New indicators and indexes for benchmarking university-industry-government innovation in medical and life science clusters: results from the European FP7 Regions of Knowledge HealthTIES project.

BACKGROUND: While the European Union is striving to become the 'Innovation Union', there remains a lack of quantifiable indicators to compare and benchmark regional innovation clusters. To address this issue, a HealthTIES (Healthcare, Technology and Innovation for Economic Success) consortium was funded by the European Union's Regions of Knowledge initiative, research and innovation funding programme FP7. HealthTIES examined whether the health technology innovation cycle was functioning differently in five European regional innovation clusters and proposed regional and joint actions to improve their performance. The clusters included BioCat (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain), Medical Delta (Leiden, Rotterdam and Delft, South Holland, Netherlands), Oxford and Thames Valley (United Kingdom), Life Science Zürich (Switzerland), and Innova Észak-Alföld (Debrecen, Hungary). METHODS: Appreciation of the 'triple helix' of university-industry-government innovation provided the impetus for the development of two quantifiable innovation indexes and related indicators. The HealthTIES H-index is calculated for disease and technology platforms based on the h-index proposed by Hirsch. The HealthTIES Innovation Index is calculated for regions based on 32 relevant quantitative and discriminative indicators grouped into 12 categories and 3 innovation phases, namely 'Input' (n = 12), 'Innovation System' (n = 9) and 'Output' (n = 11). RESULTS: The HealthTIES regions had developed relatively similar disease and technology platform profiles, yet with distinctive strengths and weaknesses. The regional profiles of the innovation cycle in each of the three phases were surprisingly divergent. Comparative assessments based on the indicators and indexes helped identify and share best practice and inform regional and joint action plans to strengthen the competitiveness of the HealthTIES regions. CONCLUSION: The HealthTIES indicators and indexes provide useful practical tools for the measurement and benchmarking of university-industry-government innovation in European medical and life science clusters. They are validated internally within the HealthTIES consortium and appear to have a degree of external prima facie validity. Potentially, the tools and accompanying analyses can be used beyond the HealthTIES consortium to inform other regional governments, researchers and, possibly, large companies searching for their next location, analyse and benchmark 'triple helix' dynamics within their own networks over time, and to develop integrated public-private and cross-regional research and innovation strategies in Europe and beyond.

Malignant fibrous histiocytoma and fibrosarcoma of bone: a re-assessment in the light of currently employed morphological, immunohistochemical and molecular approaches.

Malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) and fibrosarcoma (FS) of bone are rare malignant tumours and contentious entities. Sixty seven cases labelled as bone MFH (57) and bone FS (10) were retrieved from five bone tumour referral centres and reviewed to determine whether recent advances allowed for reclassification and identification of histological subgroups with distinct clinical behaviour. A panel of immunostains was applied: smooth muscle actin, desmin, h-caldesmon, cytokeratin AE1-AE3, CD31, CD34, CD68, CD163, CD45, S100 and epithelial membrane antigen. Additional fluorescence in situ hybridisation and immunohistochemistry were performed whenever appropriate. All cases were reviewed by six bone and soft tissue pathologists and a consensus was reached. Follow-up for 43 patients (median 42 months, range 6-223 months) was available. Initial histological diagnosis was reformulated in 18 cases (26.8 %). Seven cases were reclassified as leiomyosarcoma, six as osteosarcoma, three as myxofibrosarcoma and one each as embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma and interdigitating dendritic cell sarcoma. One case showed a peculiar biphasic phenotype with epithelioid nests and myofibroblastic spindle cells. Among the remaining 48 cases, which met the WHO criteria for bone FS and bone MFH, we identified five subgroups. Seven cases were reclassified as undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) and 11 as UPS with incomplete myogenic differentiation due to positivity for at least one myogenic marker. Six were reclassified as spindle cell sarcoma not otherwise specified. Among the remaining 24 cases, we identified a further two recurrent morphologic patterns: eight cases demonstrated a myoepithelioma-like phenotype and 16 cases a myofibroblastic phenotype. One of the myoepithelioma-like cases harboured a EWSR1-NFATC2 fusion. It appears that bone MFH and bone FS represent at best exclusion diagnoses.

Assessment of interobserver variability and histologic parameters to improve reliability in classification and grading of central cartilaginous tumors.

The distinction between benign and malignant cartilaginous tumors of bone is one of the most difficult subjects in surgical pathology. The grading of chondrosarcoma also seems to vary considerably among pathologists. However, clinical management differs. The purpose of this study was (1) to investigate interobserver variability in histological diagnosis and grading of central cartilaginous tumors and (2) to assess the diagnostic value of defined histologic parameters in differentiating enchondroma and central grade I chondrosarcoma. The interobserver variability was assessed using a set of 16 cases evaluated by 18 specialized pathologists. Subsequently, 20 enchondromas and 37 central grade I chondrosarcomas diagnosed in a multidisciplinary team with full clinical, radiologic, and pathologic data available with 10 years of follow-up were collected. Cytologic and tissue-architectural features were assessed to find an optimal set of parameters to differentiate enchondroma from central grade I chondrosarcoma. We demonstrate considerable variation in the histologic assessment of cartilaginous tumors (weighted kappa=0.78). The distinction between enchondroma and grade I chondrosarcoma was shown to be the most disconcordant (kappa coefficient=0.54), and also the differentiation between grade I and grade II chondrosarcoma was subjected to variation (kappa coefficient=0.80). The application of a combination of 5 parameters (high cellularity, presence of host bone entrapment, open chromatin, mucoid matrix quality, and age above 45 y) allowed optimal differentiation between enchondromas and central grade I chondrosarcomas. With a classification tree based on 2 parameters (mucoid matrix degeneration more than 20% and/or host bone entrapment present), 54 of the 57 (94.7%) cases were assessed correctly (sensitivity 95% and specificity 95%). Our study confirms the low reliability of the diagnosis and grading of central chondrosarcoma. However, these classifications guide therapeutic decision making in daily practice. Therefore, we propose a classification model that, combined with a tailored radiologic assessment, may improve reliability of the diagnosis of cartilaginous tumors.