Probing Nucleon Strangeness with Neutrinos: Nuclear Model Dependences

The extraction of the nucleon's strangeness axial charge, Delta_s, from inclusive, quasielastic neutral current neutrino cross sections is studied within the framework of the plane-wave impulse approximation. We find that the value of Delta_s can depend significantly on the choice of nuclear model used in analyzing the quasielastic cross section. This model-dependence may be reduced by one order of magnitude when Delta_s is extracted from the ratio of total proton to neutron yields. We apply this analysis to the interpretation of low-energy neutrino cross sections and arrive at a nuclear theory uncertainty of plus/minus 0.03 on the value of Delta_s expected to be determined from the ratio of proton and neutron yields measured by the LSND collaboration. This error compares favorably with estimates of the SU(3)-breaking uncertainty in the value of Delta_s extracted from inclusive, polarized deep-inelastic structure function measurements. We also point out several general features of the quasielastic neutral current neutrino cross section and compare them with the analogous features in inclusive, quasielastic electron scattering.Comment: 40 pages (including 11 postscript figures), uses REVTeX and epsfig.st

Many-Body Currents and the Strange-Quark Content of 4he

Meson-exchange current (MEC) contributions to the parity-violating (PV) asymmetry for elastic scattering of polarized electrons from $^4$He are calculated over a range of momentum transfer using Monte Carlo methods and a variational $^4$He ground state wavefunction. The results indicate that MEC's generate a negligible contribution to the asymmetry at low-|\qv|, where a determination of the nucleon's mean square strangeness radius could be carried out at CEBAF. At larger values of momentum transfer -- beyond the first diffraction minimum -- two-body corrections from the $\rho$-$\pi$ \lq\lq strangeness charge" operator enter the asymmetry at a potentially observable level, even in the limit of vanishing strange-quark matrix elements of the nucleon. For purposes of constraining the nucleon's strangeness electric form factor, theoretical uncertainties associated with these MEC contributions do not appear to impose serious limitations.Comment: 32 TEX pages and 7 figures (not included, available from authors upon request), CEBAF Preprint #TH-94-1

Cancer Stem Cell Assay-Guided Chemotherapy Improves Survival of Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma in a Randomized Trial

Therapy-resistant cancer stem cells (CSCs) contribute to the poor clinical outcomes of patients with recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) who fail standard of care (SOC) therapy. ChemoID is a clinically validated assay for identifying CSC-targeted cytotoxic therapies in solid tumors. In a randomized clinical trial (NCT03632135), the ChemoID assay, a personalized approach for selecting the most effective treatment from FDA-approved chemotherapies, improves the survival of patients with rGBM (2016 WHO classification) over physician-chosen chemotherapy. In the ChemoID assay-guided group, median survival is 12.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.2-14.7) compared with 9 months (95% CI, 4.2-13.8) in the physician-choice group (p = 0.010) as per interim efficacy analysis. The ChemoID assay-guided group has a significantly lower risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.81; p = 0.008). Results of this study offer a promising way to provide more affordable treatment for patients with rGBM in lower socioeconomic groups in the US and around the world

Impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular testing in the United States versus the rest of the world

Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-US institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection

Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BACKGROUND Regular, detailed reporting on population health by underlying cause of death is fundamental for public health decision making. Cause-specific estimates of mortality and the subsequent effects on life expectancy worldwide are valuable metrics to gauge progress in reducing mortality rates. These estimates are particularly important following large-scale mortality spikes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. When systematically analysed, mortality rates and life expectancy allow comparisons of the consequences of causes of death globally and over time, providing a nuanced understanding of the effect of these causes on global populations. METHODS The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 cause-of-death analysis estimated mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) from 288 causes of death by age-sex-location-year in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations for each year from 1990 until 2021. The analysis used 56 604 data sources, including data from vital registration and verbal autopsy as well as surveys, censuses, surveillance systems, and cancer registries, among others. As with previous GBD rounds, cause-specific death rates for most causes were estimated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model-a modelling tool developed for GBD to assess the out-of-sample predictive validity of different statistical models and covariate permutations and combine those results to produce cause-specific mortality estimates-with alternative strategies adapted to model causes with insufficient data, substantial changes in reporting over the study period, or unusual epidemiology. YLLs were computed as the product of the number of deaths for each cause-age-sex-location-year and the standard life expectancy at each age. As part of the modelling process, uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated using the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles from a 1000-draw distribution for each metric. We decomposed life expectancy by cause of death, location, and year to show cause-specific effects on life expectancy from 1990 to 2021. We also used the coefficient of variation and the fraction of population affected by 90% of deaths to highlight concentrations of mortality. Findings are reported in counts and age-standardised rates. Methodological improvements for cause-of-death estimates in GBD 2021 include the expansion of under-5-years age group to include four new age groups, enhanced methods to account for stochastic variation of sparse data, and the inclusion of COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality-which includes excess mortality associated with the pandemic, excluding COVID-19, lower respiratory infections, measles, malaria, and pertussis. For this analysis, 199 new country-years of vital registration cause-of-death data, 5 country-years of surveillance data, 21 country-years of verbal autopsy data, and 94 country-years of other data types were added to those used in previous GBD rounds. FINDINGS The leading causes of age-standardised deaths globally were the same in 2019 as they were in 1990; in descending order, these were, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. In 2021, however, COVID-19 replaced stroke as the second-leading age-standardised cause of death, with 94·0 deaths (95% UI 89·2-100·0) per 100 000 population. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the rankings of the leading five causes, lowering stroke to the third-leading and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to the fourth-leading position. In 2021, the highest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (271·0 deaths [250·1-290·7] per 100 000 population) and Latin America and the Caribbean (195·4 deaths [182·1-211·4] per 100 000 population). The lowest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 were in the high-income super-region (48·1 deaths [47·4-48·8] per 100 000 population) and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania (23·2 deaths [16·3-37·2] per 100 000 population). Globally, life expectancy steadily improved between 1990 and 2019 for 18 of the 22 investigated causes. Decomposition of global and regional life expectancy showed the positive effect that reductions in deaths from enteric infections, lower respiratory infections, stroke, and neonatal deaths, among others have contributed to improved survival over the study period. However, a net reduction of 1·6 years occurred in global life expectancy between 2019 and 2021, primarily due to increased death rates from COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality. Life expectancy was highly variable between super-regions over the study period, with southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania gaining 8·3 years (6·7-9·9) overall, while having the smallest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 (0·4 years). The largest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean (3·6 years). Additionally, 53 of the 288 causes of death were highly concentrated in locations with less than 50% of the global population as of 2021, and these causes of death became progressively more concentrated since 1990, when only 44 causes showed this pattern. The concentration phenomenon is discussed heuristically with respect to enteric and lower respiratory infections, malaria, HIV/AIDS, neonatal disorders, tuberculosis, and measles. INTERPRETATION Long-standing gains in life expectancy and reductions in many of the leading causes of death have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the adverse effects of which were spread unevenly among populations. Despite the pandemic, there has been continued progress in combatting several notable causes of death, leading to improved global life expectancy over the study period. Each of the seven GBD super-regions showed an overall improvement from 1990 and 2021, obscuring the negative effect in the years of the pandemic. Additionally, our findings regarding regional variation in causes of death driving increases in life expectancy hold clear policy utility. Analyses of shifting mortality trends reveal that several causes, once widespread globally, are now increasingly concentrated geographically. These changes in mortality concentration, alongside further investigation of changing risks, interventions, and relevant policy, present an important opportunity to deepen our understanding of mortality-reduction strategies. Examining patterns in mortality concentration might reveal areas where successful public health interventions have been implemented. Translating these successes to locations where certain causes of death remain entrenched can inform policies that work to improve life expectancy for people everywhere. FUNDING Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Analysis of Chemopredictive Assay for Targeting Cancer Stem Cells in Glioblastoma Patients

