Metastatic melanoma to the pituitary gland

Journal ArticleMetastasis to the pituitary gland is unusual, and occurs most often in patients with carcinomas of the breast or lung. Despite its propensity for spread to the brain, metastatic melanoma has rarely been described within the sella. Methods: We report two cases of malignant melanoma pathologically confirmed within the pituitary, both metastatic from a primary site on the chest wall. In each patient, transsphenoidal resection of the tumor was incomplete and each received local radiotherapy after surgery. Results: One patient recurred quickly and developed brain metastasis as well. He died four months after resection of the pituitary metastasis, but the second patient survived six months without recurrence. As intrasellar metastasis portends widespread systemic disease and may be synchronous with parenchymal brain metastasis, survival in such patients is limited regardless of adjunctive therapy. Conclusions: Such cases are likely to arise more commonly in future due to the increasing incidence of melanoma. Identifying them by imaging alone is difficult due to inconsistent signal characteristics on MRI (as shown by these cases) and the confusion introduced by any associated intratumoral hemorrhage

All clinically-relevant blood components transmit prion disease following a single blood transfusion: a sheep model of vCJD

Variant CJD (vCJD) is an incurable, infectious human disease, likely arising from the consumption of BSE-contaminated meat products. Whilst the epidemic appears to be waning, there is much concern that vCJD infection may be perpetuated in humans by the transfusion of contaminated blood products. Since 2004, several cases of transfusion-associated vCJD transmission have been reported and linked to blood collected from pre-clinically affected donors. Using an animal model in which the disease manifested resembles that of humans affected with vCJD, we examined which blood components used in human medicine are likely to pose the greatest risk of transmitting vCJD via transfusion. We collected two full units of blood from BSE-infected donor animals during the pre-clinical phase of infection. Using methods employed by transfusion services we prepared red cell concentrates, plasma and platelets units (including leucoreduced equivalents). Following transfusion, we showed that all components contain sufficient levels of infectivity to cause disease following only a single transfusion and also that leucoreduction did not prevent disease transmission. These data suggest that all blood components are vectors for prion disease transmission, and highlight the importance of multiple control measures to minimise the risk of human to human transmission of vCJD by blood transfusion

Evaluating the quality of research co-production: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro)

Background Co-production is an umbrella term used to describe the process of generating knowledge through partnerships between researchers and those who will use or benefit from research. Multiple advantages of research co-production have been hypothesized, and in some cases documented, in both the academic and practice record. However, there are significant gaps in understanding how to evaluate the quality of co-production. This gap in rigorous evaluation undermines the potential of both co-production and co-producers. Methods This research tests the relevance and utility of a novel evaluation framework: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro). Following a co-production approach ourselves, our team collaborated to develop study objectives, questions, analysis, and results sharing strategies. We used a dyadic field-test design to execute RQ + 4 Co-Pro evaluations amongst 18 independently recruited subject matter experts. We used standardized reporting templates and qualitative interviews to collect data from field-test participants, and thematic assessment and deliberative dialogue for analysis. Main limitations include that field-test participation included only health research projects and health researchers and this will limit perspective included in the study, and, that our own co-production team does not include all potential perspectives that may add value to this work. Results The field test surfaced strong support for the relevance and utility of RQ + 4 Co-Pro as an evaluation approach and framework. Research participants shared opportunities for fine-tuning language and criteria within the prototype version, but also, for alternative uses and users of RQ + 4 Co-Pro. All research participants suggested RQ + 4 Co-Pro offered an opportunity for improving how co-production is evaluated and advanced. This facilitated our revision and publication herein of a field-tested RQ + 4 Co-Pro Framework and Assessment Instrument. Conclusion Evaluation is necessary for understanding and improving co-production, and, for ensuring co-production delivers on its promise of better health.. RQ + 4 Co-Pro provides a practical evaluation approach and framework that we invite co-producers and stewards of co-production—including the funders, publishers, and universities who increasingly encourage socially relevant research—to study, adapt, and apply

Evaluating research co-production: protocol for the Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) framework.

Background Research co-production is an umbrella term used to describe research users and researchers working together to generate knowledge. Research co-production is used to create knowledge that is relevant to current challenges and to increase uptake of that knowledge into practice, programs, products, and/or policy. Yet, rigorous theories and methods to assess the quality of co-production are limited. Here we describe a framework for assessing the quality of research co-production—Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro)—and outline our field test of this approach. Methods Using a co-production approach, we aim to field test the relevance and utility of the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. To do so, we will recruit participants who have led research co-production projects from the international Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network. We aim to sample 16 to 20 co-production project leads, assign these participants to dyadic groups (8 to 10 dyads), train each participant in the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework using deliberative workshops and oversee a simulation assessment exercise using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro within dyadic groups. To study this experience, we use a qualitative design to collect participant demographic information and project demographic information and will use in-depth semi-structured interviews to collect data related to the experience each participant has using the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. Discussion This study will yield knowledge about a new way to assess research co-production. Specifically, it will address the relevance and utility of using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro, a framework that includes context as an inseparable component of research, identifies dimensions of quality matched to the aims of co-production, and applies a systematic and transferable evaluative method for reaching conclusions. This is a needed area of innovation for research co-production to reach its full potential. The findings may benefit co-producers interested in understanding the quality of their work, but also other stewards of research co-production. Accordingly, we undertake this study as a co-production team representing multiple perspectives from across the research enterprise, such as funders, journal editors, university administrators, and government and health organization leaders

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe