scholarly journals Next Generation Advanced Video Guidance Sensor: Low Risk Rendezvous and Docking Sensor

Author(s):  
James Lee ◽  
Connnie Carrington ◽  
Susan Spencer ◽  
Thomas Bryan ◽  
Richard Howard ◽  
...  
hautnah ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Schellenbacher ◽  
Bettina Huber ◽  
Saeed Shafti-Keramat ◽  
Reinhard Kirnbauer

ZusammenfassungInfektionen mit >12 sexuell übertragbaren genitalen „high-risk“ (hr) humanen Papillomviren (HPV) sind hauptverantwortlich für anogenitale Karzinome, insbesondere Zervix- und Analkarzinome sowie oropharyngeale Karzinome, insgesamt für 5 % der Karzinome weltweit. Genitale „low-risk“ (lr) HPV und kutane HPV verursachen Anogenitalwarzen (Kondylome) bzw. Hautwarzen, kutane Genus β‑HPV sind ein potenzieller Kofaktor für die Entwicklung nichtmelanozytärer Hautkarzinome in Immunsupprimierten. Die zugelassenen HPV-Vakzinen sind Spaltimpfstoffe bestehend aus leeren Hauptkapsidproteinhüllen (L1-virus-like particles, VLP). Die prophylaktische Impfung mit dem modernen nonavalenten Impfstoff Gardasil‑9 (HPV6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58) verhindert persistierende Infektionen mit Typen, die bis zu 90 % der Zervixkarzinome und Kondylome verursachen. Der Impfschutz ist vorwiegend typenspezifisch, daher besteht kein Schutz gegen Infektionen mit den übrigen genitalen hrHPV oder Hauttypen. RG1-VLP ist ein experimenteller „next generation“-Impfstoff, bestehend aus HPV16L1-VLP, welche ein Kreuzneutralisierungs-Epitop des HPV16 Nebenkapsidproteins L2 („RG1“; Aminosäuren 17–36) repetitiv (360×) an der Oberfläche tragen. Eine Vakzinierung mit RG1-VLP schützt im Tierversuch gegen experimentelle Infektionen mit allen relevanten genitalen hrHPV (~96 % aller Zervixkarzinome), lrHPV (~90 % der Kondylome) sowie gegen einige kutane und β‑HPV. Präklinische Daten zeigen langanhaltende Protektion ohne Boosterimmunisierung ein Jahr nach der Impfung sowie Wirksamkeit nach nur 2 Dosen. Auch in lyophilisierter, thermostabiler Form bleibt die Immunogenität der RG1-VLP erhalten. Eine Phase-I-Studie ist mit Unterstützung des US NCI/NIH in Vorbereitung. Der vorliegende Artikel diskutiert Fragestellungen zur HPV-Impfstoffoptimierung und präsentiert den pan-HPV-Impfstoffkandidat RG1-VLP.


Author(s):  
Mario García‐Gómez ◽  
Jose Raúl Delgado‐Arana ◽  
Jonathan Halim ◽  
Federico De Marco ◽  
Carlo Trani ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard T. Howard ◽  
Andrew F. Heaton ◽  
Robin M. Pinson ◽  
Connie L. Carrington ◽  
James E. Lee ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Thomas C. Bryan ◽  
Richard Howard ◽  
Jimmie E. Johnson ◽  
James E. Lee ◽  
Lucinda Murphy ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1503-1503
Author(s):  
Philippine Robert ◽  
Cédric Rossi ◽  
Romain Aucagne ◽  
Caroline Chapusot ◽  
Selim Ramla ◽  
...  

