Metastatic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma treated with targeted therapies: A Renal Cross Channel Group study

Background: Treatment of non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains controversial despite several recent prospective studies of targeted therapies (TT). Often Vascular Endothelial growth Factor (VEGF) and Mammalian Target of Rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors are used, extrapolating the data from use of these agents in clear cell RCC. Methods: We performed a retrospective data analysis within the Renal Cross Channel Group to determine metastatic chromophobe RCC (mChRCC) outcomes in the TT era. The end-points were overall response, overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF). The two latter were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: 91 mChRCC patients from 26 centres were included. Median follow-up from the date of first metastasis was 6.1 years (range: 0–13.9). Median OS was 37.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.4–46.8) from the diagnosis of metastatic disease. Among the 61 patients who received TT, 50 (82%) were treated with anti-angiogenic (AA) and 11 with mTOR inhibitors. Median TTF and OS in patients receiving a first line of AA was 8.7 months (95% CI: 5.2–10.9) and 22.9 months (95% CI: 17.8–49.2) versus 1.9 months (95% CI: 1.0–6.0) and 3.2 months (95% CI: 2.3–not evaluable) with mTOR inhibitors, respectively. A stratified log-rank test was used to compare AA and mTOR inhibitors TT, while controlling the effect of the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk group and no significant difference between AA and mTOR inhibitors was observed for TTF (p = 0.26) or for OS (p = 0.55). Conclusion: We report the largest retrospective cohort of patients with mChRCC treated with TT and no significant difference between AA and mTOR inhibitors was observed for TTF and OS

Metastatic chromophobe renal cell carcinoma treated with targeted therapies: A Renal Cross Channel Group study

$\textbf{Background}$ Treatment of non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains controversial despite several recent prospective studies of targeted therapies (TT). Often Vascular Endothelial growth Factor (VEGF) and Mammalian Target of Rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors are used, extrapolating the data from use of these agents in clear cell RCC. $\textbf{Methods}$ We performed a retrospective data analysis within the Renal Cross Channel Group to determine metastatic chromophobe RCC (mChRCC) outcomes in the TT era. The end-points were overall response, overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF). The two latter were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. $\textbf{Results}$ 91 mChRCC patients from 26 centres were included. Median follow-up from the date of first metastasis was 6.1 years (range: 0–13.9). Median OS was 37.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.4–46.8) from the diagnosis of metastatic disease. Among the 61 patients who received TT, 50 (82%) were treated with anti-angiogenic (AA) and 11 with mTOR inhibitors. Median TTF and OS in patients receiving a first line of AA was 8.7 months (95% CI: 5.2–10.9) and 22.9 months (95% CI: 17.8–49.2) versus 1.9 months (95% CI: 1.0–6.0) and 3.2 months (95% CI: 2.3–not evaluable) with mTOR inhibitors, respectively. A stratified log-rank test was used to compare AA and mTOR inhibitors TT, while controlling the effect of the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk group and no significant difference between AA and mTOR inhibitors was observed for TTF (p = 0.26) or for OS (p = 0.55). $\textbf{Conclusion}$ We report the largest retrospective cohort of patients with mChRCC treated with TT and no significant difference between AA and mTOR inhibitors was observed for TTF and OS

Physical therapies as an adjunct to Botulinum toxin-A injection of the upper or lower limb in adults following neurological impairment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Spasticity of muscles is a common consequence of central nervous system impairment. Traditionally, neurological rehabilitation for spasticity has involved occupational and physical therapy; however, increasingly Botulinum toxin–A injections may be provided. Injection effects are temporary. Consequently, understanding the effect of adjunct physical therapies will help inform multimodal rehabilitation decisions. Presently, these effects are not known. This systematic review will identify and summarize evidence on physical therapies used after Botulinum toxin-A injection to improve motor function in adults with neurological impairments.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>Systematic searching of seven electronic databases will occur to identify relevant randomized trials. Available trial data will be extracted into a list of pre-defined primary outcomes, including range of movement, spasticity and functional limb use. Pre-defined secondary outcomes will also be reviewed where trials have these data available for reporting. Effects will be expressed as mean differences or standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, comparable results will be meta-analyzed, and a summary of the available pool of evidence produced.</p> <p>All randomized controlled trials will be rated using the PEDro methodological quality scale. Where possible, study data will be meta-analyzed using RevMan 5 Software. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO international prosepective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO 2011:CRD42011001491).</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Review results will be the most comprehensive answer available to the following question: Are physical therapies clinically effective after Botulinum toxin-A injections in adults with neurological spasticity? Results will inform healthcare providers and managers who determine who gets access to and provision of Botulinum toxin-A injection and whether this is done with or without physical therapies. Results will inform the clinicians who conduct physical therapy following injection. This protocol provides readers with the scope and depth of a search that will ultimately answer a complex and pressing treatment question. The variability of current practice and high level of expense associated with multimodal rehabilitation means review results will be more useful and less contestable if the protocol is revealed in full through advance publication.</p

Improvement of the Van Lieshout hand function test for tetraplegia using a Rasch analysis.

Item does not contain fulltextSTUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: The Van Lieshout hand function test for tetraplegia (VLT) measures the quality of arm-hand functioning in persons with tetraplegia. It is valid, reliable and responsive. However, it does not satisfy all the criteria for interval level measurement. The present study aims to apply the Rasch model to the VLT short form (VLT-SF) to upgrade its scale type towards interval level, and to verify if the requirements of an objective measure are satisfied in the revised version. SETTING: Eight Dutch Rehabilitation centres. METHODS: The VLT-SF data of 73 tetraplegic patients were Rasch-analysed (RUMM2030 software, RUMM Laboratory Pty Ltd, Perth, Australia) to verify the order of response categories, unidimensionality and reliability of the VLT-SF, and to assess its applicability regardless of (motor) lesion completeness. RESULTS: Seven of the ten VLT-SF items showed disordered response categories. The six original response categories were therefore recoded into three or four categories. After recoding, all items satisfied the model requirement of unidimensionality. The items were relatively well-targeted on the subjects' arm-hand skilled performance measures, leading to a good person separation index (R=0.91). The difficulty hierarchy of the VLT-SF items was invariant across patient subgroups of (motor) lesion completeness. CONCLUSIONS: Provided that response categories are recoded, VLT-SF Rasch analysis showed that the requirements of an objective measure were satisfied. This allows to compare the measurements of different patients quantitatively, and to follow their results over time.1 oktober 201