Out-of-Hospital cardiac arrest & SmartphonE RespOndErS trial (HEROES Trial): Methodology and study protocol of a pre-post-design trial of the effect of implementing a smartphone alerting system on survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Background: Since 2021, international guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation recommend the implementation of so-called "life-saving systems". These systems include smartphone alerting systems (SAS), which enable dispatch centres to alert first responders via smartphone applications, who are in proximity of a suspected out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). However, the effect of SAS on survival remains unknown. Aim: The aim is to assess the rate of survival to hospital discharge in adult patients with OHCA not witnessed by emergency medical services (EMS): before and after SAS implementation. Design: Multicentre, prospective, observational, intention-to-treat, pre-post design clinical trial. Population: Adults (aged ≥ 18 years), OHCA not witnessed by EMS, no traumatic cause for cardiac arrest, cardiopulmonary resuscitation initiated or continued by EMS. Setting: Dispatch-centre-based. Outcomes: Primary: survival to hospital discharge. Secondary: time to first compression, rate of basic life support measures before EMS arrival, rate of patients with shockable rhythm at EMS arrival, Cerebral Performance Category at hospital discharge, and duration of hospital stay. Sample size: Assuming an absolute difference in survival rates to hospital discharge of 4% in the two groups (11% before implementation of the SAS versus 15% after) and 80% power, and a type 1 error rate of 0.05, the required sample size is N = 1,109 patients per group (at least N = 2,218 evaluated patients in total). Conclusions: The HEROES trial will investigate the effects of a SAS on the survival rate after OHCA. Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS, ID: DRKS00032920).

Patient-related benefits of amyloid PET imaging in dementia: Rationale and design of the German randomized coverage with evidence development study ENABLE.

The utility of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) for the etiological diagnosis of dementia and its impact on functional status of patients in routine care are currently unclear. Here, we describe the design of ENABLE, a randomized controlled two-armed coverage with evidence development (CED) study in Germany. Approximately 1126 patients with mild to moderate dementia of unclear etiology will be randomly assigned to either an amyloid PET or a no amyloid PET group. Patients will be followed-up for 24 months. The study has been registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00030839) with the registration code DRKS00030839. The primary endpoint of ENABLE is the ability to perform functional activities of daily living at 18 months. Secondary endpoints include change in diagnosis, diagnostic confidence, and cognitive and clinical outcomes of patients. We expect that the CED study ENABLE will inform about patient relevant effects of amyloid PET in routine care. Furthermore, we anticipate that ENABLE will support physicians' and payers' decisions on provision of health care for patients with dementia. Highlights: Study design focuses on the usefulness of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) in routine care.Study design addresses the patient-relevant effect of amyloid PET.Patient representatives were involved in the creation of the study design.The study will help improve routine care for people with dementia.

Protocol of the HISTOTHERM study: assessing the response to hyperthermia and hypofractionated radiotherapy in recurrent breast cancer.

Introduction: Breast cancer is globally the leading cancer in women, and despite the high 5-year survival rate the most frequent cause of cancer related deaths. Surgery, systemic therapy and radiotherapy are the three pillars of curative breast cancer treatment. However, locoregional recurrences frequently occur after initial treatment and are often challenging to treat, amongst others due to high doses of previous radiotherapy treatments. Radiotherapy can be combined with local hyperthermia to sensitize tumor cells to radiation and thereby significantly reduce the required radiation dose. Therefore, the combination treatment of mild local hyperthermia, i.e. locally heating of the tissue to 39-43°C, and re-irradiation with a reduced total dose is a relevant treatment option for previously irradiated patients. The mechanisms of this effect in the course of the therapy are to date not well understood and will be investigated in the HISTOTHERM study. Methods and analyses: Patients with local or (loco)regional recurrent breast cancer with macroscopic tumors are included in the study. Local tumor control is evaluated clinically and histologically during the course of a combination treatment of 60 minutes mild superficial hyperthermia (39 - 43°C) using water-filtered infrared A (wIRA) irradiation, immediately followed by hypofractionated re-irradiation with a total dose of 20-24 Gy, administered in weekly doses of 4 Gy. Tumor and tumor stroma biopsies as well as blood samples will be collected prior to treatment, during therapy (at a dose of 12 Gy) and in the follow-up to monitor therapy response. The treatment represents the standard operating procedure for hyperthermia plus re-irradiation. Various tissue and blood-based markers are analyzed. We aim at pinpointing key mechanisms and markers for therapy response which may help guiding treatment decisions in future. In addition, quality of life in the course of treatment will be assessed and survival data will be evaluated. Registration: The study is registered at the German Clinical Trials Register, Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS00029221).

