Tumour heterogeneity: principles and practical consequences

Two major reasons compel us to study tumour heterogeneity: firstly, it represents the basis of acquired therapy resistance, and secondly it may be one of the major sources of the low level of reproducibility in clinical cancer research. The present review focuses on the heterogeneity of neoplastic disease, both within the primary tumour, and between primary tumour and metastases. We discuss different levels of heterogeneity and the current understanding of the phenomenon, as well as imminent developments relevant for clinical research and diagnostic pathology. It is necessary to develop new tools to study heterogeneity and new biomarkers for heterogeneity. Established and new in situ methods will be very useful. In future studies, not only clonal heterogeneity needs to be addressed, but also non-clonal phenotypic heterogeneity which might be important for therapy resistance. We also review heterogeneity established in major tumour types, in order to explore potential similarities that might help to define new strategies for targeted therapy

Assessment for complex learning resources: Development and validation of an integrated model

Today's e-learning systems meet the challenge to provide interactive, personalized environments that support self-regulated learning as well as social collaboration and simulation. At the same time assessment procedures have to be adapted to the new learning environments by moving from isolated summative assessments to integrated assessment forms. Therefore, learning experiences enriched with complex didactic resources - such as virtualized collaborations and serious games - have emerged. In this extension of [1] an integrated model for e-assessment (IMA) is outlined, which incorporates complex learning resources and assessment forms as main components for the development of an enriched learning experience. For a validation the IMA was presented to a group of experts from the fields of cognitive science, pedagogy, and e-learning. The findings from the validation lead to several refinements of the model, which mainly concern the component forms of assessment and the integration of social aspects. Both aspects are accounted for in the revised model, the former by providing a detailed sub-model for assessment forms

Valor terapéutico añadido de los nuevos medicamentos aprobados en Brasil desde 2004 a 2016

O objetivo foi avaliar o nível de inovação terapêutica de novos medicamentos aprovados no Brasil ao longo de 13 anos e se eles atendem a necessidades de saúde pública. Foi feita uma análise comparativa descritiva da avaliação de valor terapêutico realizada pela Câmara de Regulação do Mercado de Medicamentos (CMED) e pelo boletim de medicamentos francês Prescrire para novos medicamentos licenciados no Brasil entre 1º de janeiro de 2004 e 31 de dezembro de 2016. Examinamos em que medida os novos medicamentos atendem a necessidade de saúde pública por meio de: checagem da inclusão em listas de medicamentos financiados pelo governo e/ou diretrizes clínicas; comparação de códigos da Classificação Anatômica Terapêutica Química (ATC, em inglês) e indicações de medicamentos com a lista de condições que mais contribuem para a carga de doença nacional; e avaliação de se os novos medicamentos tinham por objetivo tratar doenças negligenciadas. Foram aprovados 253 novos medicamentos. Antineoplásicos, imunossupressores, antidiabéticos e antivirais foram os mais frequentes. Trinta e três (14%) dos 236 medicamentos avaliados pela Câmara brasileira e 16 (8,2%) dos 195 avaliados pelo boletim francês Prescrire foram considerados inovadores. Trinta e seis medicamentos (14,2%) foram selecionados para cobertura no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), sete dos quais eram inovadores do ponto de vista terapêutico e nenhum dos quais tinha por objetivo tratar uma doença negligenciada. Em torno de 1/3 dos medicamentos aprovados tinha por objetivo o tratamento de doenças que figuram entre as principais contribuidoras da carga de doença no Brasil. Poucos medicamentos inovadores do ponto de vista terapêutico entraram no mercado brasileiro, dos quais apenas uma pequena proporção foi aprovada para ser coberta pelo SUS. Nossos resultados sugerem uma divergência entre necessidades de saúde pública, pesquisa e desenvolvimento (P&D) e procedimentos de licenciamento de medicamentos.This study aimed to assess the level of therapeutic innovation of new drugs approved in Brazil over 13 years and whether they met public health needs. Comparative descriptive analysis of therapeutic value assessments performed by the Brazilian Chamber of Drug Market Regulation (CMED) and the French drug bulletin Prescrire for new drugs licensed in Brazil, from January 1st 2004 to December 31st 2016. The extent to which new drugs met public health needs was examined by: checking inclusions into government-funded drug lists and/or clinical guidelines; comparing Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification (ATC) codes and drug indications with the list of conditions contributing the most to the national disease burden; and assessing new medicines aimed to treat neglected diseases. 253 new drugs were approved. Antineoplastics, immunossupressants, antidiabetics and antivirals were the most frequent. Thirty-three (14%) out of 236 drugs assessed by the Brazilian chamber and sixteen (8.2%) out of 195 assessed by the French bulletin Prescrire were considered innovative. Thirty-six drugs (14.2%) were selected for coverage by the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS), seven of which were therapeutically innovative, and none were aimed to treat neglected disease. About 1/3 of the drugs approved aimed to treat conditions among the top contributors to Brazil’s disease burden. Few therapeutically innovative drugs entered the Brazilian market, from which only a small proportion was approved to be covered by the SUS. Our findings suggest a divergence between public health needs, research & development (R&D) and drug licensing procedures.El objetivo fue evaluar el nivel de innovación terapéutica de los nuevos medicamentos aprobados en Brasil durante 13 años y si cumplen con las necesidades sanitarias. Llevamos a cabo un análisis comparativo descriptivo acerca del valor terapéutico presente en las evaluaciones realizadas por la Cámara de Regulación del Mercado de Medicamentos (CMED) y la revista francesa Prescrire sobre los nuevos medicamentos autorizados en Brasil, desde el 1º de enero 2004 hasta el 31de diciembre de 2016. Su alcance, es decir, hasta qué punto los nuevos medicamentos cumplían con las necesidades de salud pública se comprobaron revisando las inclusiones en listas de medicamentos subvencionados por el gobierno y/o directrices clínicas; comparando los códigos de la Classificación Anatómicos Terapéuticos Químicos (ATC por sus siglas en inglés) y las indicaciones de los medicamentos respecto a la lista de enfermedades que contribuían a la mayor carga de morbilidad nacional; y asesorando si los nuevos medicamentos tenían como objetivo tratar enfermedades desatendidas. Se aprobaron 253 nuevos medicamentos. Los antineoplásicos, inmunosupresores, antidiabéticos y antivirales fueron los más frecuentes. Treinta y tres (14%), aparte de los 236 medicamentos evaluados por la Cámara Brasileña, y 16 (8,2%), aparte de los 195 evaluados por la revista francesa Prescrire, se consideraron innovadores. Treinta y seis medicamentos (14,2%) se seleccionaron para que tuvieran cobertura por el Sistema Único de Salud (SUS), siete de ellos eran terapéuticamente innovadores, y ninguno tenía como meta tratar enfermedades desatendidas. Alrededor de 1/3 de las medicinas aprobadas tenían como meta tratar problemas de salud entre las enfermedades con mayor carga de morbilidad en Brasil. Pocos medicamentos terapéuticamente innovadores accedieron al mercado brasileño y de éstos sólo una pequeña parte fueron aprobados para que fueran cubiertos por el SUS. Nuestros resultados sugieren una divergencia entre las necesidades públicas de salud, investigación & desarrollo (I&D) y los procedimientos para la autorización de medicamentos

