Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy versus GnRH analogue in the adjuvant treatment of premenopausal breast cancer patients : cost-effectiveness evaluation of breast cancer outcome, ovarian cancer prevention and treatment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is no available evidence to recommend gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue-based ovarian suppression versus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer, since the two approaches are considered equivalent in terms of oncologic outcome. The role of surgical ovarian ablation has been revitalized based on the advances of minimally invasive surgery, and a better understanding of clinical and molecular basis of hereditary breast/ovarian cancer syndromes. The aim of this study is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic BSO and GnRH analogue administration in patients aged 40-49 years with hormone-sensitive breast cancer. METHODS: A probabilistic decision tree model was developed to evaluate costs and outcomes of ovarian ablation through laparoscopic BSO, or ovarian suppression through monthly injections of GnRH analogue. Results were expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. RESULTS: Laparoscopic BSO strategy was associated with a lower mean total cost per patient than GnRH treatment, and considering the difference in terms of QALYs, the incremental effectiveness did not demonstrate a notable difference between the two approaches. From the National Health Service perspective, and for a time horizon of 5 years, laparoscopic BSO was the dominant option compared to GnRH treatment; laparoscopic BSO was less expensive than GnRH, €2385 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2044, 2753] vs €7093 (95% CI = 3409, 12,105), respectively, and more effective. CONCLUSION: Surgical ovarian ablation is more cost-effective than GnRH administration in the adjuvant treatment of hormone-sensitive breast cancer patients aged 40-49 years, and the advantage of preventing ovarian cancer through laparoscopic BSO should be considered

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