Sources of error in measurement of minimal residual disease in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Introduction The level of minimal residual disease (MRD) in marrow predicts outcome and guides treatment in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) but accurate prediction depends on accurate measurement. Methods Forty-one children with ALL were studied at the end of induction. Two samples were obtained from each iliac spine and each sample was assayed twice. Assay, sample and side-to-side variation were quantified by analysis of variance and presumptively incorrect decisions related to high-risk disease were determined using the result from each MRD assay, the mean MRD in the patient as the measure of the true value, and each of 3 different MRD cut-off levels which have been used for making decisions on treatment. Results Variation between assays, samples and sides each differed significantly from zero and the overall standard deviation for a single MRD estimation was 0.60 logs. Multifocal residual disease seemed to be at least partly responsible for the variation between samples. Decision errors occurred at a frequency of 13–14% when the mean patient MRD was between 10−2 and 10−5. Decision errors were observed only for an MRD result within 1 log of the cut-off value used for assessing high risk. Depending on the cut-off used, 31–40% of MRD results were within 1 log of the cut-off value and 21–16% of such results would have resulted in a decision error. Conclusion When the result obtained for the level of MRD is within 1 log of the cut-off value used for making decisions, variation in the assay and/or sampling may result in a misleading assessment of the true level of marrow MRD. This may lead to an incorrect decision on treatment

Information literacy in a global context: Incorporating the ACRL framework into preservice education for information professionals

This panel presentation will provide a brief overview of the Framework, followed by four presentations that explore theoretical and practical concerns that will be of interest to LIS educators. These presentations will serve as a foundation for a large group discussion of the implications of the Framework for LIS programs and the pedagogical challenges it represents. Heidi Julien will convene the session and lead the large group discussion. The panel presentations include the following: • An Introduction to the Framework. Melissa Gross and Don Latham • Teaching Librarians to Teach with the Framework, Yvonne Mery, Nicole Pagowsky, and Carla Stoffle • Reference Course Redesign Using the Integrated Threshold Concept Knowledge Framework, Susan Rathbun-Grubb • Framing Information Literacy Instruction: Preparing Pre-service Librarians PK-20, Elizabeth Burns • Integrating the Framework into a Diversity Course For the Benefit of Praxis, Bharat Mehra and Keren Dali

Kepler Certified False Positive Table

This document describes the Kepler Certied False Positive table hosted at the Exoplanet Archive1, herein referred to as the CFP table. This table is the result of detailed examination by the Kepler False Positive Working Group (FPWG) of declared false positives in the Kepler Object of Interest (KOI) tables (see, for example, Batalha et al. (2012); Burke et al.(2014); Rowe et al. (2015); Mullally et al. (2015); Coughlin et al. (2015b)) at the Exoplanet Archive. A KOI is considered a false positive if it is not due to a planet orbiting the KOI's target star. The CFP table contains all KOIs in the Exoplanet Archive cumulative KOI table. The purpose of the CFP table is to provide a list of certified false positive KOIs. A KOI is certified as a false positive when, in the judgement of the FPWG, there is no plausible planetary interpretation of the observational evidence, which we summarize by saying that the evidence for a false positive is compelling. This certification process involves detailed examination using all available data for each KOI, establishing a high-reliability ground truth set. The CFP table can be used to estimate the reliability of, for example, the KOI tables which are created using only Kepler photometric data, so the disposition of individual KOIs may differ in the KOI and CFP tables. Follow-up observers may find the CFP table useful to avoid observing false positives