Introduction: The prognosis of glioblastoma (GBM) treated with standard-of-care maximal surgical resection and concurrent adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ)/radiotherapy remains very poor (less than 15 months). GBMs have been found to contain a small population of cancer stem cells (CSCs) that contribute to tumor propagation, maintenance, and treatment resistance. The highly invasive nature of high-grade gliomas and their inherent resistance to therapy lead to very high rates of recurrence. For these reasons, not all patients with similar diagnoses respond to the same chemotherapy, schedule, or dose. Administration of ineffective anticancer therapy is not only costly but more importantly burdens the patient with unnecessary toxicity and selects for the development of resistant cancer cell clones. We have developed a drug response assay (ChemoID) that identifies the most effective chemotherapy against CSCs and bulk of tumor cells from of a panel of potential treatments, offering great promise for individualized cancer management. Providing the treating physician with drug response information on a panel of approved drugs will aid in personalized therapy selections of the most effective chemotherapy for individual patients, thereby improving outcomes. A prospective study was conducted evaluating the use of the ChemoID drug response assay in GBM patients treated with standard of care. Methods: Forty-one GBM patients (mean age 54 years, 59% male), all eligible for a surgical biopsy, were enrolled in an Institutional Review Board–approved protocol, and fresh tissue samples were collected for drug sensitivity testing. Patients were all treated with standard-of-care TMZ plus radiation with or without maximal surgery, depending on the status of the disease. Patients were prospectively monitored for tumor response, time to recurrence, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Odds ratio (OR) associations of 12-month recurrence, PFS, and OS outcomes were estimated for CSC, bulk tumor, and combined assay responses for the standard-of-care TMZ treatment; sensitivities/specificities, areas under the curve (AUCs), and risk reclassification components were examined. Results: Median follow-up was 8 months (range 3-49 months). For every 5% increase in in vitro CSC cell kill by TMZ, 12-month patient response (nonrecurrence of cancer) increased two-fold, OR = 2.2 (P = .016). Similar but somewhat less supported associations with the bulk tumor test were seen, OR = 2.75 (P = .07) for each 5% bulk tumor cell kill by TMZ. Combining CSC and bulk tumor assay results in a single model yielded a statistically supported CSC association, OR = 2.36 (P = .036), but a much attenuated remaining bulk tumor association, OR = 1.46 (P = .472). AUCs and [sensitivity/specificity] at optimal outpoints (>40% CSC cell kill and >55% bulk tumor cell kill) were AUC = 0.989 [sensitivity = 100/specificity = 97], 0.972 [100/89], and 0.989 [100/97] for the CSC only, bulk tumor only, and combined models, respectively. Risk categorization of patients was improved by 11% when using the CSC test in conjunction with the bulk test (risk reclassification nonevent net reclassification improvement [NRI] and overall NRI = 0.111, P = .030). Median recurrence time was 20 months for patients with a positive (>40% cell kill) CSC test versus only 3 months for those with a negative CSC test, whereas median recurrence time was 13 months versus 4 months for patients with a positive (>55% cell kill) bulk test versus negative. Similar favorable results for the CSC test were observed for PFS and OS outcomes. Panel results across 14 potential other treatments indicated that 34/41 (83%) potentially more optimal alternative therapies may have been chosen using CSC results, whereas 27/41 (66%) alternative therapies may have been chosen using bulk tumor results. Conclusions: The ChemoID CSC drug response assay has the potential to increase the accuracy of bulk tumor assays to help guide individualized chemotherapy choices. GBM cancer recurrence may occur quickly if the CSC test has a low in vitro cell kill rate even if the bulk tumor test cell kill rate is high

Cancer stem cell assay-guided chemotherapy improves survival of patients with recurrent glioblastoma in a randomized trial.

Therapy-resistant cancer stem cells (CSCs) contribute to the poor clinical outcomes of patients with recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) who fail standard of care (SOC) therapy. ChemoID is a clinically validated assay for identifying CSC-targeted cytotoxic therapies in solid tumors. In a randomized clinical trial (NCT03632135), the ChemoID assay, a personalized approach for selecting the most effective treatment from FDA-approved chemotherapies, improves the survival of patients with rGBM (2016 WHO classification) over physician-chosen chemotherapy. In the ChemoID assay-guided group, median survival is 12.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.2-14.7) compared with 9 months (95% CI, 4.2-13.8) in the physician-choice group (p = 0.010) as per interim efficacy analysis. The ChemoID assay-guided group has a significantly lower risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.81; p = 0.008). Results of this study offer a promising way to provide more affordable treatment for patients with rGBM in lower socioeconomic groups in the US and around the world