Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 1: a framework for researching clinical outcomes.

The PROGRESS series (www.progress-partnership.org) sets out a framework of four interlinked prognosis research themes and provides examples from several disease fields to show why evidence from prognosis research is crucial to inform all points in the translation of biomedical and health related research into better patient outcomes. Recommendations are made in each of the four papers to improve current research standards What is prognosis research? Prognosis research seeks to understand and improve future outcomes in people with a given disease or health condition. However, there is increasing evidence that prognosis research standards need to be improved Why is prognosis research important? More people now live with disease and conditions that impair health than at any other time in history; prognosis research provides crucial evidence for translating findings from the laboratory to humans, and from clinical research to clinical practice This first article introduces the framework of four interlinked prognosis research themes and then focuses on the first of the themes - fundamental prognosis research, studies that aim to describe and explain future outcomes in relation to current diagnostic and treatment practices, often in relation to quality of care Fundamental prognosis research provides evidence informing healthcare and public health policy, the design and interpretation of randomised trials, and the impact of diagnostic tests on future outcome. It can inform new definitions of disease, may identify unanticipated benefits or harms of interventions, and clarify where new interventions are required to improve prognosis

Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 4: Stratified medicine research

In patients with a particular disease or health condition, stratified medicine seeks to identify thosewho will have the most clinical benefit or least harm from a specific treatment. In this article, thefourth in the PROGRESS series, the authors discuss why prognosis research should form acornerstone of stratified medicine, especially in regard to the identification of factors that predictindividual treatment respons

Prognostic markers in cancer: the evolution of evidence from single studies to meta-analysis, and beyond

In oncology, prognostic markers are clinical measures used to help elicit an individual patient's risk of a future outcome, such as recurrence of disease after primary treatment. They thus facilitate individual treatment choice and aid in patient counselling. Evidence-based results regarding prognostic markers are therefore very important to both clinicians and their patients. However, there is increasing awareness that prognostic marker studies have been neglected in the drive to improve medical research. Large protocol-driven, prospective studies are the ideal, with appropriate statistical analysis and clear, unbiased reporting of the methods used and the results obtained. Unfortunately, published prognostic studies rarely meet such standards, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses are often only able to draw attention to the paucity of good-quality evidence. We discuss how better-quality prognostic marker evidence can evolve over time from initial exploratory studies, to large protocol-driven primary studies, and then to meta-analysis or even beyond, to large prospectively planned pooled analyses and to the initiation of tumour banks. We highlight articles that facilitate each stage of this process, and that promote current guidelines aimed at improving the design, analysis, and reporting of prognostic marker research. We also outline why collaborative, multi-centre, and multi-disciplinary teams should be an essential part of future studies

Clinical features and presentation of cervicofacial infection : a maxillofacial trainee research collaborative (MTReC) study

Introduction Cervicofacial infection (CFI) is a common presentation to the Oral and Maxillofacial (OMFS) department and accounts for significant emergency activity. The current study aims to understand the aetiology, management and clinical features of patients hospitalised with CFI. Methods Our study included all patients admitted for management of CFI from May to October 2017 at 25 OMFS units across 17 UK regions. Data were collected prospectively and included age, comorbidities, prior treatment received, markers of sepsis and presenting clinical features. Results One thousand and two (1002) admissions were recorded; 546 (54.5%) were male. Median age was 34 years (1-94 years). The most common presenting complaints were trismus (46%) and dysphagia (27%). Airway compromise was present in 1.7% of cases. Odontogenic infection accounted for 822/1002 (82%) admissions. Of those with an infection of odontogenic origin, 453/822 (55.1%) had received previous treatment. Two-thirds of those who had received treatment were managed by antibiotics alone (300/453, 66.2%) Patients met criteria for sepsis in 437/1002 (43.6%) of CFI, and in 374/822 (45.5%) of odontogenic infections. Conclusion This is the largest study worldwide of patients requiring inpatient management for CFI. Infection due to odontogenic origin is the most frequent reason for admission and nearly half do not seek treatment before presentation. Patients with CFI often present late in their disease and frequently meet criteria for sepsis, requiring timely and aggressive treatment to ensure optimum outcomes. Trismus is an emerging dominant feature with all the implications related to the anaesthetic management of these patients. Knowledge of these factors has implications for the referrer, triage, the emergency department, the anaesthetic team and members of the OMFS team

Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate

BACKGROUND: Sharing research data provides benefit to the general scientific community, but the benefit is less obvious for the investigator who makes his or her data available. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We examined the citation history of 85 cancer microarray clinical trial publications with respect to the availability of their data. The 48% of trials with publicly available microarray data received 85% of the aggregate citations. Publicly available data was significantly (p = 0.006) associated with a 69% increase in citations, independently of journal impact factor, date of publication, and author country of origin using linear regression. SIGNIFICANCE: This correlation between publicly available data and increased literature impact may further motivate investigators to share their detailed research data

Assessment of angiogenesis by CD105 antigen in epithelial salivary gland neoplasms with diverse metastatic behavior

