Gene expression profiling of mucinous ovarian tumors and comparison with upper and lower gastrointestinal tumors identifies markers associated with adverse outcomes.

PURPOSE: Advanced-stage mucinous ovarian carcinoma (MOC) has poor chemotherapy response and prognosis and lacks biomarkers to aid stage I adjuvant treatment. Differentiating primary MOC from gastrointestinal (GI) metastases to the ovary is also challenging due to phenotypic similarities. Clinicopathologic and gene-expression data were analyzed to identify prognostic and diagnostic features. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Discovery analyses selected 19 genes with prognostic/diagnostic potential. Validation was performed through the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium and GI cancer biobanks comprising 604 patients with MOC (n = 333), mucinous borderline ovarian tumors (MBOT, n = 151), and upper GI (n = 65) and lower GI tumors (n = 55). RESULTS: Infiltrative pattern of invasion was associated with decreased overall survival (OS) within 2 years from diagnosis, compared with expansile pattern in stage I MOC [hazard ratio (HR), 2.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04–7.41, P = 0.042]. Increased expression of THBS2 and TAGLN was associated with shorter OS in MOC patients (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04–1.51, P = 0.016) and (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01–1.45, P = 0.043), respectively. ERBB2 (HER2) amplification or high mRNA expression was evident in 64 of 243 (26%) of MOCs, but only 8 of 243 (3%) were also infiltrative (4/39, 10%) or stage III/IV (4/31, 13%). CONCLUSIONS: An infiltrative growth pattern infers poor prognosis within 2 years from diagnosis and may help select stage I patients for adjuvant therapy. High expression of THBS2 and TAGLN in MOC confers an adverse prognosis and is upregulated in the infiltrative subtype, which warrants further investigation. Anti-HER2 therapy should be investigated in a subset of patients. MOC samples clustered with upper GI, yet markers to differentiate these entities remain elusive, suggesting similar underlying biology and shared treatment strategies

A historical study in educational journalism: The Educational Review , 1891-1919

Nicholas Murray Butler founded and edited the Educational Review during a critical period of school reform. Dramatic changes were occurring at all levels of education. The academic journal emerged as one of the most important vehicles of communication to convey the reforms and the arguments for and against them. The Review became a leading journal by providing a forum for the discussion of philosophies of education and for representing higher education in the reform efforts. This historical study of the Review is confined to the years Butler, an influential figure in education, edited the journal. The study is limited to the perspective of the journal, augmented by the Butler Papers at Columbia University. While the administration of the journal, which became a leading standard for its contemporaries, is presented, the essence of this study concerns its editorial contents. Butler founded the journal primarily to advance the scientific study of education and the professionalization of the teaching field. The need for a philosophical and community foundation for educational reform, as it is presented in the journal, comprises a major section of this study. The role of the Review in reform efforts, which is examined, centered on advancing the scientific study of education. Professionalization of teaching complemented this effort and is the third major segment of this study. In fulfilling its reasons for existence, the editorial life of the Review was found to be one of tension. Tension existed between the traditional approach to education and the new progressive schooling movement. Within the progressive effort, further tension existed between the two directions reform were taking; these consisted of philosophy controlling scientific investigation, represented by John Dewey, and the scientific spirit dominating philosophy, represented by Edward Thorndike. Although Butler sided with the traditionalist stance for the most part, this study concludes that the Review eventually sided with the yardstick approach to education advanced by Thorndike. The demise of the journal was hastened by Butler\u27s ignoring the Cardinal Principles Report and by his lack of leadership in continuing the traditionalists\u27 viewpoints