < 0.0001), O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase status (P < 0.0001), and treatment type (P = 0.7637) using the post-chemoradiation baseline. Conclusions. The post-chemoradiation timepoint is a better baseline for evaluating efficacy in newly diagnosed GBM. Early progression during the maintenance phase is consequential in predicting OS, supporting the use of progression-free survival rates as a meaningful surrogate for GBM.
|
|
| 17. |
- Ellingson, Benjamin M., et al.
(author)
-
Validation of postoperative residual contrast-enhancing tumor volume as an independent prognostic factor for overall survival in newly diagnosed glioblastoma
- 2018
-
In: Neuro-Oncology. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC. - 1522-8517 .- 1523-5866. ; 20:9, s. 1240-1250
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background. In the current study, we pooled imaging data in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) patients from international multicenter clinical trials, single institution databases, and multicenter clinical trial consortiums to identify the relationship between postoperative residual enhancing tumor volume and overall survival (OS). Methods. Data from 1511 newly diagnosed GBM patients from 5 data sources were included in the current study: (i) a single institution database from UCLA (N = 398; Discovery); (ii) patients from the Ben and Cathy Ivy Foundation for Early Phase Clinical Trials Network Radiogenomics Database (N = 262 from 8 centers; Confirmation); (iii) the chemoradiation placebo arm from an international phase III trial (AVAglio; N = 394 from 120 locations in 23 countries; Validation); (iv) the experimental arm from AVAglio examining chemoradiation plus bevacizumab (N = 404 from 120 locations in 23 countries; Exploratory Set 1); and (v) an Alliance (N0874) phase I/II trial of vorinostat plus chemoradiation (N = 53; Exploratory Set 2). Postsurgical, residual enhancing disease was quantified using T1 subtraction maps. Multivariate Cox regression models were used to determine influence of clinical variables, O-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) status, and residual tumor volume on OS. Results. A log-linear relationship was observed between postoperative, residual enhancing tumor volume and OS in newly diagnosed GBM treated with standard chemoradiation. Postoperative tumor volume is a prognostic factor for OS (P < 0.01), regardless of therapy, age, and MGMT promoter methylation status. Conclusion. Postsurgical, residual contrast-enhancing disease significantly negatively influences survival in patients with newly diagnosed GBM treated with chemoradiation with or without concomitant experimental therapy.
|
|
| 18. |
- Hagiwara, Akifumi, et al.
(author)
-
Incidence, molecular characteristics, and imaging features of "clinically-defined pseudoprogression" in newly diagnosed glioblastoma treated with chemoradiation
- 2022
-
In: Journal of Neuro-Oncology. - : Springer. - 0167-594X .- 1573-7373. ; 159, s. 509-518
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose: Pseudoprogression (PsP) remains an elusive and clinically important, yet ill-defined, phenomena that, generally, involves a period of early radiographic progression (enhancement) followed by a period of radiographic stability or regression. In the current study, we utilized data from the control arm of a phase III clinical trial in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma to explore imaging characteristics of “clinically-defined PsP”, or early radiographic progression (PFS < 6 months from chemoradiation) followed by a long post-progression residual overall survival (ROS > 12 months).Methods: One hundred sixty-nine patients with newly-diagnosed GBM from the control arm of the AVAglio trial (NCT00943826) who presented with early radiographic progressive disease (PD) (< 6 months) were included. Clinical characteristics, topographical patterns, and radiomic features were compared between newly-diagnosed GBM exhibiting early PD and early death (< 12-month ROS, “true PD”) with those exhibiting early PD and a long residual survival (> 12-month ROS, “clinically-defined PsP”).Results: “Clinically-defined PsP” occurred to 38.5% of patients with early PD, and was more associated with MGMT methylation (P = 0.02), younger age (P = 0.003), better neurological performance (P = 0.01), and lower contrast-enhancing tumor volume (P = 0.002) at baseline. GBM showing “true PD” occurred more frequently in the right internal capsule, thalamus, lentiform nucleus, and temporal lobe than those with “clinical PsP”. Radiomic analysis predicted “clinical PsP” with > 70% accuracy on the validation dataset.Conclusion: Patients with early PD that eventually exhibit “clinically-defined PsP” have distinct clinical, molecular, and MRI characteristics. This information may be useful for treating clinicians to better understand the potential risks and outcome in patients exhibiting early radiographic changes following chemoradiation.
|
|
| 19. |
- Nowosielski, Martha, et al.
(author)
-
Radiologic progression of glioblastoma under therapy : an exploratory analysis of AVAglio
- 2018
-
In: Neuro-Oncology. - : Oxford University Press. - 1522-8517 .- 1523-5866. ; 20:4, s. 557-566
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In this exploratory analysis of AVAglio, a randomized phase III clinical study that investigated the addition of bevacizumab (Bev) to radiotherapy/temozolomide in newly diagnosed glioblastoma, we aim to radiologically characterize glioblastoma on therapy until progression and investigate whether the type of radiologic progression differs between treatment arms and is related to survival and molecular data. Five progression types (PTs) were categorized using an adapted algorithm according to MRI contrast enhancement behavior in T1- and T2-weighted images in 621 patients (Bev, n = 299; placebo, n = 322). Frequencies of PTs (designated as classic T1, cT1 relapse, T2 diffuse, T2 circumscribed, and primary nonresponder), time to progression (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed within each treatment arm and compared with molecular subtypes and O-6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status. PT frequencies differed between the Bev and placebo arms, except for "T2 diffuse" (12.4% and 7.1%, respectively). PTs showed differences in PFS and OS; with "T2 diffuse" being associated with longest survival. Complete disappearance of contrast enhancement during treatment ("cT1 relapse") showed longer survival than only partial contrast enhancement decrease ("classic T1"). "T2 diffuse" was more commonly MGMT hypermethylated. Only weak correlations to molecular subtypes from primary tissue were detected. Progression of glioblastoma under therapy can be characterized radiologically. These radiologic phenotypes are influenced by treatment and develop differently over time with differential outcomes. Complete resolution of contrast enhancement during treatment is a favorable factor for outcome.
|
|
| 20. |
|
|
