Search

Aim. To assess the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab for the treatment of mismatch repair-proficient endometrial cancer (EC) in routine clinical practice in Russia.Materials and methods. This multicenter, retrospective, cohort study included patients with recurrent and metastatic EC from 37 cancer centers in Russia treated between May 2020 and April 2023. Patients with histologically verified EC without microsatellite instability who received ≥1 course of pembrolizumab/lenvatinib therapy were included in the study. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival; the clinical characteristics of the patients were additionally analyzed, the objective response rate and the toxicity profile of therapy were assessed.Results. The study included 100 patients. Median age was 65 (30–83) years. The most common histologic tumor subtype was endometrioid adenocarcinoma (68 %); serous adenocarcinoma was diagnosed in 22 % of cases, other types of tumor – 10 % of cases. All patients had pMMR/microsatellite-stable tumors. The median progression-free survival was 7.75 months (95 % confidence interval 0.7–33.8), and a partial response to therapy was observed in 24 % of patients. Almost half of the patients (44 %) required dose reduction due to adverse events. The most common adverse events included fatigue (n = 26; 26 %), hypertension (n = 20; 20 %), and hypothyroidism (n = 14; 14 %).Conclusion. This study confirms the clinical efficacy of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab in patients with recurrent and metastatic EC without mismatch repair system deficiency (pMMR-tumors) in routine clinical practice.

The article addresses the problems of methodical support for establishing the statute of limitations when conducting a forensic document examination, directly affecting the admissibility of an expert’s opinion as evidence in legal proceedings. Establishing the statute of limitations for the execution of documents’ requisites is one of the most demanded tasks when considering all categories of cases – administrative, arbitration, civil, criminal. Analysis of the forensic practice of this type of examination in legal proceedings shows the application of various methods and approaches. Such variety raises questions among both the judicial and legal communities. For example, what existing methods are scientifically substantiated, tested, certified, lead to reliable results, and can be used to solve expert tasks? Which are unsuitable for the use in expert practice, and for what reasons?To confirm the suitability of their author’s developments for forensic examination, individual non-state experts provide various patents and certificates. How legal and permissible is this practice?The article offers a competent analysis of the current situation on the example of the widely used method of “wet copying”

The study is a part of the research of the Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. It is the initial stage in the development of methodological recommendations for conducting forensic handwriting examinations of images of handwritten objects in digital photocopies of documents. The author has analyzed the current procedural legislation and judicial practice on the use of digital photocopies of documents in proof, as well as the modern expert practice of handwriting studies concerning the images of handwriting realizations presented in such copies. The analysis has shown that these forensic handwriting studies are being quite actively conducted in both judicial and extrajudicial examinations; however, they acquire the procedural status of evidence in the case. Though, the object remains outside the scope of expert methodological support and a comprehensive systematic review in the theoretical aspect. The author considers this practice unacceptable.The article reviews a complex of issues related to determining the properties and attributes of images – handwriting objects presented in photocopies of documents, their qualitative characteristics, and other factors essential for conducting forensic handwriting examinations and formulating relevant conclusions.

The content of a forensic handwriting expert’s opinion has been holding attention of both research scientists and practicing experts for many decades now since it is not only an essential evidence in court often being crucial to deciding on a case but also a document bringing together procedural and scientific methodological elements. Forensic handwriting examination is much in demand for court, it is also profoundly and comprehensively developed, supported by detailed methodological recommendations on drafting and processing of an expert’s opinion. However, the analysis of experts’ opinions from state forensic institutions as well as from non-state brought to light several shortcomings which do not enhance their evidentiary status. This applies in particular to performing the forensic examination by non-state experts who tend to lack competence. At the same time the number of forensic handwriting examinations assigned by court to the non-state forensic institutions prevails significantly.The most common mistakes made by the handwriting experts when drafting opinions are reviewed in the article, some ways to resolve them are proposed. The need to provide methodological recommendations for forensic handwriting experts incorporating current requirements to the experts’ opinions is acknowledged.

