Search

Background As lenalidomide becomes increasingly established for upfront treatment of multiple myeloma, patients refractory to this drug represent a population with an unmet need. The combination of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone has shown promising results in phase 1/2 trials of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of this triplet regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide. Methods We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 133 hospitals and research centres in 21 countries. We enrolled patients (aged >= 18 years) with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma and measurable disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, who received one to three previous regimens, including a lenalidomide-containing regimen for at least two consecutive cycles. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to bortezomib and dexamethasone with or without pomalidomide using a permutated blocked design in blocks of four, stratified according to age, number of previous regimens, and concentration of beta(2) microglobulin at screening. Bortezomib (1.3 mg/m(2)) was administered intravenously until protocol amendment 1 then either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1,4, 8, and 11 for the first eight cycles and subsequently on days 1 and 8. Dexamethasone (20 mg [10 mg if age >75 years]) was administered orally on the same days as bortezomib and the day after. Patients allocated pomalidomide received 4 mg orally on days 1-14. Treatment cycles were every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed by an independent review committee. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01734928; patients are no longer being enrolled. Findings Between Jan 7, 2013, and May 15,2017,559 patients were enrolled. 281 patients were assigned pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 278 were allocated bortezomib and dexamethasone. Median follow-up was 15.9 months (IQR 9.9-21.7). Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone significantly improved progression-free survival compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (median 11.20 months [95% CI 9.66-13-73] vs 7.10 months [5.88-8-48]; hazard ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.49-0-77; p

Background: As lenalidomide becomes increasingly established for upfront treatment of multiple myeloma, patients refractory to this drug represent a population with an unmet need. The combination of pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone has shown promising results in phase 1/2 trials of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of this triplet regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who previously received lenalidomide. Methods: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 133 hospitals and research centres in 21 countries. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years)with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma and measurable disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, who received one to three previous regimens, including a lenalidomide-containing regimen for at least two consecutive cycles. We randomly assigned patients (1:1)to bortezomib and dexamethasone with or without pomalidomide using a permutated blocked design in blocks of four, stratified according to age, number of previous regimens, and concentration of β2 microglobulin at screening. Bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2)was administered intravenously until protocol amendment 1 then either intravenously or subcutaneously on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for the first eight cycles and subsequently on days 1 and 8. Dexamethasone (20 mg [10 mg if age >75 years])was administered orally on the same days as bortezomib and the day after. Patients allocated pomalidomide received 4 mg orally on days 1–14. Treatment cycles were every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed by an independent review committee. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01734928; patients are no longer being enrolled. Findings: Between Jan 7, 2013, and May 15, 2017, 559 patients were enrolled. 281 patients were assigned pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 278 were allocated bortezomib and dexamethasone. Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 9·9–21·7). Pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone significantly improved progression-free survival compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (median 11·20 months [95% CI 9·66–13·73]vs 7·10 months [5·88–8·48]; hazard ratio 0·61, 95% CI 0·49–0·77; p

Bruno Pellegrino (a cura di), Ordini religiosi, santi e culti tra Europa, Mediterraneo e Nuovo Mondo (secoli XV-XVII), Lecce, Congedo, 2009, tomo II, pp. 639-671.

BackgroundNeurofibromatosis type I (NF1, MIM#162200) is a relatively frequent genetic condition, which predisposes to tumor formation. Apart from tumors, individuals with NF1 often exhibit endocrine abnormalities such as precocious puberty (2,5-5% of NF1 patients) and some cases of hypertension (16% of NF1 patients). Several cases of adrenal cortex adenomas have been described in NF1 individuals supporting the notion that neurofibromin might play a role in adrenal cortex homeostasis. However, no experimental data were available to prove this hypothesis.Materials and methodsWe analysed Nf1Prx1 mice and one case of adrenal cortical hyperplasia in a NF1patient.ResultsIn Nf1Prx1 mice Nf1 is inactivated in the developing limbs, head mesenchyme as well as in the adrenal gland cortex, but not the adrenal medulla or brain. We show that adrenal gland size is increased in NF1Prx1 mice. Nf1Prx1 female mice showed corticosterone and aldosterone overproduction. Molecular analysis of Nf1 deficient adrenals revealed deregulation of multiple proteins, including steroidogenic acute regulatory protein (StAR), a vital mitochondrial factor promoting transfer of cholesterol into steroid making mitochondria. This was associated with a marked upregulation of MAPK pathway and a female specific increase of cAMP concentration in murine adrenal lysates. Complementarily, we characterized a patient with neurofibromatosis type I with macronodular adrenal hyperplasia with ACTH-independent cortisol overproduction. Comparison of normal control tissue- and adrenal hyperplasia- derived genomic DNA revealed loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of the wild type NF1 allele, showing that biallelic NF1 gene inactivation occurred in the hyperplastic adrenal gland.ConclusionsOur data suggest that biallelic loss of Nf1 induces autonomous adrenal hyper-activity. We conclude that Nf1 is involved in the regulation of adrenal cortex function in mice and humans.

The published literature describing clinical evidence used in treatment decisionmaking for the management of tooth loss continues to be characterized by a lack of consistent outcome measures reflecting not only clinical performance but a range of patient concerns. Recognizing this problem, an international group of clinicians, educators, and scientists with a focus on prosthodontics formed the Oral Rehabilitation Outcomes Network (ORONet) to promote strategies for improving health based on comprehensive, patient-centered evaluations of comparative effectiveness of therapies for oral rehabilitation. An initial goal of ORONet is to identify outcome measures for prosthodontic therapies that represent multiple domains with patient relevance, are amenable to utilization in both institutional and practice-based environments, and have established validity. Following a model used in rheumatology, the group assessed the prosthodontic literature, with an emphasis on implantbased therapies, for outcomes related to longevity and functional, psychologic, and economic domains. These systematic reviews highlight a need for further development of standardized outcomes that can be integrated across clinical and research environments. Int J Prosthodont 2013;26:XXX–XXX. doi: 10.11607/ijp.3400