Food,water, energy,and macronutrient intake of non-breastfed infants and young children (0–3 years)

European Journal of Nutrition - The French Nutri-Bébé 2013 study aimed to assess the nutritional intake of infants and young children in comparison with the recommendations of the 2013...     

New and important changes in breast cancer TNM: incorporation of biologic factors into staging

Introduction: Cancer staging has historically been based solely on the anatomic extent of the tumor (T), spread to lymph nodes (N), and the presence of distant metastases (M). More recently biologic factors have been added to modify TNM stage groups to provide more accurate prognosis for patients.

Areas covered: The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) updated breast cancer staging in 2016 to include T, N, M, tumor grade and expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors and HER2. Addition of these factors changed the stage group for a large fraction of cases compared to prior TNM stage groupings. This updated ‘prognostic stage’ provides more robust and precise prognosis information.

Expert opinion: Inclusion of biological information in staging changes the meaning and the use of stage in clinical practice. This paper reviews the evidence supporting these changes, limitations affecting staging, and discusses the implications for clinical practice and the future of breast cancer staging.     

Epitope load identifies kidney transplant recipients at risk of allosensitization following minimization of immunosuppression

1. Download : Download high-res image (301KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Factors predicting tracer uptake in somatostatin receptor and MIBG scintigraphy of metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

Radiolabeled octreotide analogs (Oct) and metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) offer 2 different approaches for imaging and targeting metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NET). Despite successful establishment of the revised World Health Organization (WHO) classification, which distinguishes between low- and high-grade malignant GEP-NET, there is a lack of scintigraphic studies comparing uptake behavior on the basis of this categorization. This study aims to define predisposing factors of tracer uptake for both imaging principles implementing the updated tumor criteria of the current WHO classification. METHODS: Fifty-seven consecutive patients with histologically confirmed metastatic GEP-NET evaluated with both 111In-pentetreotide and 123I/131I-MIBG scintigraphy were included in this study. Intensity of tracer uptake was graded according to the different metastatic regions. Patients were classified as overall positive when avid uptake in the clinically relevant tumor lesions was present. Correlation was tested between the proportion of positive patients and tumor origin, function, and malignancy. RESULTS: Overall, 52 patients (91.2%) were Oct positive and 28 patients (49.1%) were MIBG positive. The proportion of tracer-positive patients was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in low-grade malignant tumors for both tracers and in functioning as well as in gastroenteral NET for MIBG. Five patients were negative for both tracers. None of the Oct-negative patients proved to be MIBG positive. CONCLUSION: Oct affinity is observed with high frequency throughout the subgroups of metastatic GEP-NET, whereas corresponding MIBG uptake is overall less prevalent and more group dependent. Tumor differentiation significantly impacts both Oct and MIBG uptake, whereas functionality predisposes only for MIBG accumulation. Though clearly inferior to Oct-based radioimaging in most GEP-NET, MIBG achieves a remarkable rate of radioligand accumulation in functioning midgut enterochromaffin cell metastases (>80% of patients positive). These results may have implications for patient management and potentially for selection and performance of targeted therapy.