Biomarker testing in non-small cell lung cancer in routine care: Analysis of the first 3,717 patients in the German prospective, observational, nation-wide CRISP Registry (AIO-TRK-0315).

OBJECTIVES: An increasing number of treatment-determining biomarkers has been identified in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and molecular testing is recommended to enable optimal individualized treatment. However, data on implementation of these recommendations in the "real-world" setting are scarce. This study presents comprehensive details on the frequency, methodology and results of biomarker testing of advanced NSCLC in Germany. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This analysis included 3,717 patients with advanced NSCLC (2,921 non-squamous; 796 squamous), recruited into the CRISP registry at start of systemic therapy by 150 German sites between December 2015 and June 2019. Evaluated were the molecular biomarkers EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF, KRAS, MET, TP53, RET, HER2, as well as expression of PD-L1. RESULTS: In total, 90.5 % of the patients were tested for biomarkers. Testing rates were 92.2 % (non-squamous), 70.7 % (squamous) and increased from 83.2 % in 2015/16 to 94.2% in 2019. Overall testing rates for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF were 72.5 %, 74.5 %, 66.1 %, and 53.0 %, respectively (non-squamous). Testing rates for PD-L1 expression were 64.5 % (non-squamous), and 58.5 % (squamous). The most common testing methods were immunohistochemistry (68.5 % non-squamous, 58.3 % squamous), and next-generation sequencing (38.7 % non-squamous, 14.4 % squamous). Reasons for not testing were insufficient tumor material or lack of guideline recommendations (squamous). No alteration was found in 37.8 % (non-squamous), and 57.9 % (squamous), respectively. Most common alterations in non-squamous tumors (all patients/all patients tested for the respective biomarker): KRAS (17.3 %/39.2 %), TP53 (14.1 %/51.4 %), and EGFR (11.0 %/15.1 %); in squamous tumors: TP53 (7.0 %/69.1 %), MET (1.5 %/11.1 %), and EGFR (1.1 %/4.4 %). Median PFS (non-squamous) was 8.7 months (95 % CI 7.4-10.4) with druggable EGFR mutation, and 8.0 months (95 % CI 3.9-9.2) with druggable ALK alterations. CONCLUSION: Testing rates in Germany are high nationwide and acceptable in international comparison, but still leave out a significant portion of patients, who could potentially benefit. Thus, specific measures are needed to increase implementation.

Cytologic Grading of Cutaneous Sebaceous Neoplasms: Does it Help to Differentiate Benign From Malignant?

Both architectural and cytologic characteristics are used to distinguish benign from malignant sebaceous neoplasms; however, specific cytopathologic features of sebocytes have not been well defined. The authors assessed architectural and cytological features of 63 sebaceous neoplasms [15 sebaceous hyperplasias, 12 sebaceomas, 16 sebaceous adenomas (SA), 14 sebaceous carcinomas (SC), and 6 ocular sebaceous carcinoma (OSC)] to investigate whether cytological grading may facilitate classification of lesions. Among other criteria, nuclear pleomorphism (size, nucleolar appearance, membrane irregularity, crowding, mitoses, and chromatin pattern) was assessed and 3 theoretical nuclear grades established. Immunohistochemistry for CK10, p16, adipophilin and ki67 was performed on 7 cases of each type of tumor. Most sebaceous neoplasms, except OSC, showed a bland architectural silhouette. However, SA, SC, and OSC revealed larger nuclei (≥14 µm in ≥50% of cases), evident to multiple nucleoli, membrane irregularity, coarse to clumped chromatin, and nuclear grade ≥2 (latter in ≥56% of cases); by contrast, sebaceous hyperplasia and sebaceomas showed smaller nuclei (≤10 µm in ≥50% of cases), smooth borders, inconspicuous nucleoli, fine chromatin, and grade 1 nuclei (latter in 100% of cases). In the setting of a well-circumscribed architecture, cytologic features gain importance in the classification of sebaceous neoplasms. Interestingly, cytologic similarities found in SA and SC may indicate a close relationship of both neoplasms.

