Effects of a passive back exoskeleton on the mechanical loading of the low-back during symmetric lifting

Low-back pain is the number one cause of disability in the world, with mechanical loading as one of the major risk factors. Exoskeletons have been introduced in the workplace to reduce low back loading. During static forward bending, exoskeletons have been shown to reduce back muscle activity by 10% to 40%. However, effects during dynamic lifting are not well documented. Relative support of the exoskeleton might be smaller in lifting compared to static bending due to higher peak loads. In addition, exoskeletons might also result in changes in lifting behavior, which in turn could affect low back loading. The present study investigated the effect of a passive exoskeleton on peak compression forces, moments, muscle activity and kinematics during symmetric lifting. Two types (LOW and HIGH) of the device, which generate peak support moments at large and moderate flexion angles, respectively, were tested during lifts from knee and ankle height from a near and far horizontal position, with a load of 10 kg. Both types of the trunk exoskeleton tested here reduced the peak L5S1 compression force by around 5-10% for lifts from the FAR position from both KNEE and ANKLE height. Subjects did adjust their lifting style when wearing the device with a 17% reduced peak trunk angular velocity and 5 degrees increased lumbar flexion, especially during ANKLE height lifts. In conclusion, the exoskeleton had a minor and varying effect on the peak L5S1 compression force with only significant differences in the FAR lifts

Treatment breaks in first line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: an individual patient data meta-analysis

Background Intermittent systemic anti-cancer therapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) may improve quality of life without compromising overall survival (OS). We aimed to use individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) from multiple randomised controlled trials evaluating intermittent strategies to inform clinical practice. We also aimed to validate whether thrombocytosis as a predictive biomarker identified patients with significantly reduced OS receiving a complete treatment break. Patients and Methods An IPDMA of intermittent strategy impact on survival was undertaken, including all relevant trials in which data were available. Intermittent strategies were classified into two groups: a planned stopping of all therapy (“treatment break strategy”; 6 trials; 2,907 patients) or to the same treatment omitting oxaliplatin (“maintenance strategy”; 3 trials; 1,271 patients). The primary analysis sample was of patients successfully completing induction therapy. Additionally, a pre-planned analysis of the predictive value of thrombocytosis on survival under a continuous versus an intermittent strategy was undertaken. Results All trials had comparable inclusion criteria. The overall IPDMA of intermittent therapy versus continuous therapy demonstrated no detriment in OS (HR=1.03 [95% CI 0.93-1.14]), whether from complete break (HR 1.04 [95% CI 0.87-1.26]) or maintenance strategies (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.87-1.13]). Thrombocytosis was confirmed as a marker of poor prognosis in aCRC, but did not predict for OS detriment from treatment break strategies (interaction HR=0.97 [95% CI 0.66-1.40] compared to continuous therapy). Conclusion The highest levels of evidence from this IPMDA indicate no detriment in survival for patients receiving an intermittent therapy strategy, either for maintenance or complete break strategies. Although, thrombocytosis is confirmed as a marker of poor prognosis, it is not predictive of poor outcome for patients treated with intermittent therapy. An intermittent chemotherapy strategy can therefore be applied irrespective of baseline platelet count and does not result in inferior OS compared to continuous chemotherapy

