Tractostorm: The what,why, and how of tractography dissection reproducibility

Investigative studies of white matter (WM) brain structures using diffusion MRI (dMRI) tractography frequently require manual WM bundle segmentation, often called “virtual dissection.” Human errors and personal decisions make these manual segmentations hard to reproduce, which have not yet been quantified by the dMRI community. It is our opinion that if the field of dMRI tractography wants to be taken seriously as a widespread clinical tool, it is imperative to harmonize WM bundle segmentations and develop protocols aimed to be used in clinical settings. The EADC‐ADNI Harmonized Hippocampal Protocol achieved such standardization through a series of steps that must be reproduced for every WM bundle. This article is an observation of the problematic. A specific bundle segmentation protocol was used in order to provide a real‐life example, but the contribution of this article is to discuss the need for reproducibility and standardized protocol, as for any measurement tool. This study required the participation of 11 experts and 13 nonexperts in neuroanatomy and “virtual dissection” across various laboratories and hospitals. Intra‐rater agreement (Dice score) was approximately 0.77, while inter‐rater was approximately 0.65. The protocol provided to participants was not necessarily optimal, but its design mimics, in essence, what will be required in future protocols. Reporting tractometry results such as average fractional anisotropy, volume or streamline count of a particular bundle without a sufficient reproducibility score could make the analysis and interpretations more difficult. Coordinated efforts by the diffusion MRI tractography community are needed to quantify and account for reproducibility of WM bundle extraction protocols in this era of open and collaborative science.     

Population Genetics Identifies Challenges in Analyzing Rare Variants

Geneticists have, for years, understood the nature of genome‐wide association studies using common genomic variants. Recently, however, focus has shifted to the analysis of rare variants. This presents potential problems for researchers, as rare variants do not always behave in the same way common variants do, sometimes rendering decades of solid intuition moot. In this paper, we present examples of the differences between common and rare variants. We show why one must be significantly more careful about the origin of rare variants, and how failing to do so can lead to highly inflated type I error. We then explain how to best avoid such concerns with careful understanding and study design. Additionally, we demonstrate that a seemingly low error rate in next‐generation sequencing can dramatically impact the false‐positive rate for rare variants. This is due to the fact that rare variants are, by definition, seen infrequently, making it hard to distinguish between errors and real variants. Compounding this problem is the fact that the proportion of errors is likely to get worse, not better, with increasing sample size. One cannot simply scale their way up in order to solve this problem. Understanding these potential pitfalls is a key step in successfully identifying true associations between rare variants and diseases.     

Nanomedicines: From Bench to Bedside and Beyond

Advancing nanomedicines from concept to clinic requires integration of new science with traditional pharmaceutical development. The medical and commercial success of nanomedicines is greatly facilitated when those charged with developing nanomedicines are cognizant of the unique opportunities and technical challenges that these products present. These individuals must also be knowledgeable about the processes of clinical and product development, including regulatory considerations, to maximize the odds for successful product registration. This article outlines these topics with a goal to accelerate the combination of academic innovation with collaborative industrial scientists who understand pharmaceutical development and regulatory approval requirements—only together can they realize the full potential of nanomedicines for patients.     

Maximizing Breast Cancer Therapy with Awareness of Potential Treatment-Related Blood Disorders

In this review we summarize the impact of the various modalities of breast cancer therapy coupled with intrinsic patient factors on incidence of subsequent treatment-induced myelodysplasia and acute myelogenous leukemia (t-MDS/AML). It is clear that risk is increased for patients treated with radiation and chemotherapy at younger ages. Radiation is associated with modest risk, whereas chemotherapy, particularly the combination of an alkylating agent and an anthracycline, carries higher risk and radiation and chemotherapy combined increase the risk markedly. Recently, treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), but not pegylated G-CSF, has been identified as a factor associated with increased t-MDS/AML risk. Two newly identified associations may link homologous DNA repair gene deficiency and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment to increased t-MDS/AML risk. When predisposing factors, such as young age, are combined with an increasing number of potentially leukemogenic treatments that may not confer large risk singly, the risk of t-MDS/AML appears to increase. Patient and treatment factors combine to form a biological cascade that can trigger a myelodysplastic event. Patients with breast cancer are often exposed to many of these risk factors in the course of their treatment, and triple-negative patients, who are often younger and/or BRCA positive, are often exposed to all of them. It is important going forward to identify effective therapies without these adverse associated effects and choose existing therapies that minimize the risk of t-MDS/AML without sacrificing therapeutic gain.

Implications for Practice

Breast cancer is far more curable than in the past but requires multimodality treatment. Great care must be taken to use the least leukemogenic treatment programs that do not sacrifice efficacy. Elimination of radiation and anthracycline/alkylating agent regimens will be helpful where possible, particularly in younger patients and possibly those with homologous repair deficiency (HRD). Use of colony-stimulating factors should be limited to those who truly require them for safe chemotherapy administration. Further study of a possible leukemogenic association with HRD and the various forms of colony-stimulating factors is badly needed.