Citations

Abstract COX inhibitors reduce colorectal adenoma recurrence by up to 45% and selenium supplementation may prevent colorectal cancer. Following colonoscopic adenoma resection, 1,600 men and women, ages 40 to 80 years, were randomized to celecoxib (400 mg daily), a selective COX-2 inhibitor, and/or selenium (200 μg daily as selenized yeast), or double placebo. The trial was initiated in November 2001. The primary trial endpoint is adenoma recurrence in each intervention group compared with placebo, as determined by surveillance colonoscopy conducted three to five years after baseline. Randomization was stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (81 mg) and clinic site. Following reports of cardiovascular toxicity associated with COX-2 inhibitors, the celecoxib arm was discontinued in December 2004 when 824 participants had been randomized. Accrual continued with randomization to selenium alone or placebo. Randomization of the originally planned cohort (n = 1,621) was completed in November 2008. A further 200 patients with one or more advanced adenomas (denoting increased risk for colorectal cancer) were accrued to enhance statistical power for determining intervention efficacy in this higher-risk subgroup. Accrual of the total cohort (n = 1,824) was completed in January 2011. Baseline cohort characteristics include: mean age 62.9 years; 65% male; body mass index (BMI) 29.1 ± 5.1; 47% taking low-dose aspirin while on trial; 20% with three or more adenomas; and 38% with advanced adenomas. Intervention effects on adenoma recurrence will be determined, and their modification by genetic background and baseline selenium level. The effect of selenium supplementation on risk for type II diabetes will also be reported. Cancer Prev Res; 5(12); 1381–93. ©2012 AACR.

Background Classification of risk of ischemic stroke is important for medical care and public health reasons. Whether addition of biomarkers adds to predictive power of the Framingham Stroke Risk or other traditional risk factors has not been studied in older women. Methods The Hormones and Biomarkers Predicting Stroke Study is a case-control study of blood biomarkers assayed in 972 ischemic stroke cases and 972 controls, nested in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study of 93 676 postmenopausal women followed for an average of eight-years. We evaluated additive predictive value of two commercially available biomarkers: C-reactive protein and lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A 2 to determine if they added to risk prediction by the Framingham Stroke Risk Score or by traditional risk factors, which included lipids and other variables not included in the Framingham Stroke Risk Score. As measures of additive predictive value, we used the C-statistic, net reclassification improvement, category-less net reclassification improvement, and integrated discrimination improvement index. Results Addition of C-reactive protein to Framingham risk models or additional traditional risk factors overall modestly improved prediction of ischemic stroke and resulted in overall net reclassification improvement of 6·3%, (case net reclassification improvement = 3·9%, control net reclassification improvement = 2·4%). In particular, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein was useful in prediction of cardioembolic strokes (net reclassification improvement = 12·0%; 95% confidence interval 4·3–19·6%) and in strokes occurring in less than three-years (net reclassification improvement = 7·9%, 95% confidence interval 0·8–14·9%). Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A 2 was useful in risk prediction of large artery strokes (net reclassification improvement = 19·8%, 95% confidence interval 7·4–32·1%) and in early strokes (net reclassification improvement = 5·8%, 95% confidence interval 0·4–11·2%). Conclusions C-reactive protein and lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A 2 can improve prediction of certain subtypes of ischemic stroke in older women, over the Framingham stroke risk model and traditional risk factors, and may help to guide surveillance and treatment of women at risk.