A randomized, phase III trial of capecitabine plus bevacizumab (Cape-Bev) versus capecitabine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (CAPIRI-Bev) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: The AIO KRK 0110 Trial/ML22011 Trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Several randomized trials have indicated that combination chemotherapy applied in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) does not significantly improve overall survival when compared to the sequential use of cytotoxic agents (CAIRO, MRC Focus, FFCD 2000-05). The present study investigates the question whether this statement holds true also for bevacizumab-based first-line treatment including escalation- and de-escalation strategies.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The AIO KRK 0110/ML22011 trial is a two-arm, multicenter, open-label randomized phase III trial comparing the efficacy and safety of capecitabine plus bevacizumab (Cape-Bev) versus capecitabine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (CAPIRI-Bev) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1, will be assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either capecitabine 1250 mg/m²bid for 14d (d1-14) plus bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (d1) q3w (Arm A) or capecitabine 800 mg/m²BID for 14d (d1-14), irinotecan 200 mg/m²(d1) and bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (d1) q3w (Arm B). Patients included into this trial are required to consent to the analysis of tumour tissue and blood for translational investigations. In Arm A, treatment escalation from Cape-Bev to CAPIRI-Bev is recommended in case of progressive disease (PD). In Arm B, de-escalation from CAPIRI-Bev to Cape-Bev is possible after 6 months of treatment or in case of irinotecan-associated toxicity. Re-escalation to CAPIRI-Bev after PD is possible. The primary endpoint is time to failure of strategy (TFS). Secondary endpoints are overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, progression-free survival, safety and quality of life.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The AIO KRK 0110 trial is designed for patients with disseminated, but asymptomatic mCRC who are not potential candidates for surgical resection of metastasis. Two bevacizumab-based strategies are compared: one starting as single-agent chemotherapy (Cape-Bev) allowing escalation to CAPIRI-Bev and another starting with combination chemotherapy (CAPIRI-Bev) and allowing de-escalation to Cape-Bev and subsequent re-escalation if necessary.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01249638">NCT01249638</a></p> <p>EudraCT-No.: 2009-013099-38</p

Parallel Expansions of Sox Transcription Factor Group B Predating the Diversifications of the Arthropods and Jawed Vertebrates

Group B of the Sox transcription factor family is crucial in embryo development in the insects and vertebrates. Sox group B, unlike the other Sox groups, has an unusually enlarged functional repertoire in insects, but the timing and mechanism of the expansion of this group were unclear. We collected and analyzed data for Sox group B from 36 species of 12 phyla representing the major metazoan clades, with an emphasis on arthropods, to reconstruct the evolutionary history of SoxB in bilaterians and to date the expansion of Sox group B in insects. We found that the genome of the bilaterian last common ancestor probably contained one SoxB1 and one SoxB2 gene only and that tandem duplications of SoxB2 occurred before the arthropod diversification but after the arthropod-nematode divergence, resulting in the basal repertoire of Sox group B in diverse arthropod lineages. The arthropod Sox group B repertoire expanded differently from the vertebrate repertoire, which resulted from genome duplications. The parallel increases in the Sox group B repertoires of the arthropods and vertebrates are consistent with the parallel increases in the complexity and diversification of these two important organismal groups

Impact of geography on prognostic outcomes of 21,509 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer enrolled in clinical trials: an ARCAD database analysis