Fibers are not (P)Threads: The Case for Loose Coupling of Asynchronous Programming Models and MPI Through Continuations

Asynchronous programming models (APM) are gaining more and more traction, allowing applications to expose the available concurrency to a runtime system tasked with coordinating the execution. While MPI has long provided support for multi-threaded communication and non-blocking operations, it falls short of adequately supporting APMs as correctly and efficiently handling MPI communication in different models is still a challenge. Meanwhile, new low-level implementations of light-weight, cooperatively scheduled execution contexts (fibers, aka user-level threads (ULT)) are meant to serve as a basis for higher-level APMs and their integration in MPI implementations has been proposed as a replacement for traditional POSIX thread support to alleviate these challenges. In this paper, we first establish a taxonomy in an attempt to clearly distinguish different concepts in the parallel software stack. We argue that the proposed tight integration of fiber implementations with MPI is neither warranted nor beneficial and instead is detrimental to the goal of MPI being a portable communication abstraction. We propose MPI Continuations as an extension to the MPI standard to provide callback-based notifications on completed operations, leading to a clear separation of concerns by providing a loose coupling mechanism between MPI and APMs. We show that this interface is flexible and interacts well with different APMs, namely OpenMP detached tasks, OmpSs-2, and Argobots.Comment: 12 pages, 7 figures Published in proceedings of EuroMPI/USA '20, September 21-24, 2020, Austin, TX, US

Increased neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio is a poor prognostic factor in patients with primary operable and inoperable pancreatic cancer

Background: The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been proposed as an indicator of systemic inflammatory response. Previous findings from small-scale studies revealed conflicting results about its independent prognostic significance with regard to different clinical end points in pancreatic cancer (PC) patients. Therefore, the aim of our study was the external validation of the prognostic significance of NLR in a large cohort of PC patients. Methods: Data from 371 consecutive PC patients, treated between 2004 and 2010 at a single centre, were evaluated retrospectively. The whole cohort was stratified into two groups according to the treatment modality. Group 1 comprised 261 patients with inoperable PC at diagnosis and group 2 comprised 110 patients with surgically resected PC. Cancer-specific survival (CSS) was assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method. To evaluate the independent prognostic significance of the NLR, the modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS) and the platelet-lymphocyte ratio univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were applied. Results: Multivariate analysis identified increased NLR as an independent prognostic factor for inoperable PC patients (hazard ratio (HR)=2.53, confidence interval (CI)=1.64–3.91, P<0.001) and surgically resected PC patients (HR=1.61, CI=1.02–2.53, P=0.039). In inoperable PC patients, the mGPS was associated with poor CSS only in univariate analysis (HR=1.44, CI=1.04–1.98). Conclusion: Risk prediction for cancer-related end points using NLR does add independent prognostic information to other well-established prognostic factors in patients with PC, regardless of the undergoing therapeutic modality. Thus, the NLR should be considered for future individual risk assessment in patients with PC