Citations

Abstract New gene-editing tools challenge conventional policy proscriptions of research aimed at either human germline gene editing or human enhancement by potentially lowering technical barriers to both kinds of intervention. Some recent gene-editing reports have begun to take up the prospect of germline editing, but most experts are in broad agreement that research should prioritize medical applications over attempts to enhance human traits. However, there is little consensus about what counts as human enhancement in this context, or how to deal with the issues it flags. Moreover, several influential reports interpret medical applications to include disease prevention as well as treatment as a goal for gene-editing research. This challenges the current policy consensus because using gene editing to prevent disease would incidentally facilitate human enhancement applications in a variety of ways. If such research efforts are penalized by policy concerns about enhancement, then their preventive health benefits could be lost. To avoid being caught off guard by such challenges, science policy makers will need to think more carefully about what “prevention” might mean in the gene-editing context, and develop research governance that can anticipate and address the human enhancement concerns it will raise. To accomplish the latter, the scope of policy making will need to expand from its narrow focus on human clinical trials to engage with basic researchers driving the translational pipeline toward preventive gene editing and the science policy makers who have to address its “off-label” uses.

In the era of targeted therapies, patients with gynecologic malignancies have not yet been major beneficiaries of this new class of agents. This may reflect the fact that the main tumor types—ovarian, uterine, and cervical—are a highly heterogeneous group of cancers with variable response to standard chemotherapies and the lack of models in which to study the diversity of these cancers. Cancer-derived cell lines fail to adequately recapitulate molecular hallmarks of specific cancer subsets and complex microenvironments, which may be critical for sensitivity to targeted therapies. Patient-derived xenografts (PDX) generated from fresh human tumor without prior in vitro culture, combined with whole genome expression, gene copy number, and sequencing analyses, could dramatically aid the development of novel therapies for gynecologic malignancies. Gynecologic tumors can be engrafted in immunodeficient mice with a high rate of success and within a reasonable time frame. The resulting PDX accurately recapitulates the patient's tumor with respect to histologic, molecular, and in vivo treatment response characteristics. Orthotopic PDX develop complications relevant to the clinic, such as ascites and bowel obstruction, providing opportunities to understand the biology of these clinical problems. Thus, PDX have great promise for improved understanding of gynecologic malignancies, serve as better models for designing novel therapies and clinical trials, and could underpin individualized, directed therapy for patients from whom such models have been established.

BackgroundWe aimed to test the hypothesis that three‐dimensional (3D) volume‐based scoring of computed tomography (CT) images of the paranasal sinuses was superior to Lund‐Mackay CT scoring of disease severity in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). We determined correlation between changes in CT scores (using each scoring system) with changes in other measures of disease severity (symptoms, endoscopic scoring, and quality of life) in patients with CRS treated with triamcinolone.MethodsThe study group comprised 48 adult subjects with CRS. Baseline symptoms and quality of life were assessed. Endoscopy and CT scans were performed. Patients received a single systemic dose of intramuscular triamcinolone and were reevaluated 1 month later. Strengths of the correlations between changes in CT scores and changes in CRS signs and symptoms and quality of life were determined.ResultsWe observed some variability in degree of improvement for the different symptom, endoscopic, and quality‐of‐life parameters after treatment. Improvement of parameters was significantly correlated with improvement in CT disease score using both CT scoring methods. However, volumetric CT scoring had greater correlation with these parameters than Lund‐Mackay scoring.ConclusionVolumetric scoring exhibited higher degree of correlation than Lund‐Mackay scoring when comparing improvement in CT score with improvement in score for symptoms, endoscopic exam, and quality of life in this group of patients who received beneficial medical treatment for CRS.

SummaryMutations of the SCN1A subunit of the sodium channel is a cause of genetic epilepsy with febrile seizures plus (GEFS+) in multiplex families and accounts for 70–80% of Dravet syndrome (DS). DS cases without SCN1A mutation inherited have predicted SCN9A susceptibility variants, which may contribute to complex inheritance for these unexplained cases of DS. Compared with controls, DS cases were significantly enriched for rare SCN9A genetic variants. None of the multiplex febrile seizure or GEFS+ families could be explained by highly penetrant SCN9A mutations.

Background and Purpose CGS 19755 is a competitive N -methyl- d -aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist that limits neuronal damage in animal stroke models. The objectives of this multicenter (7 centers), randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, ascending-dose phase IIa study were to evaluate the safety and tolerability of CGS 19755 and obtain pharmacokinetic and preliminary data on its efficacious dose range in patients treated within 12 hours of hemispheric ischemic stroke. Methods At each dose level, 6 patients were randomized to one or two intravenous bolus doses of CGS 19755, and 2 patients were randomized to placebo. An unblinded safety and monitoring committee evaluated results at each dose before ascending to the next level. All patients at the first level (1 mg/kg) received two doses separated by 12 hours. The first 2 patients at 2 mg/kg received two doses, but adverse experiences occurred in both; subsequent patient groups received single doses of 2.0, 1.75, or 1.5 mg/kg. Results Adverse experiences (agitation, hallucinations, confusion, paranoia, and delirium) occurred in all 6 patients treated with 2 mg/kg, and in 3 of 5 at 1.75 mg/kg. Similar but milder adverse experiences were noted in 4 of 7 patients at 1.5 mg/kg and 1 of 6 patients at 1.0 mg/kg. Adverse experiences began between 20 minutes and 22 hours (mean, 8 hours) after treatment and lasted 2 to 60 hours (mean, 24 hours). Mortality was 1 of 8 in patients receiving placebo and 3 of 24 in treated patients. In treated survivors, median and mean percent improvement in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores from baseline to terminal visit (mean, 86 days) was comparable at all doses, and 95% of treated patients had Barthel Index scores of ≥70 at the terminal visit. Conclusions We conclude that a single intravenous dose of 1.5 mg/kg CGS 19755 is safe and tolerable in patients with acute ischemic stroke. An efficacy trial is indicated.