Impact of geography on prognostic outcomes of 21,509 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer enrolled in clinical trials: an ARCAD database analysis Show less Jun Yin*, Shaheenah Dawood*, Romain Cohen, Jeff Meyers, John Zalcberg, Takayuki Yoshino, Matthew Seymour, Tim Maughan, Leonard Saltz, Eric Van Cutsem, Alan Venook, Hans-Joachim Schmoll, Richard Goldberg, Paulo Hoff, J. Randolph Hecht, Herbert Hurwitz, Cornelis Punt, Eduard Diaz Rubio, Miriam Koopman, Chiara Cremolini, Volker Heinemann, Christophe Tournigard, Carsten Bokemeyer, Charles Fuchs, Niall Tebbutt, John Souglakos, Jean-Yves Doulliard, Fairooz Kabbinavar, Benoist Chibaudel, Aimery de Gramont, Qian Shi, Axel Grothey, Richard AdamsFirst Published June 30, 2021 Research Article https://doi.org/10.1177/17588359211020547 Article information Article has an altmetric score of 7 Open AccessCreative Commons Attribution, Non Commercial 4.0 License Article Information Volume: 13 Article first published online: June 30, 2021; Issue published: January 1, 2021 Received: December 29, 2020; Accepted: May 05, 2021 Jun Yin* Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street, SW Rochester, MN 55905, USA Shaheenah Dawood* Mediclinic City Hospital: North Wing, Dubai Health Care City, Dubai UAE Romain Cohen Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA Jeff Meyers Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA John Zalcberg School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Takayuki Yoshino Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Chiba, Japan Matthew Seymour NIHR Clinical Research Network, Leeds, UK Tim Maughan CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, Oxford, UK Leonard Saltz Memory Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA Eric Van Cutsem Digestive Oncology, University Hospitals Gasthuisberg Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Alan Venook Department of Medicine, The University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA Hans-Joachim Schmoll Klinik fur Innere Med IV, University Clinic Halle, Saale, Germany Richard Goldberg Department of Oncology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA Paulo Hoff Centro de Oncologia de Brasilia do Sirio Libanes: Unidade Lago Sul, Siro Libanes, Brazil J. Randolph Hecht Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, UCLS Medical Center, Santa Monica, CA, USA Herbert Hurwitz Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA Cornelis Punt Department of Medical Oncology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Eduard Diaz Rubio Department Oncology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain Miriam Koopman Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands Chiara Cremolini Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy Volker Heinemann Department of Medical Oncology and Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Munich, Munich, Germany Christophe Tournigard Hopital Henri Mondor, Creteil, France Carsten Bokemeyer Department of Oncology, Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation with Section of Pneumology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany Charles Fuchs Director of Yale Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA Niall Tebbutt Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia John Souglakos University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece Jean-Yves Doulliard University of Nantes Medical School, Nantes, France Fairooz Kabbinavar UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica, CA, USA Benoist Chibaudel Department of Medical Oncology, Franco-British Institute, Levallois-Perret, France Aimery de Gramont Department of Medical Oncology, Franco-British Institute, Levallois-Perret, France Qian Shi Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA Axel Grothey West Cancer Center, Germantown, TN, USA Richard Adams Cardiff University and Velindre Cancer Center, Cardiff, UK Corresponding Author: [email protected] *Co-first authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). Abstract Background: Benchmarking international cancer survival differences is necessary to evaluate and improve healthcare systems. Our aim was to assess the potential regional differences in outcomes among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) participating in international randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Design: Countries were grouped into 11 regions according to the World Health Organization and the EUROCARE model. Meta-analyses based on individual patient data were used to synthesize data across studies and regions and to conduct comparisons for outcomes in a two-stage random-effects model after adjusting for age, sex, performance status, and time period. We used mCRC patients enrolled in the first-line RCTs from the ARCAD database, which provided enrolling country information. There were 21,509 patients in 27 RCTs included across the 11 regions. Results: Main outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Compared with other regions, patients from the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland were proportionaly over-represented, older, with higher performance status, more frequently male, and more commonly not treated with biological therapies. Cohorts from central Europe and the United States (USA) had significantly longer OS compared with those from UK and Ireland (p = 0.0034 and p < 0.001, respectively), with median difference of 3–4 months. The survival deficits in the UK and Ireland cohorts were, at most, 15% at 1 year. No evidence of a regional disparity was observed for PFS. Among those treated without biological therapies, patients from the UK and Ireland had shorter OS than central Europe patients (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Significant international disparities in the OS of cohorts of mCRC patients enrolled in RCTs were found. Survival of mCRC patients included in RCTs was consistently lower in the UK and Ireland regions than in central Europe, southern Europe, and the USA, potentially attributed to greater overall population representation, delayed diagnosis, and reduced availability of therapies

Metastatic colorectal cancer outcomes by age among ARCAD first- and second-line Clinical trials

Background We evaluated the time to progression (TTP) and survival outcomes of second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer among adults aged 70 years and older compared with younger adults following progression on first-line clinical trials. Methods Associations between clinical and disease characteristics, time to initial progression, and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. TTP and overall survival (OS) were compared between older and younger adults in first- and second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, number of metastatic sites and presence of metastasis in the lung, liver, or peritoneum. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Older adults comprised 16.4% of patients on first-line trials (870 total older adults aged >70 years; 4419 total younger adults aged ≤70 years, on first-line trials). Older adults and those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status >0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than younger adults. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariable analysis (odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = 1.02 to 1.21, P = .01). Older and younger adults enrolled in second-line trials experienced similar median TTP and median OS (median TTP = 5.1 vs 5.2 months, respectively; median OS = 11.6 vs 12.4 months, respectively). Conclusions Older adults were less likely to receive second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, though we did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes vs younger adults following second-line therapy. Further study should examine factors affecting decisions to treat older adults with second-line therapy. Inclusion of geriatric assessment may provide better criteria regarding the risks and benefits of second-line therapy

