Cellular profile of the peritumoral inflammatory infiltrate in squamous cells carcinoma of oral mucosa: Correlation with the expression of Ki67 and histologic grading

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Squamous cells carcinoma is the most important malignant tumor with primary site in the oral cavity and, given the great exposure of mucosa and lips to the etiologic factors of this neoplasm, its incidence is high. Investigation of the prognostic determinants is significant for the expectations of treatment proposal and cure of the patient. The local immune response represented by peritumoral inflammatory infiltrate is a possible prognostic factor.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this study, oral mucosa samples of squamous cells carcinoma were analyzed, separated according to their histological classification as well as the phenotypical profile of the cells comprising the peritumoral inflammatory infiltrate was investigated by immunohistochemical method, in addiction, the cell proliferation index via protein Ki67 expression was determinated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The T lymphocytes made up most of this inflammatory infiltrate, and among these cells, there was a predominance of T CD8 lymphocytes relative to the T CD4 lymphocytes. The B lymhocytes were the second most visualized leucocyte cell type followed by macrophages and neutrophils. The immunohistochemical assessment of Ki-67 positive cells revealed a greater expression of this protein in samples of undifferentiated squamous cells carcinoma.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results suggest that the cellular immune response is the main defense mechanism in squamous cells carcinoma of oral mucosa, expressed by the large number of T lymphocytes and macrophages, and that the greatest intensity of local response may be associated with the best prognosis.</p

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept and tocilizumab for treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is characterised by joint pain, swelling and limitation of movement caused by inflammation. Subsequent joint damage can lead to disability and growth restriction. Treatment commonly includes disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) such as methotrexate. Clinical practice now favours newer drugs termed biologic DMARDs where indicated.Objective: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of four biologic DMARDs (etanercept, abatacept, adalimumab and tocilizumab - with or without methotrexate where indicated) for the treatment of JIA (systemic or oligoarticular JIA excluded).Data sources: Electronic bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and DARE were searched for published studies from inception to May 2015 for English language articles. Bibliographies of related papers, systematic reviews and company submissions were screened and experts were contacted to identify additional evidence.Review methods: Systematic reviews of clinical-effectiveness, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness were undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. A cost-utility decision analytic model was developed to compare estimated cost-effectiveness of biologic DMARDs versus methotrexate. The base case time horizon was 30 years and the model took a National Health Service (NHS) perspective, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5%.Results: Four placebo-controlled RCTs met the inclusion criteria for the clinical-effectiveness review (one RCT evaluating each biologic DMARD). Only one RCT included UK participants. Participants had to achieve an American College of Rheumatology Pediatric (ACR Pedi) 30 response to open-label lead-in treatment in order to be randomised. An exploratory adjusted indirect comparison suggests that the four biologic DMARDs are similar with fewer disease flares and greater proportions with ACR Pedi 50 and 70 responses among participants randomised to continued biologic DMARD. However, confidence intervals were wide, the number of trials was low and there was clinical heterogeneity between trials. Open-label extensions of the trials showed that generally ACR responses remained constant or even increased after the double-blind phase. The proportions of adverse events and serious adverse events were generally similar between treatment and placebo groups. Four economic evaluations of biologic DMARDs for patients with JIA were identified but all had limitations. Two quality of life studies were included, one of which informed the cost-utility model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for adalimumab, etanercept and tocilizumab versus methotrexate was £38,127, £32,526 and £38,656 per QALY, respectively. The ICER for abatacept versus methotrexate as a second line biologic was £39,536 per QALY.Limitations: The model does not incorporate the natural history of JIA in terms of long-term disease progression, as the current evidence is limited. There are no head-to-head trials of biologic DMARDs and clinical evidence for specific JIA subtypes is limited.Conclusions: Biologic DMARDs are superior to placebo (with methotrexate where permitted) in children with (predominantly) polyarticular course JIA, and an insufficient response to previous treatment. Randomised comparisons of biologic DMARDs with long-term efficacy and safety follow- are needed to establish comparative effectiveness. RCTs for JIA subtypes where evidence is lacking are also required.Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. <br/