Background— Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator system efficacy is tested at implant by induction of ventricular fibrillation (VF). Defibrillation safety margin can be assessed without VF induction using upper limit of vulnerability methods, but these methods have required manual determination of T-wave timing. Methods and Results— To test the feasibility of an inductionless system of implant testing, a multicenter prospective study of an automated vulnerability safety margin system was conducted, which measured T-wave timing using an intracardiac electrogram during a ventricular pacing train. The system delivered up to 4 T-wave shocks of 18 J. Lack of VF induction by all 4 shocks was considered evidence of defibrillation adequacy. Patients subsequently underwent conventional defibrillation testing to meet a standard implant criterion. The 95% lower CI for defibrillation success at 25 J for noninduced patients was found using Bayesian statistics. Sixty patients were enrolled at 6 centers. Vulnerability testing and defibrillation success results were obtained from 54 patients. Vulnerability testing induced VF in 10 (19%) patients, of whom 2 required system revision. All patients not induced by vulnerability testing were successfully defibrillated twice at ≤25 J. The Bayesian credible interval was 97% to 100% for the population success rate of defibrillation at 25 J for automated vulnerability safety margin noninduced patients. Conclusions— An automated system identified all patients who failed conventional safety margin testing, while inducing only 19% of patients. Although limited by sample size, this study suggests the feasibility of automated implant testing that substantially reduces the need for VF induction in patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Frontotemporal degeneration (FTD) encompasses a spectrum of related neurodegenerative disorders with behavioral, language, and motor phenotypes for which there are currently no effective therapies. This is the second of two articles that summarize the presentations and discussions that occurred at two symposia in 2011 sponsored by the Frontotemporal Degeneration Treatment Study Group, a collaborative group of academic and industry researchers that is devoted to developing treatments for FTD. This article discusses the current status of FTD clinical research that is relevant to the conduct of clinical trials, and why FTD research may be an attractive pathway for developing therapies for neurodegenerative disorders. The clinical and molecular features of FTD, including rapid disease progression and relatively pure molecular pathology, suggest that there are advantages to developing drugs for FTD as compared with other dementias. FTD qualifies as orphan indication, providing additional advantages for drug development. Two recent sets of consensus diagnostic criteria will facilitate the identification of patients with FTD, and a variety of neuropsychological, functional, and behavioral scales have been shown to be sensitive to disease progression. Moreover, quantitative neuroimaging measurements demonstrate progressive brain atrophy in FTD at rates that may surpass Alzheimer's disease. Finally, the similarities between FTD and other neurodegenerative diseases with drug development efforts already underway suggest that FTD researchers will be able to draw on this experience to create a road map for FTD drug development. We conclude that FTD research has reached sufficient maturity to pursue clinical development of specific FTD therapies.

Frontotemporal degeneration (FTD) is a common cause of dementia for which there are currently no approved therapies. Over the past decade, there has been an explosion of knowledge about the biology and clinical features of FTD that has identified a number of promising therapeutic targets as well as animal models in which to develop drugs. The close association of some forms of FTD with neuropathological accumulation of tau protein or increased neuroinflammation due to progranulin protein deficiency suggests that a drug's success in treating FTD may predict efficacy in more common diseases such as Alzheimer's disease. A variety of regulatory incentives, clinical features of FTD such as rapid disease progression, and relatively pure molecular pathology suggest that there are advantages to developing drugs for FTD as compared with other more common neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease. In March 2011, the Frontotemporal Degeneration Treatment Study Group sponsored a conference entitled “FTD, the Next Therapeutic Frontier,” which focused on preclinical aspects of FTD drug development. The goal of the meeting was to promote collaborations between academic researchers and biotechnology and pharmaceutical researchers to accelerate the development of new treatments for FTD. Here we report the key findings from the conference, including the rationale for FTD drug development; epidemiological, genetic, and neuropathological features of FTD; FTD animal models and how best to use them; and examples of successful drug development collaborations in other neurodegenerative diseases.

Background The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Study has sustained an extraordinarily high level of participant involvement for over two decades. Purpose In order to identify specific characteristics of EDIC that contributed most strongly to retention, study-designed questionnaires were distributed to 1334 participants. Methods Confidential questionnaires were completed during EDIC Years 15–17. Participants were classified as Completely Adherent (completed all visits), Partly Adherent (missed >1 visit or major portion of a visit), or Inactive (did not participate for >5 years). Questionnaire items addressed specific aspects of clinic visits, evaluation procedures, staff–participant relationships, and medical/health-care support provided by EDIC. Results The most commonly cited reasons for continuing participation were Cutting Edge Tests to assess diabetes complications (79.3%), Annual Evaluations (67.7%), a desire to Help Others (65.2%), and Better Care for Diabetes (61.6%). Women chose Cutting Edge Tests as their first or second most important reason significantly more often than men, whereas men chose Better Care for Diabetes more frequently. Individuals with at least three diabetes-related complications were more likely than those with fewer complications to choose Annual Evaluations as their first or second reason for continued involvement. Limitations The small proportion of individuals who discontinued participation restricted our ability to identify factors associated with suspended involvement. In addition, our analysis is limited to a cohort with type 1 diabetes followed in an observational study after an average participation time of 6.5 years in a randomized trial. Conclusions The primary reasons identified by respondents for their long-term commitment are consistent with shorter-term studies and underscore the importance of expert medical care, supportive staff–participant relationships, and involvement with clinically and scientifically meaningful research.

