Evaluation of factors leading to poor outcomes for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Mexico: a multi-institutional report of 2,116 patients

Background and aimsPediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) survival rates in low- and middle-income countries are lower due to deficiencies in multilevel factors, including access to timely diagnosis, risk-stratified therapy, and comprehensive supportive care. This retrospective study aimed to analyze outcomes for pediatric ALL at 16 centers in Mexico.MethodsPatients <18 years of age with newly diagnosed B- and T-cell ALL treated between January 2011 and December 2019 were included. Clinical and biological characteristics and their association with outcomes were examined.ResultsOverall, 2,116 patients with a median age of 6.3 years were included. B-cell immunophenotype was identified in 1,889 (89.3%) patients. The median white blood cells at diagnosis were 11.2.5 × 103/mm3. CNS-1 status was reported in 1,810 (85.5%), CNS-2 in 67 (3.2%), and CNS-3 in 61 (2.9%). A total of 1,488 patients (70.4%) were classified as high-risk at diagnosis. However, in 52.5% (991/1,889) of patients with B-cell ALL, the reported risk group did not match the calculated risk group allocation based on National Cancer Institute (NCI) criteria. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and PCR tests were performed for 407 (19.2%) and 736 (34.8%) patients, respectively. Minimal residual disease (MRD) during induction was performed in 1,158 patients (54.7%). The median follow-up was 3.7 years. During induction, 191 patients died (9.1%), and 45 patients (2.1%) experienced induction failure. A total of 365 deaths (17.3%) occurred, including 174 deaths after remission. Six percent (176) of patients abandoned treatment. The 5-year event-free survival (EFS) was 58.9% ± 1.7% for B-cell ALL and 47.4% ± 5.9% for T-cell ALL, while the 5-year overall survival (OS) was 67.5% ± 1.6% for B-cell ALL and 54.3% ± 0.6% for T-cell ALL. The 5-year cumulative incidence of central nervous system (CNS) relapse was 5.5% ± 0.6%. For the whole cohort, significantly higher outcomes were seen for patients aged 1–10 years, with DNA index >0.9, with hyperdiploid ALL, and without substantial treatment modifications. In multivariable analyses, age and Day 15 MRD continued to have a significant effect on EFS.ConclusionOutcomes in this multi-institutional cohort describe poor outcomes, influenced by incomplete and inconsistent risk stratification, early toxic death, high on-treatment mortality, and high CNS relapse rate. Adopting comprehensive risk-stratification strategies, evidence-informed de-intensification for favorable-risk patients and optimized supportive care could improve outcomes

Los círculos de lectura como estrategia para mejorar las habilidades de comprensión lectora en la asignatura de español con los alumnos de quinto grado de primaria

En este proyecto de intervención se describe el trabajo realizado con los alumnos del quinto grado de la Escuela Primaria Niños Héroes ubicada en Tenancingo, Estado de México, el cual se llevó a cabo con la participación de 17 alumnos, que en base a un diagnóstico realizado mostraban deficiencias en sus habilidades de comprensión lectora, lo que les impedía tener un desempeño óptimo en el grado que cursaban. El objetivo del proyecto es que los alumnos del quinto grado mejoren las habilidades de comprensión lectora mediante la estrategia de los círculos de lectura por lo que se realizaron actividades diversas que describían de manera implícita la habilidad que se pretendía desarrollar en el alumno, mostrando un avance gradual en sus resultados que se muestran y analizan de manera detallada en el informe de resultados. En dicho análisis se muestra cómo el llevar a la práctica este tipo de estrategia hace que se incrementa el interés del alumno y eso a su vez trae por consecuencia una mejora en sus habilidades de comprensión que son predicción, inferencia y síntesis

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field