Le skateboard : une pratique urbaine sportive, ludique et de liberté

Le skateboard est un sport très visible dans l'espace public ; ses aficionados s'y adonnent généralement dans des lieux de passage importants. A travers des attitudes vestimentaires, des habitudes langagières différentes , à travers également la prise de risque et la performance, la pratique du skateboard dans la ville devient pour les jeunes une fonction rituelle d'intégration dans leur groupe d'âge et de sexe. Par ailleurs, ce sport facilite aussi une forme de socialisation plus globale, par l'apprentissage de l'espace urbain et de ses codes.Calogirou Claire, Touché Marc. Le skateboard : une pratique urbaine sportive, ludique et de liberté. In: Hommes et Migrations, n°1226, Juillet-août 2000. Au miroir du sport. pp. 33-43

EMAST Is Associated with a Poor Prognosis in Microsatellite Instable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

<div><p>Purpose</p><p>To determine the frequency and prognostic value of elevated microsatellite alterations at selected tetranucleotide repeats (EMAST) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients in relation to microsatellite instability (MSI) status and MSH3 protein expression.</p><p>Material and Methods</p><p>The frequency of EMAST was evaluated in mCRC patients with MSI tumors and microsatellite stable (MSS) tumors. A literature overview was performed to compare the frequency of EMAST in our study with existing data. Immunohistochemistry for MSH3 was compared with EMAST status. Outcome was studied in terms of overall survival (OS) of mCRC patients with MSI and MSS tumors.</p><p>Results</p><p>EMAST was evaluated in 89 patients with MSI tumors (including 39 patients with Lynch syndrome) and 94 patients with MSS tumors. EMAST was observed in 45.9% (84 out of 183) of patients, with an increased frequency in MSI tumors (79.8% versus 13.8%, p < 0.001). We found no correlation between EMAST and MSH3 protein expression. There was no effect of EMAST on prognosis in patients with MSS tumors, but patients with MSI / non-EMAST tumors had a significantly better prognosis than patients with MSI / EMAST tumors (OS: HR 3.22, 95% CI 1.25-8.30).</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>Frequency of EMAST was increased in mCRC patients with MSI tumors, compared to MSS tumors. Our data suggest that the presence of EMAST correlates with worse OS in these patients. There was no effect of EMAST on the prognosis of patients with MSS tumors. A limitation of our study is the small number of patients in our subgroup analysis.</p></div

Forest plot for the association of prevalence of EMAST in patients with MSI compared to MSS tumors in stage I-IV CRC.

<p>Forest plot for the association of prevalence of EMAST in patients with MSI compared to MSS tumors in stage I-IV CRC.</p

Percentage of mCRC patients with MSI tumors and loss of MLH1 and/or PMS2 (MLH1 / PMS2) and MSH2 and/or MSH6, (MSH2 and MSH6) subdivided in patients with MSI / EMAST tumors and patients with MSI / non-EMAST tumors.

<p>(A). Percentage of patients with known Lynch syndrome and germ line mutation of the different MSI genes, subdivided in patients with MSI / EMAST tumors and patients with MSI / non-EMAST tumors (B).</p

Frequency of instable EMAST markers (A) and frequency of affected EMAST loci (B), subdivided by patients with MSI and MSS tumors.

<p>Frequency of instable EMAST markers (A) and frequency of affected EMAST loci (B), subdivided by patients with MSI and MSS tumors.</p

Prevalence of EMAST and non-EMAST tumors in the different patient groups.

<p><i>p</i> value represent heterogeneity between groups</p><p>Abbreviations: EMAST = elevated microsatellite alterations at selected tetranucleotide repeats, MSI = microsatellite instability, MSS = microsatellite stability</p><p>Prevalence of EMAST and non-EMAST tumors in the different patient groups.</p

Flowchart of selected CRC patients to determine the frequency and prognostic value of EMAST.

<p>Flowchart of selected CRC patients to determine the frequency and prognostic value of EMAST.</p

Staining pattern of MSH3 protein expression.

<p>Heterogeneous MSH3 protein expression (A), demonstrated by expression of both brown (positive) and blue (negative) nuclei upon MSH3 IHC staining. Low MSH3 protein expression was defined as <85% brown staining of cell cores in tumor cells (B) and high MSH3 protein expression was defined as ≥85% brown staining of cell cores in tumor cells (C).</p

Baseline patient and tumor characteristics of patients with MSI and MSS tumors, subdivide by EMAST and non-EMAST tumors.

<p>NOTE: Statistically significant results are set in bold</p><p>Abbreviations: MSI = microsatellite instability, MSS = microsatellite stability, EMAST = elevated microsatellite instability at selected tetranucleotide repeats</p><p>Baseline patient and tumor characteristics of patients with MSI and MSS tumors, subdivide by EMAST and non-EMAST tumors.</p

Mismatch Repair Status and BRAF Mutation Status in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Pooled Analysis of the CAIRO, CAIRO2, COIN, and FOCUS Studies

Purpose: To determine the prevalence and prognostic value of mismatch repair (MMR) status and its relation to BRAF mutation (BRAF(MT)) status in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Experimental Design: A pooled analysis of four phase III studies in first-line treatment of mCRC (CAIRO, CAIRO2, COIN and FOCUS) was performed. Primary outcome parameter was the hazard ratio (HR) for median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in relation to MMR and BRAF. For the pooled analysis, Cox regression analysis was performed on individual patient data. Results: The primary tumors of 3063 patients were analyzed, of which 153 (5.0%) exhibited deficient MMR (dMMR) and 250 (8.2%) a BRAF(MT). BRAF(MT) was observed in 53 (34.6%) of patients with dMMR tumors compared to 197 (6.8%) of patients with proficient MMR (pMMR) tumors (p<0.001). In the pooled data set, median PFS and OS were significantly worse for patients with dMMR compared to pMMR tumors (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.12-1.57 and HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.13-1.61, respectively), and for patients with BRAF(MT) compared to BRAF wild-type (BRAF(WT)) tumors (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.17-1.54 and HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.66-2.19, respectively). PFS and OS were significantly decreased for patients with BRAF(MT) within the group of patients with pMMR, but not for BRAF status within dMMR, or MMR status within BRAF(WT) or BRAF(MT). Conclusions: Prevalence of dMMR and BRAF(MT) in mCRC patients is low and both biomarkers confer an inferior prognosis. Our data suggest that the poor prognosis of dMMR is driven by BRAF(MT) status