M6P/IGF2R loss of heterozygosity in head and neck cancer associated with poor patient prognosis

BACKGROUND: The mannose 6-phosphate/insulin-like growth factor 2 receptor (M6P/IGF2R) encodes for a multifunctional receptor involved in lysosomal enzyme trafficking, fetal organogenesis, cytotoxic T cell-induced apoptosis and tumor suppression. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if the M6P/IGF2R tumor suppressor gene is mutated in human head and neck cancer, and if allelic loss is associated with poor patient prognosis. METHODS: M6P/IGF2R loss of heterozygosity in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck was assessed with six different gene-specific nucleotide polymorphisms. The patients studied were enrolled in a phase 3 trial of twice daily radiotherapy with or without concurrent chemotherapy; median follow-up for surviving patients is 76 months. RESULTS: M6P/IGF2R was polymorphic in 64% (56/87) of patients, and 54% (30/56) of the tumors in these informative patients had loss of heterozygosity. M6P/IGF2R loss of heterozygosity was associated with a significantly reduced 5 year relapse-free survival (23% vs. 69%, p = 0.02), locoregional control (34% vs. 75%, p = 0.03) and cause specific survival (29% vs. 75%, p = 0.02) in the patients treated with radiotherapy alone. Concomitant chemotherapy resulted in a better outcome when compared to radiotherapy alone only in those patients whose tumors had M6P/IGF2R loss of heterozygosity. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first evidence that M6P/IGF2R loss of heterozygosity predicts for poor therapeutic outcome in patients treated with radiotherapy alone. Our findings also indicate that head and neck cancer patients with M6P/IGF2R allelic loss benefit most from concurrent chemotherapy

Evidence-based Policy and Public Value Management:Mutually Supporting Paradigms?

This chapter examines the role of evidence in public service reform processes. We argue that the rhetoric of ‘evidence-based policy-making’ has served several political agendas, by legitimising various logics of public service management and innovation, and marginalising others. We explore three management cultures (public administration, new public management, and public value management) and three themes—evidence generation, evidence use, and organisational learning—across the policy domains of higher education, healthcare policy, and broader science policy. We conclude that we urgently need more empirical evidence about who gets to participate in knowledge production, the roles of power and different forms of knowledge, how credibility and legitimacy are framed and negotiated in different public and policy contexts, and how to best investigate these processes to deliver meaningful public value.</p