A unified methodological approach is critical to obtaining objective and scientifically sound results in forensic practice. Such an approach ensures that different practitioners working with the same physical evidence will obtain comparable results. This, in turn, guarantees that the most important principles of forensic science are upheld, namely, that examinations are conducted objectively, comprehensively and exhaustively, with the possibility of further verification of reliability and validity of the expert’s conclusions.In this regard, standardization and harmonization of scientific methodologies supporting forensic operations are the cornerstone of the reform of the modern institution of forensic science in the Russian Federation, as well as an integral part of the judicial reform. The current state of methodological support in the system of state and non-state forensic science organizations in Russia is analyzed. The author presents the case for mandatory certification of forensic methods and proposes a range of measures to advance the harmonization of forensic methodologies in forensic practice.

Interrogation of the expert is very significant difficulty for the subjects of interrogation, as the plaintiff, the defendant and the court are not well versed in the area of knowledge possessed by the expert. It is not always tactically ready and competent experts for the implementation of this procedural action. However, it is an expert- Interrogation helps to assess the probative value of its conclusion. This article presents some tactical recommendations Interrogation of experts and specialists in civil and arbitration processes, knowledge and observance of which will be useful both to the court and the representatives of the parties and experts.

On the basis of existing legislation and the modern judicial and expert practice are considered the basic questions of destination expertise in civil and arbitration proceedings. Analysis allows us to identify the most problematic aspects of destination expertise in the resolution of civil and commercial cases and offer certain tactical recommendations.

The scienti!c and methodological foundations of drawing on expertise in civil andarbitration proceedings in the present conditions, the necessity of creation of technicaland tactical security forensic evidence with special knowledge in civil (arbitration)proceedings are discussed in this article. The author also focuses on the most problematicissues: the need to adjust the notion of "special knowledge" and amending the existinglegislation, verifying the competence of experts and specialists in connection with thecases in the judicial practice of asking questions, border legal, and so on.

Currently, in connection with the social and scientific and practical metamorphoses, special attention is paid to the problems of differentiation of forensic expert’s and specialist’s specialized knowledge, as well as the results of their activities (expert and specialist opinions). This is facilitated by the relatively vague legislative structure that regulates them, as well as its very arbitrary interpretation in law enforcement. At the same time, the current judicial and investigative practice of using these institutions in legal proceedings cannot be recognized as fully consistent with the letter of the law and the tasks of justice.In this article, based on the analysis of legislation, doctrinal sources and judicial practice, the criteria for delimiting the competence of a specialist and an expert, as well as the procedural documents emanating from them are considered. The authors note the widespread substitution of concepts and the substantive component of the specialized knowledge of a forensic expert and the conclusion drawn up by him based on the results of a forensic expert study, on the one hand, and the specialized knowledge of a specialist and his conclusion prepared on their basis, but without conducting a study, on the other. The streamlining and systematization of the considered sources of evidentiary information is carried out in strict accordance with the normative regulation.The authors propose options of the definitive norms, revealing the content and purpose of forensic examination, specialist’s specialized knowledge, as a unified basis for sectoral procedural legislation, and also give other recommendations aimed at unifying law enforcement in the field of the use of specialized knowledge in legal proceedings.It is recommended to differentiate “specialized knowledge” into: “specialist’s specialized knowledge”, “specialized knowledge of a forensic expert”, “specialized knowledge in an expert specialty (a specific expert specialty should be indicated)”. For example, a specialist’s specialized knowledge is a system of theoretical knowledge and practical skills in the field of specific science, technology, art, craft, which are acquired through higher education and practical experience in a certain field of social and legal activity (using specialist’s specialized knowledge to meet the needs of legal proceedings). It is also necessary to create a System of voluntary certification of the competence of forensic experts and specialists based on the Russian Federal Chamber of Forensic Experts, within which voluntary certification of the competence of specialists whose involvement is in demand in the administration of justice will be carried out.Information about specialists certified as persons with specialized forensic knowledge (handwriting specialists, construction specialists, etc.) should be placed in a special Register of forensic experts and specialists to meet the needs of legal proceedings on the official website of the Russian Federal Chamber of Forensic Experts. The formation of clear rules and criteria for the involvement of persons with specialist expertise in the administration of justice, combined with strict compliance with the law, are necessary components for making a just and fair decision on a case.