Search

Abstract Background The primary goal of phase 2 and 3 clinical trials is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of therapeutic interventions, and efficient and reproducible ascertainment of important clinical events, either as clinical outcome events (COEs) or adverse events (AEs), is critical. Clinical outcomes require consistency and clinical judgment, so these events are often adjudicated centrally by clinical events classification (CEC) physician reviewers using standardized definitions. In contrast, AEs are reported by sites to the trial coordinating center based on common reporting criteria set by regulatory authorities and trial sponsors. These different requirements have led to the development of separate tracks for COE and AE review. Main body Potential COEs that fail to meet standardized definitions for CEC adjudication – i.e. negatively adjudicated events (NAE) – may meet criteria for AEs. Trial oversight practices require the sponsor to process AEs regardless of how the AEs are submitted; therefore, review of NAEs may be necessary to ensure that important AEs do not go unreported. The Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) developed and implemented a process for scrutinizing NAEs to detect potential missed serious AEs. Initial experience with this process across two trials suggests that approximately 0.2% of NAEs are serious unexpected AEs that were not otherwise reported and another 1.5% are serious expected AEs. Conclusions Given their infrequent concealment of serious AEs in two large trials assessing cardiovascular outcomes, routine scrutiny of NAEs to identify AEs is not recommended at this time, though it may be useful in some trials and should be carefully considered by the trial team. Closer integration of data across safety surveillance and endpoint adjudication systems may enable scrutiny of NAEs when indicated while limiting complexity associated with this process.

Abstract Background The main cause of treatment failure and death in laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma is metastasis to the regional lymph nodes. The current clinical staging criteria fail to differentiate patients with occult metastasis from patients without metastasis. Identifying molecular markers of the disease might improve our understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying the pathogenesis and development of laryngeal carcinoma and may help improve clinical staging and treatment. Methods Sixty-four previously untreated patients who underwent surgical excision of laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma with neck dissection were included in this study. The expression of B cell-specific Moloney murine leukemia virus integration site 1 (BMI-1) was examined immunohistochemically on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded primary tissue specimens. Results Nuclear expression of BMI-1 (nBMI-1) was detected in 32 of the 64 tumors (50%), cytoplasmic expression of BMI-1 (cBMI-1) was detected in 22 (34.4%), and 10 tumors (15.6%) showed no BMI-1 immunoreactivity. High nBMI-1 expression levels (≥10) were detected in 28 of the 32 (87.5%) nBMI-1-positive patients. Multivariate analysis including age at diagnosis, grade, tumor location, TNM status, and nBMI-1 expression showed that a high nBMI-1 expression level was an independent prognostic factor for lymph node metastasis. Conclusion The expression of BMI-1 in patients with laryngeal carcinoma seems to correlate with lymph node metastasis.