Rofecoxib for dysmenorrhoea: meta-analysis using individual patient data

BACKGROUND: Individual patient meta-analysis to determine the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose rofecoxib in primary dysmenorrhoea. METHODS: Individual patient information was available from three randomised, double blind, placebo and active controlled trials of rofecoxib. Data were combined through meta-analysis. Number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for at least 50% pain relief and the proportion of patients who had taken rescue medication over 12 hours were calculated. Information was collected on adverse effects. RESULTS: For single-dose rofecoxib 50 mg compared with placebo, the NNTs (with 95% CI) for at least 50% pain relief were 3.2 (2.4 to 4.5) at six, 3.1 (2.4 to 9.0) at eight, and 3.7 (2.8 to 5.6) at 12 hours. For naproxen sodium 550 mg they were 3.1 (2.4 to 4.4) at six, 3.0 (2.3 to 4.2) at eight, and 3.8 (2.7 to 6.1) at 12 hours. The proportion of patients who needed rescue medication within 12 hours was 27% with rofecoxib 50 mg, 29% with naproxen sodium 550 mg, and 50% with placebo. In the single-dose trial, the proportion of patients reporting any adverse effect was 8% (4/49) with rofecoxib 50 mg, 12% (6/49) with ibuprofen 400 mg, and 6% (3/49) with placebo. In the other two multiple dose trials, the proportion of patients reporting any adverse effect was 23% (42/179) with rofecoxib 50 mg, 24% (45/181) with naproxen sodium 550 mg, and 18% (33/178) with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Single dose rofecoxib 50 mg provided similar pain relief to naproxen sodium 550 mg over 12 hours. The duration of analgesia with rofecoxib 50 mg was similar to that of naproxen sodium 550 mg. Adverse effects were uncommon suggesting safety in short-term use of rofecoxib and naproxen sodium. Future research should include restriction on daily life and absence from work or school as outcomes

Tumor markers in breast cancer - European Group on Tumor Markers recommendations

Recommendations are presented for the routine clinical use of serum and tissue-based markers in the diagnosis and management of patients with breast cancer. Their low sensitivity and specificity preclude the use of serum markers such as the MUC-1 mucin glycoproteins ( CA 15.3, BR 27.29) and carcinoembryonic antigen in the diagnosis of early breast cancer. However, serial measurement of these markers can result in the early detection of recurrent disease as well as indicate the efficacy of therapy. Of the tissue-based markers, measurement of estrogen and progesterone receptors is mandatory in the selection of patients for treatment with hormone therapy, while HER-2 is essential in selecting patients with advanced breast cancer for treatment with Herceptin ( trastuzumab). Urokinase plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 are recently validated prognostic markers for lymph node-negative breast cancer patients and thus may be of value in selecting node-negative patients that do not require adjuvant chemotherapy. Copyright (C) 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel

The multiplex bead array approach to identifying serum biomarkers associated with breast cancer

