MyMedR

Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Clinical Significance of BCL2, C-MYC, and BCL6 Genetic Abnormalities, Epstein-Barr Virus Infection, CD5 Protein Expression, Germinal Center B Cell/Non-Germinal Center B-Cell Subtypes, Co-expression of MYC/BCL2 Proteins and Co-expression of MYC/BCL2/BCL6 Proteins in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Clinical and Pathological Correlation Study of 120 Patients

Ting CY, Chang KM, Kuan JW, Sathar J, Chew LP, Wong OJ, et al.

Int J Med Sci, 2019;16(4):556-566.
PMID: 31171907 DOI: 10.7150/ijms.27610

Background: Clinical significance of germinal center B-cell (GCB) and non-GCB sub-categorization, expression of MYC, BCL2, BCL6, CD5 proteins and Epstein Barr virus encoded RNA (EBER) positivity in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) remain controversial. Could these biomarkers accurately identify high risk DLBCL patients? Are MYC, BCL2 and BCL6 proteins expression feasible as baseline testing to predict c-Myc, BCL2 or BCL6 gene rearrangements? Aims: To investigate prognostic values of GCB/non-GCB sub-categorization, Double Protein Expression Lymphoma (DPL), Triple Protein Expression Lymphoma (TPL), positivity of CD5 protein and EBER in patients with DLBCL disease. To evaluate correlation between BCL2 , c-Myc and BCL6 gene rearrangements with BCL2, MYC and BCL6 proteins expression. Methods: Diagnostic tissue samples of 120 DLBCL patients between January 2012 to December 2013 from four major hospitals in Malaysia were selected. Samples were subjected to immunohistochemical staining, fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) testing, and central pathological review. Pathological data were correlated with clinical characteristics and treatment outcome. Results: A total of 120 cases were analysed. Mean age of diagnosis was 54.1 years ± 14.6, 64 were males, 56 were females, mean follow up period was 25 months (ranged from 1 to 36 months). Of the 120 cases, 74.2% were non-GCB whereas 25.8% were GCB, 6.7% were EBER positive, 6.7% expressed CD5 protein, 13.3% were DPL and 40% were TPL. The prevalence of c-Myc, BCL2, BCL6 gene rearrangements were 5.8%, 5.8%, and 14.2%, respectively; and 1.6% were Double Hit Lymphoma (DHL). EBER positivity, DPL, TPL, c-Myc gene rearrangement, BCL2 gene rearrangement, extra copies of BCL2 gene and BCL6 gene rearrangement were associated with shorter median overall survival (P<0.05). IPI score was the significant determinants of median overall survival in DPL and TPL (P<0.05). CD5 protein expression and GCB/non-GCB sub-categorization did not affect treatment outcome (P>0.05). Overall, c-Myc, BCL2 and BCL6 gene rearrangements showed weak correlation with expression of MYC, BCL2 and BCL6 proteins (P>0.05). Fluorescent in situ hybridization is the preferred technique for prediction of treatment outcome in DLBCL patients. Conclusion:c-Myc, BCL2, and BCL6 gene rearrangements, EBER expression, DHL, TPL and IPI score are reliable risk stratification tools. MYC, BCL2 and BCL6 proteins expression are not applicable as baseline biomarkers to predict c-Myc, BCL2, and BCL6 gene rearrangements.
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition with or without macroscopic on-site evaluation: randomized controlled trial

Chong CCN, Lakhtakia S, Nguyen N, Hara K, Chan WK, Puri R, et al.

Endoscopy, 2020 10;52(10):856-863.
PMID: 32498098 DOI: 10.1055/a-1172-6027

BACKGROUND: The use of macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) to estimate the adequacy of a specimen for histological diagnosis during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition (FNTA) has recently been advocated. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of MOSE compared with conventional EUS-FNTA without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE).
METHODS: This was an international, multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study. After providing informed consent, consecutive adult patients referred for EUS-FNTA for solid lesions larger than 2 cm were randomized to a MOSE arm or to a conventional arm without ROSE. A designated cytopathologist from each center performed all cytopathological examinations for that center and was blinded to the randomization results. The primary outcome measure was the diagnostic yield, and the secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy, and the rate of procedure-related complications.
RESULTS: 244 patients (122 conventional, 122 MOSE) were enrolled during the study period. No significant differences between the two arms were found in procedure time or rate of procedure-related adverse events. The diagnostic yield for the MOSE technique (92.6 %) was similar to that for the conventional technique (89.3 %; P = 0.37), with significantly fewer passes made (median: conventional 3, MOSE 2; P
Consensus guidelines on the optimal management in interventional EUS procedures: results from the Asian EUS group RAND/UCLA expert panel

Teoh AYB, Dhir V, Kida M, Yasuda I, Jin ZD, Seo DW, et al.

Gut, 2018 Jul;67(7):1209-1228.
PMID: 29463614 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314341

OBJECTIVES: Interventional endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) procedures are gaining popularity and the most commonly performed procedures include EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst, EUS-guided biliary drainage, EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage and EUS-guided celiac plexus ablation. The aim of this paper is to formulate a set of practice guidelines addressing various aspects of the above procedures.
METHODS: Formulation of the guidelines was based on the best scientific evidence available. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology (RAM) was used. Panellists recruited comprised experts in surgery, interventional EUS, interventional radiology and oncology from 11 countries. Between June 2014 and October 2016, the panellists met in meetings to discuss and vote on the clinical scenarios for each of the interventional EUS procedures in question.
RESULTS: A total of 15 statements on EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst, 15 statements on EUS-guided biliary drainage, 12 statements on EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage and 14 statements on EUS-guided celiac plexus ablation were formulated. The statements addressed the indications for the procedures, technical aspects, pre- and post-procedural management, management of complications, and competency and training in the procedures. All statements except one were found to be appropriate. Randomised studies to address clinical questions in a number of aspects of the procedures are urgently required.
CONCLUSIONS: The current guidelines on interventional EUS procedures are the first published by an endoscopic society. These guidelines provide an in-depth review of the current evidence and standardise the management of the procedures.
Fulltext Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1

Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, et al.

Autophagy, 2021 Jan;17(1):1-382.
PMID: 33634751 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.