Search

Abstract Background Tumor size is a critical variable in staging for renal cell carcinoma. Clinicians rely on radiological estimates of pathological tumor size to guide patient counseling regarding prognosis, choice of treatment strategy and entry into clinical trials. If there is a discrepancy between radiological and pathological measurements of renal tumor size, this could have implications for clinical practice. Our study aimed to compare the radiological size of solid renal tumors on computed tomography (CT) to the pathological size in an Australian population. Methods We identified 157 patients in the Westmead Renal Tumor Database, for whom data was available for both radiological tumor size on CT and pathological tumor size. The paired Student's t-test was used to compare the mean radiological tumor size and the mean pathological tumor size. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. We also identified all cases in which post-operative down-staging or up-staging occurred due to discrepancy between radiological and pathological tumor sizes. Additionally, we examined the relationship between Fuhrman grade and radiological tumor size and pathological T stage. Results Overall, the mean radiological tumor size on CT was 58.3 mm and the mean pathological size was 55.2 mm. On average, CT overestimated pathological size by 3.1 mm (P = 0.012). CT overestimated pathological tumor size in 92 (58.6%) patients, underestimated in 44 (28.0%) patients and equaled pathological size in 21 (31.4%) patients. Among the 122 patients with pT1 or pT2 tumors, there was a discrepancy between clinical and pathological staging in 35 (29%) patients. Of these, 21 (17%) patients were down-staged post-operatively and 14 (11.5%) were up-staged. Fuhrman grade correlated positively with radiological tumor size (P = 0.039) and pathological tumor stage (P = 0.003). Conclusions There was a statistically significant but small difference (3.1 mm) between mean radiological and mean pathological tumor size, but this is of uncertain clinical significance. For some patients, the difference leads to a discrepancy between clinical and pathological staging, which may have implications for pre-operative patient counseling regarding prognosis and management.

Background: Additional interventions are needed to reduce the morbidity and mortality caused by malaria.Methods: We conducted a two-part, phase 1 clinical trial to assess the safety and pharmacokinetics of CIS43LS, an antimalarial monoclonal antibody with an extended half-life, and its efficacy against infection with Plasmodium falciparum. Part A of the trial assessed the safety, initial side-effect profile, and pharmacokinetics of CIS43LS in healthy adults who had never had malaria. Participants received CIS43LS subcutaneously or intravenously at one of three escalating dose levels. A subgroup of participants from Part A continued to Part B, and some received a second CIS43LS infusion. Additional participants were enrolled in Part B and received CIS43LS intravenously. To assess the protective efficacy of CIS43LS, some participants underwent controlled human malaria infection in which they were exposed to mosquitoes carrying P. falciparum sporozoites 4 to 36 weeks after administration of CIS43LS.Results: A total of 25 participants received CIS43LS at a dose of 5 mg per kilogram of body weight, 20 mg per kilogram, or 40 mg per kilogram, and 4 of the 25 participants received a second dose (20 mg per kilogram regardless of initial dose). No safety concerns were identified. We observed dose-dependent increases in CIS43LS serum concentrations, with a half-life of 56 days. None of the 9 participants who received CIS43LS, as compared with 5 of 6 control participants who did not receive CIS43LS, had parasitemia according to polymerase-chain-reaction testing through 21 days after controlled human malaria infection. Two participants who received 40 mg per kilogram of CIS43LS and underwent controlled human malaria infection approximately 36 weeks later had no parasitemia, with serum concentrations of CIS43LS of 46 and 57 μg per milliliter at the time of controlled human malaria infection.Conclusions: Among adults who had never had malaria infection or vaccination, administration of the long-acting monoclonal antibody CIS43LS prevented malaria after controlled infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; VRC 612 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04206332.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Vaccines to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) are urgently needed. The effect of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines on viral replication in both upper and lower airways is important to evaluate in nonhuman primates.Methods: Nonhuman primates received 10 or 100 μg of mRNA-1273, a vaccine encoding the prefusion-stabilized spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, or no vaccine. Antibody and T-cell responses were assessed before upper- and lower-airway challenge with SARS-CoV-2. Active viral replication and viral genomes in bronchoalveolar-lavage (BAL) fluid and nasal swab specimens were assessed by polymerase chain reaction, and histopathological analysis and viral quantification were performed on lung-tissue specimens.Results: The mRNA-1273 vaccine candidate induced antibody levels exceeding those in human convalescent-phase serum, with live-virus reciprocal 50% inhibitory dilution (ID50) geometric mean titers of 501 in the 10-μg dose group and 3481 in the 100-μg dose group. Vaccination induced type 1 helper T-cell (Th1)-biased CD4 T-cell responses and low or undetectable Th2 or CD8 T-cell responses. Viral replication was not detectable in BAL fluid by day 2 after challenge in seven of eight animals in both vaccinated groups. No viral replication was detectable in the nose of any of the eight animals in the 100-μg dose group by day 2 after challenge, and limited inflammation or detectable viral genome or antigen was noted in lungs of animals in either vaccine group.Conclusions: Vaccination of nonhuman primates with mRNA-1273 induced robust SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity, rapid protection in the upper and lower airways, and no pathologic changes in the lung. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tumor size is a critical variable in staging for renal cell carcinoma. Clinicians rely on radiological estimates of pathological tumor size to guide patient counseling regarding prognosis, choice of treatment strategy and entry into clinical trials. If there is a discrepancy between radiological and pathological measurements of renal tumor size, this could have implications for clinical practice. Our study aimed to compare the radiological size of solid renal tumors on computed tomography (CT) to the pathological size in an Australian population., Methods: We identified 157 patients in the Westmead Renal Tumor Database, for whom data was available for both radiological tumor size on CT and pathological tumor size. The paired Student's t-test was used to compare the mean radiological tumor size and the mean pathological tumor size. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. We also identified all cases in which post-operative down-staging or up-staging occurred due to discrepancy between radiological and pathological tumor sizes. Additionally, we examined the relationship between Fuhrman grade and radiological tumor size and pathological T stage., Results: Overall, the mean radiological tumor size on CT was 58.3 mm and the mean pathological size was 55.2 mm. On average, CT overestimated pathological size by 3.1 mm (P = 0.012). CT overestimated pathological tumor size in 92 (58.6%) patients, underestimated in 44 (28.0%) patients and equaled pathological size in 21 (31.4%) patients. Among the 122 patients with pT1 or pT2 tumors, there was a discrepancy between clinical and pathological staging in 35 (29%) patients. Of these, 21 (17%) patients were down-staged post-operatively and 14 (11.5%) were up-staged. Fuhrman grade correlated positively with radiological tumor size (P = 0.039) and pathological tumor stage (P = 0.003)., Conclusions: There was a statistically significant but small difference (3.1 mm) between mean radiological and mean pathological tumor size, but this is of uncertain clinical significance. For some patients, the difference leads to a discrepancy between clinical and pathological staging, which may have implications for pre-operative patient counseling regarding prognosis and management.