Citations

AbstractWe aimed to validate the prognostic association of p16 expression in ovarian high‐grade serous carcinomas (HGSC) and to explore it in other ovarian carcinoma histotypes. p16 protein expression was assessed by clinical‐grade immunohistochemistry in 6525 ovarian carcinomas including 4334 HGSC using tissue microarrays from 24 studies participating in the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium. p16 expression patterns were interpreted as abnormal (either overexpression referred to as block expression or absence) or normal (heterogeneous). CDKN2A (which encodes p16) mRNA expression was also analyzed in a subset (n = 2280) mostly representing HGSC (n = 2010). Association of p16 expression with overall survival (OS) was determined within histotypes as was CDKN2A expression for HGSC only. p16 block expression was most frequent in HGSC (56%) but neither protein nor mRNA expression was associated with OS. However, relative to heterogeneous expression, block expression was associated with shorter OS in endometriosis‐associated carcinomas, clear cell [hazard ratio (HR): 2.02, 95% confidence (CI) 1.47–2.77, p < 0.001] and endometrioid (HR: 1.88, 95% CI 1.30–2.75, p = 0.004), while absence was associated with shorter OS in low‐grade serous carcinomas (HR: 2.95, 95% CI 1.61–5.38, p = 0.001). Absence was most frequent in mucinous carcinoma (50%), and was not associated with OS in this histotype. The prognostic value of p16 expression is histotype‐specific and pattern dependent. We provide definitive evidence against an association of p16 expression with survival in ovarian HGSC as previously suggested. Block expression of p16 in clear cell and endometrioid carcinoma should be further validated as a prognostic marker, and absence in low‐grade serous carcinoma justifies CDK4 inhibition.

Background: Lacosamide (LCM) is a newer antiepileptic drug (AED) with favorable properties for hospitalized patients including intravenous formulation, minimal hepatic metabolism, and no adverse respiratory effects. We sought to determine the safety profile of LCM in hospitalized patients. Methods: We performed a retrospective medical record review of patients who received LCM between July 1, 2009, and January 31, 2010, at Mayo Clinic Hospital. Data included demographics, LCM dosing, concomitant AED therapy, documented seizure activity, hemodynamic variables, electrocardiogram (ECG), and laboratory data. Adverse drug reaction and drug–drug interactions were reviewed. Results: Thirty-two patients were identified. No major hypotension or serious cardiac arrhythmias occurred. Heart rate increased, however, in seizure group compared with the prophylaxis group 2 hours postdrug infusion (median heart rate = 86 vs 164). The ECGs demonstrated a mean PR interval prolongation of about 6 milliseconds (ms) after LCM initiation (mean PR 185.5 ms, compared with baseline ECG mean of 179.3 ms). Laboratory data revealed no clinically significant changes 24 hours after LCM initiation. Three patients developed adverse events (9.4%): One with altered mental state and exceptionally prolonged ECG PR interval (212 vs 178 ms baseline); One with unexplained thrombocytopenia; and a third patient with dizziness, all of which resolved after drug discontinuation. Conclusion: The LCM demonstrated ECG PR prolongation as previously reported without systemic hypotension, with no discernable drug–drug interactions in hospitalized patients. About 9% of patients had transient adverse drug reactions after LCM, namely alteration in mental state, unexplained thrombocytopenia, and dizziness, which stopped after discontinuation of the drug.