Robust estimation of bacterial cell count from optical density

Optical density (OD) is widely used to estimate the density of cells in liquid culture, but cannot be compared between instruments without a standardized calibration protocol and is challenging to relate to actual cell count. We address this with an interlaboratory study comparing three simple, low-cost, and highly accessible OD calibration protocols across 244 laboratories, applied to eight strains of constitutive GFP-expressing E. coli. Based on our results, we recommend calibrating OD to estimated cell count using serial dilution of silica microspheres, which produces highly precise calibration (95.5% of residuals <1.2-fold), is easily assessed for quality control, also assesses instrument effective linear range, and can be combined with fluorescence calibration to obtain units of Molecules of Equivalent Fluorescein (MEFL) per cell, allowing direct comparison and data fusion with flow cytometry measurements: in our study, fluorescence per cell measurements showed only a 1.07-fold mean difference between plate reader and flow cytometry data

Rehabilitation versus surgical reconstruction for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury (ACL SNNAP): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BackgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is a common debilitating injury that can cause instability of the knee. We aimed to investigate the best management strategy between reconstructive surgery and non-surgical treatment for patients with a non-acute ACL injury and persistent symptoms of instability.MethodsWe did a pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial in 29 secondary care National Health Service orthopaedic units in the UK. Patients with symptomatic knee problems (instability) consistent with an ACL injury were eligible. We excluded patients with meniscal pathology with characteristics that indicate immediate surgery. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer to either surgery (reconstruction) or rehabilitation (physiotherapy but with subsequent reconstruction permitted if instability persisted after treatment), stratified by site and baseline Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score—4 domain version (KOOS4). This management design represented normal practice. The primary outcome was KOOS4 at 18 months after randomisation. The principal analyses were intention-to-treat based, with KOOS4 results analysed using linear regression. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN10110685, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02980367.FindingsBetween Feb 1, 2017, and April 12, 2020, we recruited 316 patients. 156 (49%) participants were randomly assigned to the surgical reconstruction group and 160 (51%) to the rehabilitation group. Mean KOOS4 at 18 months was 73·0 (SD 18·3) in the surgical group and 64·6 (21·6) in the rehabilitation group. The adjusted mean difference was 7·9 (95% CI 2·5–13·2; p=0·0053) in favour of surgical management. 65 (41%) of 160 patients allocated to rehabilitation underwent subsequent surgery according to protocol within 18 months. 43 (28%) of 156 patients allocated to surgery did not receive their allocated treatment. We found no differences between groups in the proportion of intervention-related complications.InterpretationSurgical reconstruction as a management strategy for patients with non-acute ACL injury with persistent symptoms of instability was clinically superior and more cost-effective in comparison with rehabilitation management

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Sensitive detection and quantification of minimal residual disease in chronic myeloid leukaemia using nested quantitative PCR for BCR-ABL DNA

Increasing numbers of patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors achieve undetectable levels of BCR-ABL mRNA using sensitive quantitative real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-qPCR) methods and a method to measure minimal residual disease (MRD) in patients with low levels could be of value. Following isolation and sequencing of the patient-specific BCR-ABL breakpoint, a DNA-based nested qPCR assay was established, and MRD was measured by this method and one-round RT-qPCR in 38 samples from 24 patients with CML. Mixing experiments using patient DNA in normal DNA indicated that DNA qPCR could detect BCR-ABL sequences at a limit of approximately 10⁻⁶. In 22 samples in which MRD was detectable by both methods, comparison of the results of DNA qPCR with the results obtained on the same sample by RT-qPCR showed good correlation. In another 16 samples, BCR-ABL mRNA was not detectable by RT-qPCR. In 8 of the 16 samples, BCR-ABL DNA was detected at levels ranging from 1.1 × 10⁻⁵ up to 2.8 × 10⁻⁴ and in the remaining eight samples BCR-ABL was not detected by either method. In one patient, who had stopped imatinib, an almost 1000-fold rise in MRD, to 5.2 × 10⁻⁴ was observed in sequential samples. Nested DNA qPCR was more sensitive than one-round RT-qPCR and could be used for the monitoring of patients with CML with very low levels of MRD.P. A. Bartley, D. M. Ross, S. Latham, M. H. Martin-Harris, B. Budgen, V. Wilczek, S. Branford, T. P. Hughes, A. A. Morle