Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration.

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

A phase I dose-escalation trial of 2-deoxy-D-glucose alone or combined with docetaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: This phase I trial was initiated to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the glycolytic inhibitor, 2-deoxy-D-glucose (2DG) in combination with docetaxel, in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: A modified accelerated titration design was used. 2DG was administered orally once daily for 7 days every other week starting at a dose of 2 mg/kg and docetaxel was administered intravenously at 30 mg/m(2) for 3 of every 4 weeks beginning on day 1 of week 2. Following the completion of dose escalation, cohorts of patients were then treated with 2DG for 21 days or every day of each 4-week cycle for up to 12 cycles. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were enrolled: 21 on every other week, 6 on a 21 of 28-day cycle and 7 on the continuous 2DG dosing schedule. There were no dose-limiting toxicities which met the MTD criteria. The most common adverse events were fatigue, sweating, dizziness and nausea mimicking the hypoglycemic symptoms expected from 2DG administration. Therefore, 63 mg/kg was selected as the clinically tolerable dose. The most significant adverse effects noted at 63-88 mg/kg doses were reversible hyperglycemia (100 %), gastrointestinal bleeding (6 %) and reversible grade 3 QTc prolongation (22 %). Eleven patients (32 %) had stable disease, 1 patient (3 %) partial response and 22 patients (66 %) progressive disease as their best response. There was no PK interaction between 2DG and docetaxel. CONCLUSION: The recommended dose of 2DG in combination with weekly docetaxel is 63 mg/kg/day with tolerable adverse effects.

Fludarabine and cytarabine in patients with acute myeloid leukemia refractory to two different courses of front-line chemotherapy.

The most effective regimen for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients who do not achieve complete remission (CR) after two different courses of front-line chemotherapy has not been established. We therefore evaluated the efficacy, toxicity, and prognostic factors for achieving CR following treatment with fludarabine and cytarabine in 25 newly diagnosed AML patients who did not respond to initial therapy with idarubicin and cytarabine followed by mitoxantrone and etoposide. CR was achieved in 32% of patients; in 55% of patients with intermediate-risk karyotype and in 14% with unfavorable-risk. Eight percent died of infectious complications. Median duration of overall survival was 6.6 months (95% CI 3.4 months to ∞); 3.4 months (95% CI 0.8-8.6 months) for patients with an unfavorable-risk karyotype and 18.1 months (95% CI 5.0 months to ∞) with an intermediate-risk karyotype (p=0.02). Our data suggest that poor-risk karyotype patients are unlikely to benefit from third course treatment with fludarabine-cytarabine, and that this regimen merits further investigation in AML patients with good or intermediate-risk karyotype that have persistent leukemia after two courses of front-line chemotherapy.

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin as first-line treatment in patients aged 70 years or older with acute myeloid leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are generally unable to withstand the rigors of intensive induction chemotherapy and its attendant complications. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) is an immunoconjugate that had demonstrated activity in recurrent AML. METHODS: The objective of the current study was to determine the prognostic factors for achievement of complete remission (CR) in newly diagnosed elderly AML patients treated with GO as initial induction therapy. A retrospective study was performed of efficacy and toxicity associated with GO therapy, and factors potentially predictive of response were assessed in 49 previously untreated AML patients. RESULTS: CR was achieved in 14% of all treated patients. Among the patients with an intermediate-risk karyotype, the CR rate was 30%, compared with none with an unfavorable karyotype. The median duration of overall survival was 3.7 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.4-6.9 months), and the median recurrence-free survival in patients who achieved CR was 11.8 months (95% CI, 5.0-ind months). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that GO should be considered as a first-line treatment option in older patients with AML with intermediate-risk cytogenetics who cannot tolerate high-dose induction chemotherapy.

Mitoxantrone and etoposide in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia with persistent leukemia after a course of therapy with cytarabine and idarubicin.

The most effective regimen for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who do not achieve complete remission (CR) after one course of cytarabine and an anthracycline has not been extensively studied. We evaluated retrospectively the efficacy, toxicity, and prognostic factors for the achievement of CR following mitoxantrone and etoposide in 74 patients with newly diagnosed AML who did not respond to one course of therapy with cytarabine and idarubicin. CR was achieved in 39% of patients; 14% died of infectious complications; no grade 3 or 4 hepatic toxicities were observed. Median duration of overall survival was 9.0 months (95% CI 5.8-14.9 months). The median duration of relapse-free survival was 11.0 months (95% CI: 9.0-19.3 months). A lower CR rate was associated with unfavorable risk status at diagnosis and higher percent blasts. Our data suggest that the combination of etoposide and mitoxantrone is an effective second-course therapy in patients with newly diagnosed AML.