A randomized phase II study of paclitaxel alone versus paclitaxel plus sorafenib in second- and third-line treatment of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (PASO).

BACKGROUND: We conducted an open-label, randomized, two-arm multi-center study to assess the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel versus paclitaxel + sorafenib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel monotherapy (80 mg/m2) weekly (3 weeks on, 1 week off) plus sorafenib 400 mg orally, twice a day taken continuously throughout 28 day cycles. Sorafenib dose was gradually escalated from a starting dose of 200 mg twice a day. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A pre-planned efficacy interim analysis was performed on the data of 60 patients, 30 patients in each treatment arm. Median PFS was estimated at 6.6 months (95% CI: 5.1 to 9.0) in patients randomized to single-agent paclitaxel (Arm A) and 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.8 to 6.5) in patients randomized to paclitaxel-sorafenib combination (Arm B) therapy. Contrary to the hypothesis, the treatment effect was statistically significant in favor of paclitaxel monotherapy (hazard ratio 1.80, 95% CI: 1.02 to 3.20; log-rank test P = 0.0409). It was decided to stop the trial early for futility. Median OS was also in favor of Arm A (20.7 months (95% CI: 16.4 to 26.7) versus 12.1 months (95% CI: 5.8 to 20.4) in Arm B. Clinical control was achieved in 28 patients (93.3%) in Arm A and in 21 patients 70.0% in Arm B. Overall response rate was met in 43.3% of patients in Arm A and in 40.0% in Arm B. Toxicities were increased in Arm B with higher rates of diarrhea, nausea, neutropenia, hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) and anorexia, Grad 3 and 4 toxicities were rare. CONCLUSIONS: In this pre-planned interim analysis, paclitaxel-sorafenib combination therapy was not found to be superior to paclitaxel monotherapy with regard to the primary end point, progression-free survival. The trial was therefore discontinued early. There was no indication of more favorable outcomes for combination therapy in secondary efficacy end points. As expected, the safety and toxicity profile of the combination therapy was less favorable compared to monotherapy. Overall, this trial did not demonstrate that adding sorafenib to second- or third-line paclitaxel provides any clinical benefit to patients with HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Cautious dosing using a sorafenib ramp up schedule might have contributed to negative results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at EudraCT (No 2009-018025-73) and retrospectively registered at Clinical trials.gov on March 17, 2011 ( NCT01320111 ).

A randomized phase I study of methanesulfonyl fluoride, an irreversible cholinesterase inhibitor, for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.

AIMS: To ascertain the tolerability profile of single and repeated oral doses of methanesulfonyl fluoride (MSF, SNX-001) in healthy aged subjects, and to determine the degree of erythrocyte acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition induced by MSF after single and repeated oral doses. METHODS: To calculate properly the kinetics and the duration of AChE inhibition, the effects of MSF were also studied in rodents. These experiments suggested that MSF administered three times per week should provide safe and efficacious AChE inhibition. In a randomized placebo-controlled phase I study, 3.6 mg, 7.2 mg or 10.8 mg MSF were then orally administered to 27 consenting healthy volunteers (aged 50 to 72 years). After a single dose phase and a 1 week wash-out period, the subjects received the same doses three times per week for 2 weeks. RESULTS: Twenty-two out of the 27 subjects completed the study. Four patients withdrew due to adverse events (AEs) and one for non-compliance. Erythrocyte AChE was inhibited by a total of 33%, 46%, and 62% after 2 weeks of 3.6 mg, 7.2 mg and 10.8 mg MSF, respectively. No serious AEs occurred. The most frequent AEs were headache (27%), nausea (11%) and diarrhoea (8%). CONCLUSIONS: MSF proved to be well tolerated even with repeated oral dosing. It is estimated that MSF provided a degree of AChE inhibition that should effectively enhance memory. This molecule deserves to be tested for efficacy in a pilot randomized controlled study in patients with Alzheimer's disease.