Purpose Follicular lymphoma (FL) accounting for 20% of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, is currently considered treatable but not curable despite more effective treatment options. Idelalisib, a selective inhibitor of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase δ (PI3Kδ) that blocks PI3Kδ-AKT signaling and promotes apoptosis, is approved for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) FL who have received ≥ 2 prior systemic therapies. Previous studies suggest that somatic tumor mutations identified at relapse may have an impact on the response to targeted therapies (Bartlett N et al., Blood 2018). The goal of this study was to analyze the lymphoma mutational profile to identify the prognostic value of mutations in R/R follicular lymphoma patients treated with idelalisib. Methods We performed a retrospective multicenter study of patients (pts) with relapsed follicular lymphoma and no evidence of transformation, having received at least 2 prior regimens before idelalisib treatment. Patients received idelalisib 150mg BID until progression or toxicity. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of 51 genes was performed either at FL diagnosis and/or at relapse prior idelalisib therapy. The primary endpoint was to analyze the relationship between the mutational status and the duration of response (DOR) to idelalisib. DOR was measured from the time of initial response until documented lymphoma progression. According to DOR pts were classified as: refractory (response < 1 month), short-responder (1 month ≤ DOR ≤ 12 months) and long-responder (> 12 months). Results 24 pts with R/R FL were enrolled with a median age of 62.5 years (range: 57-86). Patients had received a median of 3 prior treatments (range: 2-7). FL was refractory to rituximab in 16 pts (67%), to alkylating agents in 11 pts (46%) and to 2 or more prior treatments in 11 pts (46%). Twelve (50%) had refractory disease to the last therapy before idelalisib. Pts received idelalisib during a median of 5.5 months (range: 0.5-31). Overall response rate was 83% (n=20) including 3 (15%) complete response and 17 (85%) partial response. The median DOR was 9.5 months (range: 0-28). Eleven pts were short-responders and 9 long-responders. Four pts (17%) had refractory disease to idelalisib. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 11.5 (range: 1-30) and 16.5 months (range: 1-56) respectively. Three pts (12.5%) are still continuing idelalisib. Twenty-one pts (87.5%) discontinued treatment mostly due to progressive disease (n=14) and adverse events (n=5); 3 pts remained progression-free after idelalisib discontinuation and observation with a median follow-up of 23 months (range: 20-24). All the pts had at least one mutation detectable for one of the targeted genes in both diagnosis (n=17) and relapse (n=20) samples. The median number of targeted genes with non-silent mutations per patient was 7 at diagnosis (range: 2-11) and 6 at relapse (range: 3-28). The most frequent genes found in 10% of patients (≥ 2) or more at diagnosis and at relapse are listed in Figure 1. The mutational profile at diagnosis predominantly included mutations in epigenetics gene family, KTM2D (n=16; 94%), EP300 (n=9; 52%), ARID1A (n=6; 35%), KTM2A (n=5; 29%) and CREBBP (n=4; 23%). The m7-FLIPI score (Pastore A et al., Lancet Oncology 2015) at diagnosis helped identifying pts with low-risk (n=12; 71%) and high-risk (n=5; 29%) of idelalisib treatment failure. The median m7-FLIPI score in the refractory group was 1.25 compared to 0.26 in the short responder group and 0.04 in the long responder group. All long responder patients had low-risk m7-FLIPI. The mutational profile at relapse was significantly enriched in mutations of TNFAIP3 (n=7; 35%) and NFKBIE (n=4; 20%), affecting the NF-kB inhibitor pathway, and mutations of transcription factors, TP53 (n=10; 50%), MEF2B (n=5; 25%), FOXO1, STAT6 and IRF4 (n=4; 20% each). Overall the mutational profile of the 3 sub-groups according to DOR was detailed in Figure 2. The genes more frequently mutated in refractory pts were: EP300 (n=3/4; 75%), B2M (n=2/4; 50%), FBXW7 (n=2/4; 50%), CARD11, CXCR4 and MYD88 (n=1/4; 25% each). Conclusion The m7FLIPI at diagnosis identifies patients with higher risk of treatment failure in patients with R/R FL treated with idelalisib. Patients with idelalisib refractory disease have more frequently mutations of EP300, B2M, FBXW7, which suggests they could be related to resistance to idelalisib. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3038-3038
Author(s):  
Andrew Sochacki ◽  
Cosmin Adrian Bejan ◽  
Shilin Zhao ◽  
Travis Spaulding ◽  
Thomas Stricker ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Myelofibrosis (MF) is a devastating myeloproliferative neoplasm that is hallmarked by marrow fibrosis, symptomatic extramedullary hematopoiesis, and risk of leukemic transformation, most commonly driven by janus kinase 2 (JAK2) pathway mutations. MF risk classification systems guide prognosis, decisions regarding allogeneic stem cell transplantation, and disease modifying agents. Key systems include the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) 2009, DIPSS plus 2010, Genetics-Based Prognostic Scoring System (GPSS) 2014, and Mutation-Enhanced International Prognostic Scoring System (MIPSS) 2014. System contributions include dynamic scoring (DIPSS), cytogenetics (DIPSS Plus), and high risk molecular mutations (GPSS and MIPSS). To power the next generation of MF risk prognostication, and ascertain new prognostic factors, large scale electronic health record (EHR) and genomic data will need integration. As a proof of concept, we leveraged our de-identified research EHR (2.9 million records) and linked genomic biobank (288,000 patients) to develop an all-inclusive phenotype-genotype-prognostic system for MF and recapitulate DIPSS, DIPSS Plus, GPSS and MIPSS. Methods: Our previously described methods (Bejan et al. AACR 2018) utilized natural language processing to algorithmically identify 306 MF patients. A subset (N=125) had available DNA for genotyping. We automatically extracted: age greater than 65, leukocyte count (WBC) greater than 25x109/L, hemoglobin (Hgb) less than 10g/dL, platelets (PLT) less than 100 x 109/L, circulating myeloid blasts ≥ 1%, and 10% weight loss compared to baseline as a proxy for constitutional symptoms. Transfusion data was not included. Karyotype data was manually reviewed. Next generation sequencing (NGS) was performed on biobanked peripheral blood DNA with the Trusight Myeloid Panel (Illumina®). Genotyped samples were restricted to dates after MF diagnosis. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed on all clinical and genomic variables. DIPSS plus was calculated without adjustment but lacked transfusion data. DIPSS, GPSS and MIPSS scores were calculated by published methods. Results: Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression identified Hgb (HR=6.4; P=0.006), myeloid blasts (HR=3.8; P=0.03), and ASXL1 (HR=5.2; P=0.02) as significant in our cohort with regard to overall survival (OS). We noted a strong trend for high risk karyotype (HR=5.6; P=0.07). Our DIPSS model median survival (N=120) for each subgroup; low risk (median survival not met), intermediate-1 (108 months), intermediate-2 (47 months) and high risk (6 months) P=0.0002 (Figure 1a). DIPSS Plus (N=122) integrated karyotype data and PLT count with similar survival with the exception of high risk (4 months) P=0.00003 (Figure 1b). The percentage of patients with driver mutations in JAK2V617F (57%), CALR (3%) and MPLW515 (7.2%); JAK2WT, CALRWT and MPLWT triple negative (34%); high molecular risk ASXL1 (15%), EZH2 (6%), IDH1/2 (7%), SRFS2 (17%); other variants of interest TET2 (9.6%), TP53 (29%) and DNMT3A (16.8%). MIPSS (N=125; 48 months follow up) noted low risk, intermediate-1, and intermediate-2 (median survival not met) and high risk (32 months) P=0.0001 (Figure 1c). GPSS (N=125; 48 months follow up) did not demonstrate statistical separation among groups (Figure 1d). Discussion: This proof of concept transformed raw EHR records into clinical risk scores for MF. The addition of retrospective DNA analysis via NGS opens the possibility of multi-institutional EHR-biobank studies to most accurately create a system to define MF risk. Our sample size limited the significance of age, PLTs, poor risk mutations and other variables previously shown to impact OS. Likewise, we lacked the capacity to track transfusion dependence, previously shown to have prognostic relevance. Still, prognostication via the EHR mimics common scoring systems in MF and supports correct MF case selection, accurate laboratory extraction and reproducible genotyping of biobanked samples. Similar to the original GPSS report, our low risk cohort was small (N=2) and will benefit from expansion of genotyping underway. Finally, this phenotype-genotype-prognostic paradigm represents a technical advance and a unique opportunity to deploy patient specific comorbidities from lifetime EHR records to further refine risk across all myeloid disease. Disclosures Savona: Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.


