Citations

Abstract Purpose: We examined the prognostic impact of specific KRAS mutations in patients with stage III colon adenocarcinoma receiving adjuvant FOLFOX alone or combined with cetuximab in a phase III trial (N0147). Analysis was restricted to BRAF–wild-type tumors, because BRAF mutation was associated with poor prognosis, and BRAF and KRAS mutations are mutually exclusive. Experimental Design: The seven most common KRAS mutations in codon 12 and codon 13 were examined in 2,478 BRAF–wild-type tumors. Because KRAS mutations in codon 12 (n = 779) or 13 (n = 220) were not predictive of adjuvant cetuximab benefit, study arms were pooled for analysis. Disease-free survival (DFS) was evaluated by HRs using Cox models. Results: KRAS mutations in codon 12 (multivariate HR, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.28–1.80; P < 0.0001) or codon 13 (multivariate HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.04–1.77; P = 0.0248) were significantly associated with shorter DFS compared with patients with wild-type KRAS/BRAF tumors, independent of covariates. KRAS codon 12 mutations were independently associated with proficient mismatch repair (P < 0.0001), proximal tumor site (P < 0.0001), low grade, age, and sex, whereas codon 13 mutations were associated with proximal site (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: KRAS mutations in either codon 12 or 13 are associated with inferior survival in patients with resected stage III colon cancer. These data highlight the importance of accurate molecular characterization and the significant role of KRAS mutations in both codons in the progression of this malignancy in the adjuvant setting. Clin Cancer Res; 20(11); 3033–43. ©2014 AACR.

Objectives Growing evidence suggests that gender-blind assessment of exposure may introduce exposure misclassification, but few studies have characterised gender differences across occupations and industries. We pooled control responses to job-specific, industry-specific and exposure-specific questionnaires (modules) that asked detailed questions about work activities from three US population-based case–control studies to examine gender differences in work tasks and their frequencies. Methods We calculated the ratio of female-to-male controls that completed each module. For four job modules (assembly worker, machinist, health professional, janitor/cleaner) and for subgroups of jobs that completed those modules, we evaluated gender differences in task prevalence and frequency using χ2 and Mann–Whitney U tests, respectively. Results The 1360 female and 2245 male controls reported 6033 and 12 083 jobs, respectively. Gender differences in female:male module completion ratios were observed for 39 of 45 modules completed by ≥20 controls. Gender differences in task prevalence varied in direction and magnitude. For example, female janitors were significantly more likely to polish furniture (79% vs 44%), while male janitors were more likely to strip floors (73% vs 50%). Women usually reported more time spent on tasks than men. For example, the median hours per week spent degreasing for production workers in product manufacturing industries was 6.3 for women and 3.0 for men. Conclusions Observed gender differences may reflect actual differences in tasks performed or differences in recall, reporting or perception, all of which contribute to exposure misclassification and impact relative risk estimates. Our findings reinforce the need to capture subject-specific information on work tasks.

Background and Purpose— To address the increasing need to counsel patients about treatment indications for unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIA), we endeavored to develop a consensus on assessment of UIAs among a group of specialists from diverse fields involved in research and treatment of UIAs. Methods— After composition of the research group, a Delphi consensus was initiated to identify and rate all features, which may be relevant to assess UIAs and their treatment by using ranking scales and analysis of inter-rater agreement (IRA) for each factor. IRA was categorized as very high, high, moderate, or low. Results— Ultimately, 39 specialists from 4 specialties agreed (high or very high IRAs) on the following key factors for or against UIA treatment decisions: (1) patient age, life expectancy, and comorbid diseases; (2) previous subarachnoid hemorrhage from a different aneurysm, family history for UIA or subarachnoid hemorrhage, nicotine use; (3) UIA size, location, and lobulation; (4) UIA growth or de novo formation on serial imaging; (5) clinical symptoms (cranial nerve deficit, mass effect, and thromboembolic events from UIAs); and (6) risk factors for UIA treatment (patient age and life expectancy, UIA size, and estimated risk of treatment). However, IRAs for features rated with low relevance were also generally low, which underlined the existing controversy about the natural history of UIAs. Conclusions— Our results highlight that neurovascular specialists currently consider many features as important when evaluating UIAs but also highlight that the appreciation of natural history of UIAs remains uncertain, even within a group of highly informed individuals.

Background The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) received five years' funding ($21 112 866) from the National Institutes of Health to compare carotid stenting to surgery for stroke prevention in 2500 randomized participants at 40 sites. Aims Herein we evaluate the change in the CREST budget from a fixed to variable-cost model and recommend strategies for the financial management of large-scale clinical trials. Methods Projections of the original grant's fixed-cost model were compared to the actual costs of the revised variable-cost model. The original grant's fixed-cost budget included salaries, fringe benefits, and other direct and indirect costs. For the variable-cost model, the costs were actual payments to the clinical sites and core centers based upon actual trial enrollment. We compared annual direct and indirect costs and per-patient cost for both the fixed and variable models. Differences between clinical site and core center expenditures were also calculated. Results Using a variable-cost budget for clinical sites, funding was extended by no-cost extension from five to eight years. Randomizing sites tripled from 34 to 109. Of the 2500 targeted sample size, 138 (5·5%) were randomized during the first five years and 1387(55·5%) during the no-cost extension. The actual per-patient costs of the variable model were 9% ($13 845) of the projected per-patient costs ($152 992) of the fixed model. Conclusions Performance-based budgets conserve funding, promote compliance, and allow for additional sites at modest additional cost. Costs of large-scale clinical trials can thus be reduced through effective management without compromising scientific integrity.

Free vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is undetectable in plasma during human pregnancy. However, studies examining pregnant rats have reported both low (8–29 pg/ml) and high (527–1,030 pg/ml) free VEGF. These discrepancies cast uncertainty over the use of rat models to study angiogenic factors in pregnancy and preeclampsia. This study investigates methodological factors that may explain these discrepancies. Plasma VEGF in nonpregnant, day 7 pregnant, and day 19 pregnant rats was measured using rat and mouse ELISAs (R&D Systems). The rat ELISA detected VEGF in plasma from nonpregnant rats but not in plasma from day 19 pregnant rats. The mouse ELISA detected higher VEGF concentrations than the rat ELISA in every sample tested. This discrepancy was greater in day 19 pregnant rats (median: 2,273 vs. 0 pg/ml) than in nonpregnant (97 vs. 20 pg/ml) and day 7 pregnant (66 vs. 2 pg/ml) rats. Recovery of recombinant rat VEGF (rrVEGF) spiked into plasma from nonpregnant and day 7 pregnant rats was high for the rat ELISA (82–105%) but low for the mouse ELISA (17–22%). The rat ELISA did not recover rrVEGF in plasma from day 19 pregnant rats, suggesting that this ELISA measures free VEGF. The use of the rat versus mouse ELISA likely explains the differences in reported VEGF concentrations in pregnant rats. While the rat ELISA appears to measure free VEGF, plasma concentrations in nonpregnant and pregnant rats are below the assay sensitivity limit. As most previous studies of pregnant rats used the mouse VEGF ELISA, these data should be interpreted cautiously.