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Information on the biology of metastasis development in salivary gland tumors is scarce. Since angiogenesis seems associated with this phenomenon in other tumors, we sought to compare salivary gland tumors with diverse metastatic behavior in order to improve the knowledge and management of these lesions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Samples from the most important salivary gland tumors were segregated according to its metastatic behavior and submitted to routine immunohistochemistry to identify vessels positive for CD105 expression. Frequency of positive cases and intratumoral microvessel density (IMD) was compared among the group of lesions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>CD105 positive vessels were absent in normal salivary gland tissue, were rare in pleomorphic adenomas and adenoid cystic carcinomas (ACC), more common in polymorphous low-grade adenocarcinomas and highest in mucoepidermoid carcinomas. Only ACC with such feature were metastatic. IMD was higher in malignant rather than benign tumors.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Immunostaining of CD105 in salivary gland tumors implies participation of angiogenesis in the development of malignant lesions, as well as some role for myoepithelial cells in the control of new vessel formation. In addition, suggest that ACC with positive CD105 vessels are at higher risk for metastasis.</p

How useful is the assessment of lymphatic vascular density in oral carcinoma prognosis?

Abstract Background Lymphatic vessels are major routes for metastasis in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), but lymphatic endothelial cells (LECs) are difficult to recognize in tumor histological sections. D2-40 stains podoplanin, a molecule expressed in LECs, however, the potential prognostic usefulness of this molecule is not completely understood in HNSCC. We aimed to investigate the value of assessing peritumoral and intratumoral lymphatic vessel density (LVD) as prognostic marker for HNSCC. Methods Thirty-one cases of HNSCC were stained for D2-40 and CD31. LVD and blood vessel density (BVD) were assessed by counting positive reactions in 10 hotspot areas at ×200 magnification. Results D2-40 was specific for lymphatic vessels and did not stain blood vascular endothelial cells. LECs showed more tortuous and disorganized structure in intratumoral lymphatic vessels than in peritumoral ones. No statistical differences were observed between peritumoral-LVD and intratumoral-LVD or between peritumoral-BVD and intratumoral-BVD. Tumor D2-40 staining was positively associated with lymphatic vessel invasion (p = 0.011). Conclusion LVD is a powerful marker for HNSCC prognosis. We found significant differences in peritumoral and intratumoral D2-40 immunoreactivity, which could have important implications in future therapeutic strategies and outcome evaluation

Poor prognostic clinicopathologic features correlate with VEGF expression but not with PTEN expression in squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and phosphatase and tensin homolog deleted in chromosome ten (PTEN), angiogenesis and clinicopathological parameters of squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We examined immunohistochemical expression of VEGF and PTEN and CD34 for microvessel density (MVD) in sections of formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded tissue blocks of 140 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx. The intensity of VEGF and PTEN staining and the proportion of cells staining were scored.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The tumor grade was not significantly related to PTEN expression, but it was to VEGF expression (p = 0.400; p = 0.015, respectively). While there was no significant relationship between PTEN expression and tumor size and cartilage invasion (p = 0.311, p = 0.128), there was a significant relationship between the severity of VEGF expression and tumor size (p = 0.006) and lymph node metastasis (p = 0.048) but not cartilage invasion (p = 0.129). MVD was significantly higher in high-grade tumors (p = 0.003) but had no significant relationship between MVD, lymph node metastasis, and cartilage invasion (p = 0.815, p = 0.204). There was also no significant relationship between PTEN and VEGF expression (p = 0.161) and between PTEN and VEGF expression and the MVD (p = 0.120 and p = 0.175, respectively).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Increased VEGF expression may play an important role in the outcome of squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx. PTEN expression was not related to VEGF expression and clinicopathological features of squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx.</p

Overview of data-synthesis in systematic reviews of studies on outcome prediction models

Background: Many prognostic models have been developed. Different types of models, i.e. prognostic factor and outcome prediction studies, serve different purposes, which should be reflected in how the results are summarized in reviews. Therefore we set out to investigate how authors of reviews synthesize and report the results of primary outcome prediction studies. Methods: Outcome prediction reviews published in MEDLINE between October 2005 and March 2011 were eligible and 127 Systematic reviews with the aim to summarize outcome prediction studies written in English were identified for inclusion. Characteristics of the reviews and the primary studies that were included were independently assessed by 2 review authors, using standardized forms. Results: After consensus meetings a total of 50 systematic reviews that met the inclusion criteria were included. The type of primary studies included (prognostic factor or outcome prediction) was unclear in two-thirds of the reviews. A minority of the reviews reported univariable or multivariable point estimates and measures of dispersion from the primary studies. Moreover, the variables considered for outcome prediction model development were often not reported, or were unclear. In most reviews there was no information about model performance. Quantitative analysis was performed in 10 reviews, and 49 reviews assessed the primary studies qualitatively. In both analyses types a range of different methods was used to present the results of the outcome prediction studies. Conclusions: Different methods are applied to synthesize primary study results but quantitative analysis is rarely performed. The description of its objectives and of the primary studies is suboptimal and performance parameters of the outcome prediction models are rarely mentioned. The poor reporting and the wide variety of data synthesis strategies are prone to influence the conclusions of outcome prediction reviews. Therefore, there is much room for improvement in reviews of outcome prediction studies. (aut.ref.