Phase II study of docetaxel and gefitinib as second-line therapy in gemcitabine pretreated patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is no standard second-line therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). We evaluated the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor gefitinib and docetaxel in a phase II study following gemcitabine failure. METHODS: EGFR overexpression was not required. The initial docetaxel dose was 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 21 days. Due to febrile neutropenia in 8 of the first 18 patients, the dose was reduced to 60 mg/m(2). Gefitinib, 250 mg/day orally, was given continuously. RESULTS: Forty-one patients received treatment and were evaluable. Febrile neutropenia was seen in 11 patients (27%), with most events occurring at the docetaxel dose of 75 mg/m(2) (8 of 18 patients). Common treatment-related grade 3/4 toxicities were: fatigue (7%), nausea (7%), diarrhea (5%) and vomiting (2%). There was 1 partial response and stable disease in 19 patients. Time to progression was 1.8 months and median survival was 4.5 months (95% CI 2.9-5.7). CONCLUSION: The tolerability and feasibility of second-line therapy for APC was demonstrated. The combination of gefitinib and docetaxel showed evidence of limited efficacy.

[Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration]. / Mejorar la comunicación de estudios observacionales en epidemiología (STROBE): explicación y elaboración.

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

Mejorar la comunicación de estudios observacionales en epidemiología (STROBE): explicación y elaboración / Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration

Gran parte de la investigación biomédica es de tipo observacional. Los informes de los estudios observacionales a menudo poseen una calidad insuficiente, lo que dificulta la evaluación de sus fortalezas y debilidades para generalizar los resultados. Teniendo en cuenta la evidencia empírica y consideraciones teóricas, un grupo de expertos en metodología, investigadores y editores de revistas científicas, desarrollaron una lista de recomendaciones para aumentar la calidad de las publicaciones de los estudios observacionales: Strenghtening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). La Declaración STROBE consiste en una lista de verificación de 22 puntos que guardan relación con las diferentes secciones de un artículo: título, resumen, introducción, metodología, resultados y discusión. De ellos, 18 puntos son comunes a los tres diseños de estudio: cohorte, casos y controles, y transversales; los otros cuatro son específicos para cada una de estas tres modalidades. La Declaración STROBE proporciona a los autores información sobre cómo mejorar la calidad de los artículos sobre estudios observacionales y facilita a los revisores, editores de revistas y lectores su apreciación crítica y su interpretación. Este documento explicativo tiene el propósito de impulsar el uso, la comprensión y la difusión de la Declaración STROBE. Se presentan el significado y el análisis razonado para cada punto de la lista de verificación, proporcionando uno o varios ejemplos publicados en la literatura y, en lo posible, referencias de estudios empíricos relevantes y literatura metodológica. También se incluyen ejemplos de diagramas de flujo. La Declaración STROBE, el presente documento y la página Web asociada (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) son recursos útiles para mejorar la divulgación de la investigación observacional (AU)

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research (AU)

Mejorar la comunicación de estudios observacionales en epidemiología (STROBE): explicación y elaboración / Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration

Gran parte de la investigación biomédica es de tipo observacional. Los informes de los estudios observacionales a menudo poseen una calidad insuficiente, lo que dificulta la evaluación de sus fortalezas y debilidades para generalizar los resultados. Teniendo en cuenta la evidencia empírica y consideraciones teóricas, un grupo de expertos en metodología, investigadores y editores de revistas científicas, desarrollaron una lista de recomendaciones para aumentar la calidad de las publicaciones de los estudios observacionales: Strenghtening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). La Declaración STROBE consiste en una lista de verificación de 22 puntos que guardan relación con las diferentes secciones de un artículo: título, resumen, introducción, metodología, resultados y discusión. De ellos, 18 puntos son comunes a los tres diseños de estudio: cohorte, casos y controles, y transversales; los otros cuatro son específicos para cada una de estas tres modalidades. La Declaración STROBE proporciona a los autores información sobre cómo mejorar la calidad de los artículos sobre estudios observacionales y facilita a los revisores, editores de revistas y lectores su apreciación crítica y su interpretación. Este documento explicativo tiene el propósito de impulsar el uso, la comprensión y la difusión de la Declaración STROBE. Se presentan el significado y el análisis razonado para cada punto de la lista de verificación, proporcionando uno o varios ejemplos publicados en la literatura y, en lo posible, referencias de estudios empíricos relevantes y literatura metodológica. También se incluyen ejemplos de diagramas de flujo. La Declaración STROBE, el presente documento y la página Web asociada (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) son recursos útiles para mejorar la divulgación de la investigación observacional (AU)

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research (AU)

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration.