Introduction Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer seen in women in western countries. Thus, diagnostic modalities sensitive to early-stage breast cancer are needed. Antibody-based array platforms of a data-driven type, which are expected to facilitate more rapid and sensitive detection of novel biomarkers, have emerged as a direct, rapid means for profiling cancer-specific signatures using small samples. In line with this concept, our group constructed an antibody bead array panel for 35 analytes that were selected during the discovery step. This study was aimed at testing the performance of this 35-plex array panel in profiling signatures specific for primary non-metastatic breast cancer and validating its diagnostic utility in this independent population. Methods Thirty-five analytes were selected from more than 50 markers through screening steps using a serum bank consisting of 4,500 samples from various types of cancer. An antibody-bead array of 35 markers was constructed using the Luminex (TM) bead array platform. A study population consisting of 98 breast cancer patients and 96 normal subjects was analysed using this panel. Multivariate classification algorithms were used to find discriminating biomarkers and validated with another independent population of 90 breast cancer and 79 healthy controls. Results Serum concentrations of epidermal growth factor, soluble CD40-ligand and proapolipoprotein A1 were increased in breast cancer patients. High-molecular-weight-kininogen, apolipoprotein A1, soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, vitamin-D binding protein and vitronectin were decreased in the cancer group. Multivariate classification algorithms distinguished breast cancer patients from the normal population with high accuracy (91.8% with random forest, 91.5% with support vector machine, 87.6% with linear discriminant analysis). Combinatorial markers also detected breast cancer at an early stage with greater sensitivity. Conclusions The current study demonstrated the usefulness of the antibody-bead array approach in finding signatures specific for primary non-metastatic breast cancer and illustrated the potential for early, high sensitivity detection of breast cancer. Further validation is required before array-based technology is used routinely for early detection of breast cancer.Kenny HA, 2008, J CLIN INVEST, V118, P1367, DOI 10.1172/JCI33775Shah FD, 2008, INTEGR CANCER THER, V7, P33, DOI 10.1177/1534735407313883Carlsson A, 2008, EUR J CANCER, V44, P472, DOI 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.11.025Nolen BM, 2008, BREAST CANCER RES, V10, DOI 10.1186/bcr2096Brogren H, 2008, THROMB RES, V122, P271, DOI 10.1016/j.thromres.2008.04.008Varki A, 2007, BLOOD, V110, P1723, DOI 10.1182/blood-2006-10-053736Madsen CD, 2007, J CELL BIOL, V177, P927, DOI 10.1083/jcb.200612058Levenson VV, 2007, BBA-GEN SUBJECTS, V1770, P847, DOI 10.1016/j.bbagen.2007.01.017VAZQUEZMARTIN A, 2007, EUR J CANCER, V43, P1117GARCIA M, 2007, GLOBAL CANC FACTS FIMoore LE, 2006, CANCER EPIDEM BIOMAR, V15, P1641, DOI 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0980Borrebaeck CAK, 2006, EXPERT OPIN BIOL TH, V6, P833, DOI 10.1517/14712598.6.8.833Zannis VI, 2006, J MOL MED-JMM, V84, P276, DOI 10.1007/s00109-005-0030-4Jemal A, 2006, CA-CANCER J CLIN, V56, P106Silva HC, 2006, NEOPLASMA, V53, P538Chahed K, 2005, INT J ONCOL, V27, P1425Jain KK, 2005, EXPERT OPIN PHARMACO, V6, P1463, DOI 10.1517/14656566.6.9.1463Abe O, 2005, LANCET, V365, P1687Paradis V, 2005, HEPATOLOGY, V41, P40, DOI 10.1002/hep.20505Molina R, 2005, TUMOR BIOL, V26, P281, DOI 10.1159/000089260Furberg AS, 2005, CANCER EPIDEM BIOMAR, V14, P33Benoy IH, 2004, CLIN CANCER RES, V10, P7157Song JS, 2004, BLOOD, V104, P2065, DOI 10.1182/blood-2004-02-0449Schairer C, 2004, J NATL CANCER I, V96, P1311, DOI 10.1093/jnci/djh253Hellman K, 2004, BRIT J CANCER, V91, P319, DOI 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601944Roselli M, 2004, CLIN CANCER RES, V10, P610Zhou AW, 2003, NAT STRUCT BIOL, V10, P541, DOI 10.1038/nsb943Hapke S, 2003, BIOL CHEM, V384, P1073Miller JC, 2003, PROTEOMICS, V3, P56Amirkhosravi A, 2002, BLOOD COAGUL FIBRIN, V13, P505Bonello N, 2002, HUM REPROD, V17, P2272Li JN, 2002, CLIN CHEM, V48, P1296Louhimo J, 2002, ANTICANCER RES, V22, P1759Knezevic V, 2001, PROTEOMICS, V1, P1271Di Micco P, 2001, DIGEST LIVER DIS, V33, P546Ferrigno D, 2001, EUR RESPIR J, V17, P667Webb DJ, 2001, J CELL BIOL, V152, P741Gion M, 2001, EUR J CANCER, V37, P355Schonbeck U, 2001, CELL MOL LIFE SCI, V58, P4Blackwell K, 2000, J CLIN ONCOL, V18, P600Carriero MV, 1999, CANCER RES, V59, P5307Antman K, 1999, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V281, P1470Loskutoff DJ, 1999, APMIS, V107, P54Molina R, 1998, BREAST CANCER RES TR, V51, P109Bajou K, 1998, NAT MED, V4, P923Chan DW, 1997, J CLIN ONCOL, V15, P2322Chu KC, 1996, J NATL CANCER I, V88, P1571vanDalen A, 1996, ANTICANCER RES, V16, P2345Yamamoto N, 1996, CANCER RES, V56, P2827KOCH AE, 1995, NATURE, V376, P517HADDAD JG, 1995, J STEROID BIOCHEM, V53, P579FOEKENS JA, 1994, J CLIN ONCOL, V12, P1648GEARING AJH, 1993, IMMUNOL TODAY, V14, P506HUTCHENS TW, 1993, RAPID COMMUN MASS SP, V7, P576DECLERCK PJ, 1992, J BIOL CHEM, V267, P11693GABRIJELCIC D, 1992, AGENTS ACTIONS S, V38, P350BIEGLMAYER C, 1991, TUMOR BIOL, V12, P138DNISTRIAN AM, 1991, TUMOR BIOL, V12, P82VANDALEN A, 1990, TUMOR BIOL, V11, P189KARAS M, 1988, ANAL CHEM, V60, P2299, DOI 10.1021/ac00171a028LERNER WA, 1983, INT J CANCER, V31, P463WESTGARD JO, 1981, CLIN CHEM, V27, P493TROUSSEAU A, 1865, CLIN MED HOTEL DIEU, V3, P654*R PROJ, R PROJ STAT COMP1

Anaerobiosis revisited: growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae under extremely low oxygen availability

The budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae plays an important role in biotechnological applications, ranging from fuel ethanol to recombinant protein production. It is also a model organism for studies on cell physiology and genetic regulation. Its ability to grow under anaerobic conditions is of interest in many industrial applications. Unlike industrial bioreactors with their low surface area relative to volume, ensuring a complete anaerobic atmosphere during microbial cultivations in the laboratory is rather difficult. Tiny amounts of O2 that enter the system can vastly influence product yields and microbial physiology. A common procedure in the laboratory is to sparge the culture vessel with ultrapure N2 gas; together with the use of butyl rubber stoppers and norprene tubing, O2 diffusion into the system can be strongly minimized. With insights from some studies conducted in our laboratory, we explore the question ‘how anaerobic is anaerobiosis?’. We briefly discuss the role of O2 in non-respiratory pathways in S. cerevisiae and provide a systematic survey of the attempts made thus far to cultivate yeast under anaerobic conditions. We conclude that very few data exist on the physiology of S. cerevisiae under anaerobiosis in the absence of the anaerobic growth factors ergosterol and unsaturated fatty acids. Anaerobicity should be treated as a relative condition since complete anaerobiosis is hardly achievable in the laboratory. Ideally, researchers should provide all the details of their anaerobic set-up, to ensure reproducibility of results among different laboratories. A correction to this article is available online at http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/131930/ https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-018-9036-

Radioimmunoassay for Immunoreactive Non-Collagenous Domain of Type IV Collagen (NC1) in Serum: Normal Pregnancy and Preeclampsia

Peer Reviewe