Citations

Oncolytic virotherapy represents a novel therapeutic strategy in the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies. Oncolytic viruses, including genetically engineered and naturally occurring viruses, can selectively replicate in and induce tumor cell apoptosis without harming normal tissues, thus offering a promising tool in the armamentarium for cancer therapy. While this approach has garnered much interest over the past several decades, there has not been significant headway across various tumor types. The recent approval of talimogene laherparepvec, a second-generation oncolytic herpes simplex virus type-1, for the treatment of metastatic melanoma, confirms the therapeutic potential of oncolytic viral therapy. Herein, we will highlight and review the role of oncolytic viral therapy in gastrointestinal malignancies while discussing its limitations and potential alternative mechanisms to improve its treatment efficacy.

ObjectiveCompare nasal endoscopy with 3 mm versus conventional 4 mm rigid 30° endoscopes for visualization, patient comfort, and examiner ease.MethodsTen adults with no previous sinus surgery underwent bilateral nasal endoscopy with both 4 mm and 3 mm endoscopes (resulting in 20 paired nasal endoscopies). Visualization, patient discomfort and examiner's difficulty were assessed with every endoscopy. Sino‐nasal structures were checked on a list if visualized satisfactorily. Patients rated discomfort on a standardized numerical pain scale (0–10). Examiners rated difficulty of examination on a scale of 1–5 (1 = easiest).ResultsVisualization with 3 mm endoscope was superior for the sphenoid ostium (P = 0.002), superior turbinate (P = 0.007), spheno‐ethmoid recess (P = 0.006), uncinate process (P = 0.002), cribriform area (P = 0.007), and Valve of Hasner (P = 0.002). Patient discomfort was not significantly different for 3 mm vs. 4 mm endoscopes but correlated with the examiners' assessment of difficulty (r = 0.73). The examiner rated endoscopy with 4 mm endoscopes more difficult (P = 0.027).ConclusionsThe 3 mm endoscope was superior in visualizing the sphenoid ostium, superior turbinate, spheno‐ethmoid recess, uncinate process, cribriform plate, and valve of Hasner. It therefore may be useful in assessment of spheno‐ethmoid recess, nasolacrimal duct, and cribriform area pathologies. Overall, patients tolerated nasal endoscopy well. Though patient discomfort was not significantly different between the endoscopes, most discomfort with 3 mm endoscopes was noted while examining structures difficult to visualize with the 4 mm endoscope. Patients' discomfort correlated with the examiner's assessment of difficulty.

ABSTRACTTherapeutic monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) are an important class of drugs used to treat diseases ranging from autoimmune disorders to B cell lymphomas to other rare conditions thought to be untreatable in the past. Many advances have been made in the characterization of immunoglobulins as a result of pharmaceutical companies investing in technologies that allow them to better understand MAbs during the development phase. Mass spectrometry is one of the new advancements utilized extensively by pharma to analyze MAbs and is now beginning to be applied in the clinical laboratory setting. The rise in the use of therapeutic MAbs has opened up new challenges for the development of assays for monitoring this class of drugs. MAbs are larger and more complex than typical small-molecule therapeutic drugs routinely analyzed by mass spectrometry. In addition, they must be quantified in samples that contain endogenous immunoglobulins with nearly identical structures. In contrast to an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for quantifying MAbs, mass spectrometry-based assays do not rely on MAb-specific reagents such as recombinant antigens and/or anti-idiotypic antibodies, and time for development is usually shorter. Furthermore, using molecular mass as a measurement tool provides increased specificity since it is a first-order principle unique to each MAb. This enables rapid quantification of MAbs and multiplexing. This review describes how mass spectrometry can become an important tool for clinical chemists and especially immunologists, who are starting to develop assays for MAbs in the clinical laboratory and are considering mass spectrometry as a versatile platform for the task.