2020 ◽  
Vol 189 (4) ◽  
pp. 718-730
Author(s):  
María Isabel Prieto‐Conde ◽  
Cristina Jiménez ◽  
María García‐Álvarez ◽  
Fernando Ramos ◽  
Alejandro Medina ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 1944-1955 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Schwarz ◽  
Elizabeth C. Ward ◽  
Petrea Cornwell ◽  
Anne Coccetti ◽  
Pamela D'Netto ◽  
...  

Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine (a) the agreement between allied health assistants (AHAs) and speech-language pathologists (SLPs) when completing dysphagia screening for low-risk referrals and at-risk patients under a delegation model and (b) the operational impact of this delegation model. Method All AHAs worked in the adult acute inpatient settings across three hospitals and completed training and competency evaluation prior to conducting independent screening. Screening (pass/fail) was based on results from pre-screening exclusionary questions in combination with a water swallow test and the Eating Assessment Tool. To examine the agreement of AHAs' decision making with SLPs, AHAs ( n = 7) and SLPs ( n = 8) conducted an independent, simultaneous dysphagia screening on 51 adult inpatients classified as low-risk/at-risk referrals. To examine operational impact, AHAs independently completed screening on 48 low-risk/at-risk patients, with subsequent clinical swallow evaluation conducted by an SLP with patients who failed screening. Results Exact agreement between AHAs and SLPs on overall pass/fail screening criteria for the first 51 patients was 100%. Exact agreement for the two tools was 100% for the Eating Assessment Tool and 96% for the water swallow test. In the operational impact phase ( n = 48), 58% of patients failed AHA screening, with only 10% false positives on subjective SLP assessment and nil identified false negatives. Conclusion AHAs demonstrated the ability to reliably conduct dysphagia screening on a cohort of low-risk patients, with a low rate of false negatives. Data support high level of agreement and positive operational impact of using trained AHAs to perform dysphagia screening in low-risk patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document