Preoperative relative cerebral blood volume analysis in gliomas predicts survival and mitigates risk of biopsy sampling error.

Appropriate management of adult gliomas requires an accurate histopathological diagnosis. However, the heterogeneity of gliomas can lead to misdiagnosis and undergrading, especially with biopsy. We evaluated the role of preoperative relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) analysis in conjunction with histopathological analysis as a predictor of overall survival and risk of undergrading. We retrospectively identified 146 patients with newly diagnosed gliomas (WHO grade II-IV) that had undergone preoperative MRI with rCBV analysis. We compared overall survival by histopathologically determined WHO tumor grade and by rCBV using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and the Cox proportional hazards model. We also compared preoperative imaging findings and initial histopathological diagnosis in 13 patients who underwent biopsy followed by subsequent resection. Survival curves by WHO grade and rCBV tier similarly separated patients into low, intermediate, and high-risk groups with shorter survival corresponding to higher grade or rCBV tier. The hazard ratio for WHO grade III versus II was 3.91 (p = 0.018) and for grade IV versus II was 11.26 (p \u3c 0.0001) and the hazard ratio for each increase in 1.0 rCBV units was 1.12 (p \u3c 0.002). Additionally, 3 of 13 (23%) patients initially diagnosed by biopsy were upgraded on subsequent resection. Preoperative rCBV was elevated at least one standard deviation above the mean in the 3 upgraded patients, suggestive of undergrading, but not in the ten concordant diagnoses. In conclusion, rCBV can predict overall survival similarly to pathologically determined WHO grade in patients with gliomas. Discordant rCBV analysis and histopathology may help identify patients at higher risk for undergrading

An anatomic transcriptional atlas of human glioblastoma.

Glioblastoma is an aggressive brain tumor that carries a poor prognosis. The tumor\u27s molecular and cellular landscapes are complex, and their relationships to histologic features routinely used for diagnosis are unclear. We present the Ivy Glioblastoma Atlas, an anatomically based transcriptional atlas of human glioblastoma that aligns individual histologic features with genomic alterations and gene expression patterns, thus assigning molecular information to the most important morphologic hallmarks of the tumor. The atlas and its clinical and genomic database are freely accessible online data resources that will serve as a valuable platform for future investigations of glioblastoma pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health