Search

We propose new classification criteria for Sjögren's syndrome (SS), which are needed considering the emergence of biologic agents as potential treatments and their associated comorbidity. These criteria target individuals with signs/symptoms suggestive of SS.Criteria are based on expert opinion elicited using the nominal group technique and analyses of data from the Sjögren's International Collaborative Clinical Alliance. Preliminary criteria validation included comparisons with classifications based on the American–European Consensus Group (AECG) criteria, a model-based “gold standard”obtained from latent class analysis (LCA) of data from a range of diagnostic tests, and a comparison with cases and controls collected from sources external to the population used for criteria development.Validation results indicate high levels of sensitivity and specificity for the criteria. Case definition requires at least 2 of the following 3: 1) positive serum anti-SSA and/or anti-SSB or (positive rheumatoid factor and antinuclear antibody titer1:320), 2) ocular staining score3, or 3) presence of focal lymphocytic sialadenitis with a focus score1 focus/4 mm2 in labial salivary gland biopsy samples. Observed agreement with the AECG criteria is high when these are applied using all objective tests. However, AECG classification based on allowable substitutions of symptoms for objective tests results in poor agreement with the proposed and LCA-derived classifications.These classification criteria developed from registry data collected using standardized measures are based on objective tests. Validation indicates improved classification performance relative to existing alternatives, making them more suitable for application in situations where misclassification may present health risks.

Amifostine has recently been approved for clinical radiotherapy as a protector against irradiation-induced xerostomia. It is our aim to review the outlook for using amifostine as a general clinical radioprotector. Protection against X-rays is mainly obtained by the scavenging of free radicals. The degree of protection is therefore highly dependent on oxygen tension, with protection factors ranging from 1 to 3. Maximal protection is observed at physiological levels of oxygenation. A great variability in protection has also been observed between different normal tissues. Some tissue, like brain, is not protected while salivary glands and bone marrow may exhibit a three-fold increase in radiation tolerance. Amifostine is dephosphorylized to its active metabolite by a process involving alkaline phosphatase. Due to lower levels of alkaline phosphatase in tumor vessels, amifostine is marketed as a selective protector of normal tissue and not tumors. However, the preclinical investigations concerning the selectivity of amifostine are controversial and the clinical studies are sparse and do not have the power to evaluate the influence of amifostine on the therapeutic index. Conclusion: based on the present knowledge amifostine should only be used in experimental protocols and not in routine practice.

The success of radiotherapy in eradicating the primary tumor in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer is limited by normal tissue tolerance. Systematic recording of morbidity and treatment parameters is therefore very important for radiobiologic treatment optimization and clinical decision making. There is substantial evidence that fractionation schedules employing large doses per fraction lead to a loss of therapeutic ratio. A similar argument could be used for high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy that should also be administered in small dose fractions. However, HDR brachytherapy might convey some advantage to physical dose distribution that should be weighed against the radiobiologic advantages of low-dose-rate (LDR) continuous irradiation. Increasing overall treatment time reduces local control probability, whereas a shorter overall treatment time by accelerated fractionation may improve the therapeutic ratio, at least in fast-growing tumors. Hypoxia and reduced oxygen delivery are associated with poor radiation response. Anemia should be compensated, if necessary. The role of hypoxic modification needs to be further explored. In the future, the therapeutic ratio may also be improved by the use of chemical and biologic response modifiers. Tumors are heterogeneous with respect to intrinsic radiosensitivity, proliferation parameters, and extent of hypoxia. Until a detailed prognostic profile can be obtained for each patient, optimal curative radiotherapy must aim for a sufficient dose, short overall treatment time, hypoxic modification, and LDR or low dose per fraction.

The effect of tetrahydraindazolone dicarboxylic acid (HIDA) on tumour response and mouse lethality after treatment with cisplatin given either alone or combined with hyperthermia (43.5 degrees C/60 min) with or without radiation, was studied in the CDF1 mouse bearing a foot transplanted C3H mouse mammary carcinoma. The tumour response to a combined heat, cisplatin and HIDA treatment was assessed by tumour growth time, while local tumour control was used when irradiation was added to that treatment scheme. Toxicity was estimated as lethality within 14 days. Cisplatin and heat exerted the highest antitumour effect when given simultaneously, but at the same time there was a substantial increase in lethality. No sensitization of the tumour response or enhanced toxicity to cisplatin was observed if heat was given sequentially (i.e. 4 h) after cisplatin. The effect of this sequential schedule being only additive. When HIDA (100 mg/kg) was given 150 min before cisplatin and tumours heated 15 min later, the lethal toxicity was significantly reduced. HIDA did not, however, influence tumour growth time results. In tumour control studies combining radiation, drug and heat, cisplatin (6 mg/kg) and heat (43.5 degrees C/60 min) were given simultaneously 4 h after local irradiating the leg of tumour-bearing mice. The lethality of this regime was more than 55%, but when HIDA was added to the protocol, the toxicity fell to 5% without affecting local tumour control. In conclusion, HIDA administered before cisplatin protects against drug-induced toxicity without reducing the drug's antitumour activity when used alone or in combination with hyperthermia and/or radiation, and thus results in a significantly improved therapeutic benefit.

A comparison between the effect of step-down heating (SDH) obtained in a C3H mammary carcinoma grown in the feet of CDF1 mice and the skin of normal CDF1 feet is presented. Water-bath heating was used, and SDH was obtained by giving a 44.7 degrees C/10 min treatment followed by heating at 42.2 degrees C for variable times. Single heating at 42.2 degrees C and step-up heating (SUH), i.e. 42.2 degrees C followed by 44.7 degrees C/10 min, were used as controls. The endpoint was the heating time at 42.2 degrees C to obtain either a definite tumour growth time (TGT50) or a specific skin score level (RD50) in 50% of the animals. The effect of SDH and SUH was quantified by the step-down ratio (SDR), calculated as the ratio of the heating times at 42.2 degrees C to obtain the specific endpoint. In both assays the effect of SDH was seen as a significant left shift of the SDH dose-response curve compared to the curve for single heating and SUH. For the comparison of the tumour and the normal tissue response, damage levels with comparable heating times for single heating were used. The therapeutic effect was then investigated by calculating the therapeutic gain factor (TGF), where TGF = SDR(tumour)/SDR(normal tissue). Neither SUH nor SDH gave a TGF significantly different from 1. The results suggest that SDH may be used clinically to shorten the heating time without decreasing the therapeutic effect.