Background and Purpose— The American Stroke Association guidelines emphasized the need for further high-quality studies that assess agreement by radiologists and nonradiologists engaged in emergency telestroke assessments and decision-making. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the level of agreement of baseline brain CT scan interpretations of patients with acute stroke presenting to telestroke spoke hospitals between central reading committee neuroradiologists and each of 2 groups, spoke hospital radiologists and hub hospital vascular neurologists (telestrokologists). Methods— The Stroke Team Remote Evaluation Using a Digital Observation Camera Arizona trial was a prospective, urban single-hub, rural 2-spoke, randomized, blinded, controlled trial of a 2-way, site-independent, audiovisual telemedicine and teleradiology system designed for remote evaluation of adult patients with acute stroke versus telephone consultation to assess eligibility for treatment with intravenous thrombolysis. In the telemedicine arm, the subjects’ CT scans were interpreted by the hub telestrokologist and in the telephone arm by the spoke radiologist. All subjects’ CT scans were subsequently interpreted centrally, independently, and blindly by 2 hub neuroradiologists. The primary CT outcome was determination of a CT-based contraindication to thrombolytic treatment. Kappa statistics and exact agreement rates were used to analyze interobserver agreement. Results— Fifty-four subjects underwent random assignment. The overall agreement for the presence of radiological contraindications to thrombolysis was excellent (0.91) and did not differ substantially between the hub telestrokologist to neuroradiologist and spoke radiologist to neuroradiologist (0.92 and 0.89, respectively). Conclusions— In the context of a telestroke network designed to assess patients with acute stroke syndromes, agreement over the presence or absence of radiological contraindications to thrombolysis was excellent whether the comparisons were between a telestrokologist and neuroradiologist or between spoke radiologist and neuroradiologist. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00623350.

Abstract Purpose: Lung cancer in never-smokers (LCINS) is increasingly recognized as a distinct disease from that in ever-smokers owing to substantial differences in etiology, clinical characteristics, and prognosis. Therefore, we aimed to identify prognostic markers specific for LCINS. Experimental Design: First, 11,930 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in 904 inflammation-related genes were genotyped, and their associations with overall survival in 411 patients with LCINS at MD Anderson Cancer Center were analyzed. Next, validation of the top 27 SNPs in 311 patients with LCINS at Mayo Clinic was conducted. Results: Three SNPs (IL17RA:rs879576, BMP8A:rs698141, and STY:rs290229) were validated (P < 0.05), and two SNPs (CD74:rs1056400 and CD38:rs10805347) reached borderline significance (P = 0.08) in the Mayo Clinic population. We validated a survival-tree created in the MD Anderson population exploring gene–gene interactions in the Mayo Clinic population. This survival-tree stratified patients into subsets with significantly different risks of death: patients with the rs1056400_GG/rs698141_GA + AA genotype had significantly higher risk of death in both MD Anderson (HR:2.32, 95%CI: 1.58–3.41) and Mayo (HR:1.97, 95%CI: 1.11–3.50) populations compared with those with the rs1056400_GG/rs698141_GG or rs1056400_GA + AA genotype. We evaluated these five SNPs in 996 ever-smokers from MD Anderson and found no significant associations. Conclusions: Our study provides strong evidence that inflammation-related genetic variations can affect clinical outcomes in LCINS, which may lead to significant biologic insight into these outcomes. Clin Cancer Res; 18(21); 5983–91. ©2012 AACR.