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalizability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers.This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration.

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration.

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalizability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies, and 4 are specific to each of the 3 study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors, and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, 1 or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (www.strobe-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

The emerging case-control study: lung cancer in relation to tobacco smoking.

Two influential case-control studies that clearly implicated cigarette smoking as a cause of lung cancer are reviewed in terms of their respective strengths and weaknesses. The findings from a U.S. study reported in 1950 by Wynder and Graham were strikingly similar to those arising from a U.K. study reported later that year by Doll and Hill. The methodological rigor of these investigations effectively ruled out alternatives to smoking as plausible explanations for the increased risk, although additional investigations in animals and man were needed to buttress the original results. The exceptionally high relative risk of lung cancer that was found has had far-reaching medical, social, and economic consequences.

Phase II clinical trials in oncology: strengths and limitations of two-stage designs.

Two-stage designs are used widely in Phase II oncology clinical trials to reduce the number of patients placed on ineffective experimental therapies. They provide clear-cut rules for stopping early in the event that treatment is not succeeding as hoped and are relatively simple to implement. Such designs, however, can lead to situations in which patient accrual is continued in the face of a clearly inferior treatment. In situations where patients' response can be determined for many or most subjects before additional patients are enrolled, analyses using Bayesian methodology can lead to earlier termination of studies of ineffective treatments and better align the statistical assessment of treatment effect with the therapeutic objectives of study. These points are discussed in context of the role of Phase II clinical trials in the development of new treatments for cancer.

Polymorphisms in the DNA methyltransferase 3b gene and prostate cancer risk.

Inactivation of tumor suppressor genes by promoter methylation is an important mechanism of tumorigenesis. Increased expression of DNA methyltransferases has been commonly observed in cancer. A C/T polymorphism in the DNA methyltransferase 3b (DNMT3b) promoter region results in increased activity and has recently been identified as a risk factor for lung cancer. In this study, we examined the C/T polymorphism of the DNMT3b gene in specimens from 81 patients with prostate cancer and 42 controls selected from patients with benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH). Genomic DNA was isolated from archived formaldehyde-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue blocks. DNMT3b genotypes were determined by restriction-fragment-length-polymorphism polymerase chain reaction. The DNMT3b polymorphism frequencies in the prostate cancer and BPH specimens were, respectively, 20 and 26% for CC, 42 and 52% for CT, and 38 and 21% for TT. Although such differences fall within the realm of chance variation (P>0.05), the data suggest that the TT genotype may be associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer: the age-adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 2.6 [95% confidence interval: 0.8-8.0]; the increase in odds ratio was seen in both blacks and whites (aOR=4.3 in blacks, and 2.0 in whites). The samples used in this study have previously been examined for methylation index (MI) based on the number of genes methylated, the range being 0 to 5. A trend toward an increase in MI was detected for the DNMT3b polymorphisms in prostate cancer patients but not for BPH subjects (mean MI 2.6, 2.9, 3.1 for CC, CT, and TT genotype in prostate cancer; 0.8, 0.8, 0.7 for CC, CT, and TT genotype in BPH subjects). These findings suggest that the DNMT3b polymorphisms may be associated with an increase in promoter methylation of tumor-suppressor genes related to the development of prostate cancer, and may thereby increase the risk of this disease.

Polymorphisms in the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase gene and prostate cancer risk.

Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) catalyzes the synthesis of 5-methyltetrahydrofolate, which is involved in the methylation of homocysteine to methionine. Genetic polymorphisms that decrease MTHFR activity result in an altered cancer risk depending on folic acid intake. In this study we examined the C677T and A1298C polymorphisms of the MTHFR gene in specimens from 81 patients with prostate cancer and 42 controls selected from patients with benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH). Genomic DNA was isolated from archived formaldehyde-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue blocks. MTHFR genotypes were determined by restriction-fragment-length-polymorphism polymerase chain reaction. The MTHFR polymorphism frequencies in the prostate-cancer and BPH specimens were, respectively, 60% and 48% for 677CC, 31% and 48% for 677CT, 9% and 5% for 677TT, 36% and 43% for 1298AA, 53% and 40% for 1298AC, and 11% and 17% for 1298CC. Although such differences fall within the realm of chance variation (P>0.05), the data suggest that the 677CT genotype may be associated with a reduced risk of prostate cancer: the age-adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 0.6 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.3-1.4]; the odds-ratio reduction was similar in both blacks and whites (aOR=0.4 in blacks, and 0.6 in whites); and when polymorphisms at the 677 and 1298 loci were analyzed in conjunction, a lower frequency of the 677CT-1298AA genotype was observed in the patients with prostate cancer (aOR=0.3, 95% CI: 0.1-1.1). This particular genotype, moreover, was associated with lower Gleason score tumors (aOR=0.1 for Gleason-score 7 versus 6 tumors, 95% CI: 0.0-0.7) and earlier stage disease (aOR=0.3 for stage III versus II, 95% CI: 0.3-2.6). These findings suggest that polymorphisms of the MTHFR gene may alter the risk of developing prostate cancer.