Evaluation of intratumoral response heterogeneity in metastatic colorectal cancer and Its impact on patient overall survival: findings from 10,551 patients in the ARCAD database

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a heterogeneous disease that can evoke discordant responses to therapy among different lesions in individual patients. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria do not take into consideration response heterogeneity. We explored and developed lesion-based measurement response criteria to evaluate their prognostic effect on overall survival (OS). Patients and Methods: Patients enrolled in 17 first-line clinical trials, who had mCRC with ≥ 2 lesions at baseline, and a restaging scan by 12 weeks were included. For each patient, lesions were categorized as a progressing lesion (PL: > 20% increase in the longest diameter (LD)), responding lesion (RL: > 30% decrease in LD), or stable lesion (SL: neither PL nor RL) based on the 12-week scan. Lesion-based response criteria were defined for each patient as follows: PL only, SL only, RL only, and varied responses (mixture of RL, SL, and PL). Lesion-based response criteria and OS were correlated using stratified multivariable Cox models. The concordance between OS and classifications was measured using the C statistic. Results: Among 10,551 patients with mCRC from 17 first-line studies, varied responses were noted in 51.6% of patients, among whom, 3.3% had RL/PL at 12 weeks. Among patients with RL/SL, 52% had stable disease (SD) by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (median OS (mOS) = 19.9 months) than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.81 (0.76, 0.85), p < 0.001), although a shorter OS than those with RL only (mOS = 25.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.42 (1.32, 1.53), p < 0.001). Among patients with SL/PL, 74% had SD by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (mOS = 9.0 months) than those with PL only (mOS = 8.0 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.75 (0.57, 0.98), p = 0.040), yet a shorter OS than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.98 (1.80, 2.18), p < 0.001). These associations were consistent across treatment regimen subgroups. The lesion-based response criteria showed slightly higher concordance than RECIST 1.1, although it was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Varied responses at first restaging are common among patients receiving first-line therapy for mCRC. Our lesion-based measurement criteria allowed for better mortality discrimination, which could potentially be informative for treatment decision-making and influence patient outcomes

Evaluation of Intratumoral Response Heterogeneity in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer and Its Impact on Patient Overall Survival: Findings from 10,551 Patients in the ARCAD Database

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a heterogeneous disease that can evoke discordant responses to therapy among different lesions in individual patients. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria do not take into consideration response heterogeneity. We explored and developed lesion-based measurement response criteria to evaluate their prognostic effect on overall survival (OS). Patients and Methods: Patients enrolled in 17 first-line clinical trials, who had mCRC with ≥ 2 lesions at baseline, and a restaging scan by 12 weeks were included. For each patient, lesions were categorized as a progressing lesion (PL: > 20% increase in the longest diameter (LD)), responding lesion (RL: > 30% decrease in LD), or stable lesion (SL: neither PL nor RL) based on the 12-week scan. Lesion-based response criteria were defined for each patient as follows: PL only, SL only, RL only, and varied responses (mixture of RL, SL, and PL). Lesion-based response criteria and OS were correlated using stratified multivariable Cox models. The concordance between OS and classifications was measured using the C statistic. Results: Among 10,551 patients with mCRC from 17 first-line studies, varied responses were noted in 51.6% of patients, among whom, 3.3% had RL/PL at 12 weeks. Among patients with RL/SL, 52% had stable disease (SD) by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (median OS (mOS) = 19.9 months) than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.81 (0.76, 0.85), p < 0.001), although a shorter OS than those with RL only (mOS = 25.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.42 (1.32, 1.53), p < 0.001). Among patients with SL/PL, 74% had SD by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (mOS = 9.0 months) than those with PL only (mOS = 8.0 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.75 (0.57, 0.98), p = 0.040), yet a shorter OS than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.98 (1.80, 2.18), p < 0.001). These associations were consistent across treatment regimen subgroups. The lesion-based response criteria showed slightly higher concordance than RECIST 1.1, although it was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Varied responses at first restaging are common among patients receiving first-line therapy for mCRC. Our lesion-based measurement criteria allowed for better mortality discrimination, which could potentially be informative for treatment decision-making and influence patient outcomes