Search

Objective: Newborn screening (NBS) has led to early diagnosis and early initiation of treatment for infantile onset Pompe Disease (IOPD). However, guidelines for management of late onset Pompe disease (LOPD) via NBS, especially with the IVS c.-32-13T>G are not clear. This IVS variant is noted in 68-90% cases with LOPD and has been presumed to result in "adult" disease in compound heterozygosity, with a few cases with earlier onset and a mild to no phenotype in homozygosity. Our study evaluates newborns with LOPD having IVS variant with a diligent multidisciplinary approach to determine if they have an early presentation., Methods: Seven children with LOPD identified by NBS with IVS variant (3 compound heterozygous, and 4 homozygous) were evaluated with clinical, biochemical (CK, AST, ALT, and urinary Glc 4 ), cardiac evaluation, physical therapy (PT), occupational, and speech/language therapy., Results: All seven patients demonstrated motor involvement by age 6months; the three patients with c.-32-13 T>G variant in compound heterozygosity had symptoms as neonates. Patients with c.-32-13 T>G variant in compound heterozygosity had more involvement with persistent hyperCKemia, elevated AST and ALT, swallowing difficulties, limb-girdle weakness, delayed motor milestones, and were initiated on ERT. The patients with c.-32-13T>G variant in homozygosity had normal laboratory parameters, and presented with very subtle yet LOPD specific signs, identified only by meticulous assessments., Conclusion: This patient cohort represents the first carefully phenotyped cohort of infants with LOPD with the "late-onset" GAA variant c.-32-13T>G detected by NBS in the USA. It emphasizes not only the opportunity for early detection of skeletal and other muscle involvement in infants with c.-32-13T>G variant but also a high probability of overlooking or underestimating the significance of clinically present and detectable features. It can thus serve as a valuable contribution in the development of evaluation and treatment algorithms for infants with LOPD., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose Retrospective studies indicate that expression of excision repair cross complementing group 1 (ERCC1) protein is associated with platinum resistance and survival in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We conducted the first randomized trial, to our knowledge, to evaluate ERCC1 prospectively and to assess the superiority of nonplatinum therapy over platinum doublet therapy for ERCC1-positive NSCLC as well as noninferiority for ERCC1-negative NSCLC. Patients and Methods This trial had a marker-by-treatment interaction phase III design, with ERCC1 (8F1 antibody) status as a randomization stratification factor. Chemonaïve patients with NSCLC (stage IIIB and IV) were eligible. Patients with squamous histology were randomly assigned to cisplatin and gemcitabine or paclitaxel and gemcitabine; nonsquamous patients received cisplatin and pemetrexed or paclitaxel and pemetrexed. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). We also evaluated an antibody specific for XPF (clone 3F2). The target hazard ratio (HR) for patients with ERCC1-positive NSCLC was ≤ 0.78. Results Of patients, 648 were recruited (177 squamous, 471 nonsquamous). ERCC1-positive rates were 54.5% and 76.7% in nonsquamous and squamous patients, respectively, and the corresponding XPF-positive rates were 70.5% and 68.5%. Accrual stopped early in 2012 for squamous patients because OS for nonplatinum therapy was inferior to platinum therapy (median OS, 7.6 months [paclitaxel and gemcitabine] v 10.7 months [cisplatin and gemcitabine]; HR, 1.46; P = .02). Accrual for nonsquamous patients halted in 2013. Median OS was 8.0 (paclitaxel and pemetrexed) versus 9.6 (cisplatin and pemetrexed) months for ERCC1-positive patients (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.44), and 10.3 (paclitaxel and pemetrexed) versus 11.6 (cisplatin and pemetrexed) months for ERCC1-negative patients (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.33; interaction P = .64). OS HR was 1.09 (95% CI, 0.83 to 1.44) for XPF-positive patients, and 1.39 (95% CI, 0.90 to 2.15) for XPF-negative patients (interaction P = .35). Neither ERCC1 nor XPF were prognostic: among nonsquamous patients, OS HRs for positive versus negative were ERCC1, 1.11 ( P = .32), and XPF, 1.08 ( P = .55). Conclusion Superior outcomes were observed for patients with squamous histology who received platinum therapy compared with nonplatinum chemotherapy; however, selecting chemotherapy by using commercially available ERCC1 or XPF antibodies did not confer any extra survival benefit.