Mesenchymal neoplasms with NTRK and other kinase gene alterations

Kinase alterations are increasingly recognised as oncogenic drivers in mesenchymal tumours. Infantile fibrosarcoma and the related renal tumour, congenital mesoblastic nephroma, were among the first solid tumours shown to harbour recurrent tyrosine kinase fusions, with the canonical ETV6::NTRK3 fusion identified more than 20 years ago. Although targeted testing has long been used in diagnosis, the advent of more robust sequencing techniques has driven the discovery of kinase alterations in an array of mesenchymal tumours. As our ability to identify these genetic alterations has improved, as has our recognition and understanding of the tumours that harbour these alterations. Specifically, this study will focus upon mesenchymal tumours harbouring NTRK or other kinase alterations, including tumours with an infantile fibrosarcoma-like appearance, spindle cell tumours resembling lipofibromatosis or peripheral nerve sheath tumours and those occurring in adults with a fibrosarcoma-like appearance. As publications describing the histology of these tumours increase so, too, do the variety kinase alterations reported, now including NTRK1/2/3, RET, MET, RAF1, BRAF, ALK, EGFR and ABL1 fusions or alterations. To date, these tumours appear locally aggressive and rarely metastatic, without a clear link between traditional features used in histological grading (e.g. mitotic activity, necrosis) and outcome. However, most of these tumours are amenable to new targeted therapies, making their recognition of both diagnostic and therapeutic import. The goal of this study is to review the clinicopathological features of tumours with NTRK and other tyrosine kinase alterations, discuss the most common differential diagnoses and provide recommendations for molecular confirmation with associated treatment implications.     

Standardisierte Kontrastmittelsonographie (CEUS) in der klinischen Akut- und Notfallmedizin sowie Intensivmedizin (CEUS-Akut)

Die Anaesthesiologie -     

PREDICT-GTN 1: Can we improve the FIGO scoring system in gestational trophoblastic neoplasia?

Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) patients are treated according to the eight-variable International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) scoring system, that aims to predict first-line single-agent chemotherapy resistance. FIGO is imperfect with one-third of low-risk patients developing disease resistance to first-line single-agent chemotherapy. We aimed to generate simplified models that improve upon FIGO. Logistic regression (LR) and multilayer perceptron (MLP) modelling (n = 4191) generated six models (M1-6). M1, all eight FIGO variables (scored data); M2, all eight FIGO variables (scored and raw data); M3, nonimaging variables (scored data); M4, nonimaging variables (scored and raw data); M5, imaging variables (scored data); and M6, pretreatment hCG (raw data) + imaging variables (scored data). Performance was compared to FIGO using true and false positive rates, positive and negative predictive values, diagnostic odds ratio, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, Bland-Altman calibration plots, decision curve analysis and contingency tables. M1-6 were calibrated and outperformed FIGO on true positive rate and positive predictive value. Using LR and MLP, M1, M2 and M4 generated small improvements to the ROC curve and decision curve analysis. M3, M5 and M6 matched FIGO or performed less well. Compared to FIGO, most (excluding LR M4 and MLP M5) had significant discordance in patient classification (McNemar's test P < .05); 55-112 undertreated, 46-206 overtreated. Statistical modelling yielded only small gains over FIGO performance, arising through recategorisation of treatment-resistant patients, with a significant proportion of under/overtreatment as the available data have been used a priori to allocate primary chemotherapy. Streamlining FIGO should now be the focus.     

Pre-COVID-19 Social Determinants of Health Among Mexican Migrants in Los Angeles and New York City and Their Increased Vulnerability to Unfavorable Health Outcomes During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health - COVID-19 has disproportionally affected underrepresented minorities (URM) and low-income immigrants in the United States. The aim of the study is to...     

Glycaemic control for patients with severe acute brain injury: Protocol for a systematic review

Background

Hyperglycaemia is common in patients with acute brain injury admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Many studies have found associations between development of hyperglycaemia and increased mortality in hospitalised patients. However, the optimal target for blood glucose control is unknown. We want to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to explore the beneficial and harmful effects of restrictive versus liberal glucose control on patient outcomes in adults with severe acute brain injury.

Methods

We will systematically search medical databases including CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE and trial registries. We will search the following websites for ongoing or unpublished trials: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ , http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ , www.eudraCT.com , http://centerwatch.com/ , The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and CINAHL. Two authors will independently review and select trials and extract data. We will include randomised trials comparing levels of glucose control in our analyses and observational studies will be included to address potential harms. The primary outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality, functional outcome and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse events including hypoglycaemia, length of ICU stay and duration of mechanical ventilation, and explorative outcomes including intracranial pressure and infection. Trial Sequential Analysis will be used to investigate the risk of type I error due to repetitive testing and to further explore imprecision. Quality of trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

Discussion

The results of the systematic review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication. With the review, we hope to inform future randomised clinical trials and improve clinical practice.