Methylation of multiple genes in prostate cancer and the relationship with clinicopathological features of disease.

Promoter methylation plays an important role in the inactivation of tumor suppressor genes during tumorigenesis. We examined the methylation status of glutathione s-transferase Pi1 (GSTP1), retinoic acid receptor beta (RARB), CD44, E-cadherin (ECAD), RAS association domain family protein 1A (RASSF1A) and endothelin B receptor (EDNRB) genes in 81 prostate cancer and 42 benign prostatic hyperpasia specimens. Genomic DNA was isolated from archived formaldehyde-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue blocks. Methylation-specific PCR (MSP) was carried out after bisulfite treatment of genomic DNA. Methylation frequencies in prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia were 72% and 5% for GSTP1, 40% and 0% for RARB, 72% and 38% for CD44, 61% and 14% for ECAD, 49% and 19% for RASSF1A and 72% and 62% for EDNRB, respectively. Methylation of GSTP1, RARB, CD44, ECAD and RASSF1A, but not of EDNRB was detected at a statistically higher frequency in prostate cancer than in the benign prostatic hypertrophy specimens. Methylation of RARB occurred more frequently in early onset (age <55 years) as compared to late onset disease (age >70 years) (odds ratio, 8.6; 95% CI, 1.4-51.4; P=0.02). Methylation of RARB also occurred more frequently in stage III as compared to stage II disease (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.1-8.8; P=0.03). A methylation index (MI) was calculated as the total number of genes methylated, excluding EDNRB. A trend toward higher MI was noted in stage III as compared to stage II disease, and in Gleason score 7 as compared to Gleason score 6 tumors. Our results suggest that the methylation of selected genes in prostate cancers correlates with clinicopathological features of poor prognosis.

Allogeneic vaccination with a B7.1 HLA-A gene-modified adenocarcinoma cell line in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the safety, immunogenicity, and clinical response to an allogeneic tumor vaccine for non-small-cell lung cancer, we conducted a phase I trial in patients with advanced metastatic disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We treated 19 patients with a vaccine based on an adenocarcinoma line (AD100) transfected with B7.1 (CD80) and HLA A1 or A2. Patients were vaccinated intradermally with 5 x 10(7) cells once every 2 weeks. Three vaccinations represented one course of treatment. If patients had complete response, partial response, or stable disease, they continued with the vaccinations for up to three courses (nine vaccinations). Immune response was assessed by a change between pre-study and postvaccination enzyme-linked immunospot frequency of purified CD8 T-cells secreting interferon-gamma in response to in vitro challenge with AD100. RESULTS: Four patients experienced serious adverse events that were unrelated to vaccine. Another four patients experienced only minimal skin erythema. All but one patient had a measurable CD8 response after three immunizations. The immune response of six surviving, clinically responding patients shows that CD8 titers continue to be elevated up to 150 weeks, even after cessation of vaccination. Overall, one patient had a partial response, and five had stable disease. Median survival for all patients is 18 months (90% CI, 7 to 23 months), with corresponding estimates of 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year survival of 52%, 30%, and 30%, respectively. HLA matching of vaccine, age, sex, race, and pathology did not bear a significant relation to response. CONCLUSION: Minimal toxicity and good survival in this small population suggest clinical benefit from vaccination.

Safety concerns and health benefits associated with oral contraception.

Since the introduction of hormonal contraceptives in the 1960s, there have been a variety of both health benefits and safety concerns attributed to their use. In most instances, the noncontraceptive benefits of oral contraceptives (OCs) outweigh the potential cardiovascular risks. In fact, the probability of a patient experiencing a cardiovascular event while taking a low-dose OC is very low. However, smoking, hypertension, obesity, and diabetes are risk factors that must be taken into account when prescribing OCs. The neoplastic effects of hormonal contraceptives have been extensively studied, and recent meta-analyses indicate that there is a reduction in the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer, a possible small increase in the risk for breast and cervical cancer, and an increased risk of liver cancer. Finally, many women will experience noncontraceptive health benefits with OCs that expand far beyond pregnancy prevention. Some of these benefits include reduction in menstrual-related symptoms, fewer ectopic pregnancies, a possible increase in bone density, and possible protection against pelvic inflammatory disease.