Phase II study of irinotecan in combination with temozolomide (TEMIRI) in children with recurrent or refractory medulloblastoma: a joint ITCC and SIOPE brain tumor study

BackgroundThis multicenter phase II study investigated temozolomide + irinotecan (TEMIRI) treatment in children with relapsed or refractory medulloblastoma.MethodsPatients received temozolomide 100–125 mg/m2/day (days 1–5) and irinotecan 10 mg/m2/day (days 1–5 and 8–12) every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was tumor response within the first 4 cycles confirmed ≥4 weeks and assessed by an external response review committee (ERRC). In a 2-stage Optimum Simon design, ≥6 responses in the first 15 evaluable patients were required within the first 4 cycles for continued enrollment; a total of 19 responses from the first 46 evaluable patients was considered successful.ResultsSixty-six patients were treated. Seven responses were recorded during stage 1 and 15 in the first 46 ERRC evaluated patients (2 complete responses and 13 partial responses). The objective response rate during the first 4 cycles was 32.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.5%–48.0%). Median duration of response was 27.0 weeks (7.7–44.1 wk). In 63 patients evaluated by local investigators, the objective response rate was 33.3% (95% CI, 22.0%–46.3%), and 68.3% (95% CI, 55.3%–79.4%) experienced clinical benefit. Median survival was 16.7 months (95% CI, 13.3–19.8). The most common grade 3 treatment-related nonhematologic adverse event was diarrhea (7.6%). Grade 3/4 treatment-related hematologic adverse events included neutropenia (16.7%), thrombocytopenia (12.1%), anemia (9.1%), and lymphopenia (9%).ConclusionsThe planned study primary endpoint was not met. However, its tolerability makes TEMIRI a suitable candidate chemotherapy backbone for molecularly targeted agents in future trials in this setting

Sponge spicules as blueprints for the biofabrication of inorganic–organic composites and biomaterials

While most forms of multicellular life have developed a calcium-based skeleton, a few specialized organisms complement their body plan with silica. However, of all recent animals, only sponges (phylum Porifera) are able to polymerize silica enzymatically mediated in order to generate massive siliceous skeletal elements (spicules) during a unique reaction, at ambient temperature and pressure. During this biomineralization process (i.e., biosilicification) hydrated, amorphous silica is deposited within highly specialized sponge cells, ultimately resulting in structures that range in size from micrometers to meters. Spicules lend structural stability to the sponge body, deter predators, and transmit light similar to optic fibers. This peculiar phenomenon has been comprehensively studied in recent years and in several approaches, the molecular background was explored to create tools that might be employed for novel bioinspired biotechnological and biomedical applications. Thus, it was discovered that spiculogenesis is mediated by the enzyme silicatein and starts intracellularly. The resulting silica nanoparticles fuse and subsequently form concentric lamellar layers around a central protein filament, consisting of silicatein and the scaffold protein silintaphin-1. Once the growing spicule is extruded into the extracellular space, it obtains final size and shape. Again, this process is mediated by silicatein and silintaphin-1, in combination with other molecules such as galectin and collagen. The molecular toolbox generated so far allows the fabrication of novel micro- and nanostructured composites, contributing to the economical and sustainable synthesis of biomaterials with unique characteristics. In this context, first bioinspired approaches implement recombinant silicatein and silintaphin-1 for applications in the field of biomedicine (biosilica-mediated regeneration of tooth and bone defects) or micro-optics (in vitro synthesis of light waveguides) with promising results

From sea monsters to charismatic megafauna: changes in perception and use of large marine animals

Marine megafauna has always elicited contrasting feelings. In the past, large marine animals were often depicted as fantastic mythological creatures and dangerous monsters, while also arousing human curiosity. Marine megafauna has been a valuable resource to exploit, leading to the collapse of populations and local extinctions. In addition, some species have been perceived as competitors of fishers for marine resources and were often actively culled. Since the 1970s, there has been a change in the perception and use of megafauna. The growth of marine tourism, increasingly oriented towards the observation of wildlife, has driven a shift from extractive to non-extractive use, supporting the conservation of at least some species of marine megafauna. In this paper, we review and compare the changes in the perception and use of three megafaunal groups, cetaceans, elasmobranchs and groupers, with a special focus on European cultures. We highlight the main drivers and the timing of these changes, compare different taxonomic groups and species, and highlight the implications for management and conservation. One of the main drivers of the shift in perception, shared by all the three groups of megafauna, has been a general increase in curiosity towards wildlife, stimulated inter alia by documentaries (from the early 1970s onwards), and also promoted by easy access to scuba diving. At the same time, environmental campaigns have been developed to raise public awareness regarding marine wildlife, especially cetaceans, a process greatly facilitated by the rise of Internet and the World Wide Web. Currently, all the three groups (cetaceans, elasmobranchs and groupers) may represent valuable resources for ecotourism. Strikingly, the economic value of live specimens may exceed their value for human consumption. A further change in perception involving all the three groups is related to a growing understanding and appreciation of their key ecological role. The shift from extractive to non-extractive use has the potential for promoting species conservation and local economic growth. However, the change in use may not benefit the original stakeholders (e.g. fishers or whalers) and there may therefore be a case for providing compensation for disadvantaged stakeholders. Moreover, it is increasingly clear that even non-extractive use may have a negative impact on marine megafauna, therefore regulations are needed.SFRH/BPD/102494/2014, UID/MAR/04292/2019, IS1403info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio