Why so few Nobel Prizes for cancer researchers?:An analysis of Nobel Prize nominations for German physicians with a focus on Ernst von Leyden and Karl Heinrich Bauer

Purpose!#!To date, 11 scientists have received the Nobel Prize for discoveries directly related to cancer research. This article provides an overview of cancer researchers nominated for the Nobel Prize from 1901 to 1960 with a focus on Ernst von Leyden (1832-1910), the founder of this journal, and Karl Heinrich Bauer (1890-1978).!##!Methods!#!We collected nominations and evaluations in the archive of the Nobel committee of physiology or medicine in Sweden to identify research trends and to analyse oncology in a Nobel Prize context.!##!Results!#!We found a total of 54 nominations citing work on cancer as motivation for 11 candidates based in Germany from 1901 to 1953. In the 1930s, the US became the leading nation of cancer research in a Nobel context with nominees like Harvey Cushing (1869-1939) and George N. Papanicolaou (1883-1962).!##!Discussion!#!The will of Alfred Nobel stipulates that Nobel laureates should have 'conferred the greatest benefit to mankind'. Why were then so few cancer researchers recognized with the Nobel medal from 1901 to 1960? Our analysis of the Nobel dossiers points at multiple reasons: (1) Many of the proposed cancer researchers were surgeons, and surgery has a weak track record in a Nobel context; (2) several scholars were put forward for clinical work and not for basic research (historically, the Nobel committee has favoured basic researchers); (3) the scientists were usually not nominated for a single discovery, but rather for a wide range of different achievements

"Hidden Champions"

Ein Blick auf einige Frankfurter Nobelpreiskandidaten, die zwar von der Jury in Stockholm nicht berücksichtigt wurden, gleichwohl als herausragende Forscherpersönlichkeiten ein Aushängeschild der Goethe-Universität waren und sind

Babinski, Bektherev, Cerletti, Head, and Hitzig: European Neurologists Nominated for the Nobel Prize 1901-1950

Introduction: This article provides for the first time an overview of the most often nominated European neurologists for the Nobel Prize, who never received the award. It sheds light on candidates from France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and the UK during the first half of the 20th century. The aim is to highlight the candidates in the field of neurology, to discuss key arguments in the nomination letters, and to raise questions about research trends and hotspots in European neurology 1901-1950. Methods: Using the Nobel nomination database which contains >5,000 nominations in the prize category physiology or medicine from 1901 to the early 1950s, we listed European neurologists who were nominated more than once during this time period. We then collected nomination letters and jury reports of the prime candidates in the archive of the Nobel Committee for physiology or medicine in Sweden to explore nomination networks and motives. Results: We pinpointed scholars like Joseph Babinski, Vladimir Bektherev, Sir Henry Head, Eduard Hitzig, and Ugo Cerletti. The nomination motives were diverse, ranging from lifetime achievements and textbooks to singular (eponymous) discoveries. Issues of scientific priority disputes were central in most nomination letters. Conclusion: Nobel Prize nominations constitute a lens through which credit and recognition around major contributions in neurology during the 20th century can be examined. They are unique sources that enable the reconstruction of both research trends in the field and the reputation of individual neurologists

Natural History and Clinical Outcome of “Uncorrected” Scimitar Syndrome Patients: a Multicenter Study of the Italian Society of Pediatric Cardiology

http://www.revespcardiol.org/es/historia-natural-evolucion-clinica-los/articulo/90207168

Propranolol 0.2% Eye Micro-Drops for Retinopathy of Prematurity: A Prospective Phase IIB Study

Background: Oral propranolol reduces retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) progression, although not safely. Propranolol 0.1% eye micro-drops administered to newborns with stage 2 ROP are well-tolerated, but not sufficiently effective. Methods: A multi-center open-label trial was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of propranolol 0.2% eye micro-drops in newborns with stage 1 ROP. The progression of the disease was evaluated with serial ophthalmologic examinations. Hemodynamic, respiratory, biochemical parameters, and propranolol plasma levels were monitored. Demographic and perinatal characteristics, co-morbidities and co-intervention incidences, together with ROP progression, were compared with a historical control group in the same centers participating in the trial. Filippi et al. Propranolol Micro-Drops for ROP Results: Ninety-eight newborns were enrolled and compared with the historical control group. Populations were not perfectly homogeneous (as demonstrated by the differences in the Apgar score and the different incidence rate in surfactant administration and oxygen exposure). The progression to ROP stage 2 or 3 plus was significantly lower than the incidence expected on the basis of historical data (Risk Ratio 0.521, 95% CI 0.297\u2013 0.916). No adverse effects related to propranolol were observed and the mean propranolol plasma level was significantly lower than the safety cut-off of 20 ng/mL. Unexpectedly, three newborns treated with oral propranolol before the appearance of ROP, showed a ROP that was unresponsive to propranolol eye micro-drops and required laser photocoagulation treatment. Conclusion: Propranolol 0.2% eye micro-drops were well-tolerated and appeared to reduce the ROP progression expected on the basis of a comparison with a historical control group. Propranolol administered too early appears to favor a more aggressive ROP, suggesting that a \u3b2-adrenoreceptor blockade is only useful during the proliferative phase. Further randomized placebo-controlled trials are required to confirm the current result

Study protocol: Safety and efficacy of propranolol 0.2% eye drops in newborns with a precocious stage of retinopathy of prematurity (DROP-ROP-0.2%): A multicenter, open-label, single arm, phase II trial

Background: Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) still represents one of the leading causes of visual impairment in childhood. Systemic propranolol has proven to be effective in reducing ROP progression in preterm newborns, although safety was not sufficiently guaranteed. On the contrary, topical treatment with propranolol eye micro-drops at a concentration of 0.1% had an optimal safety profile in preterm newborns with ROP, but was not sufficiently effective in reducing the disease progression if administered at an advanced stage (during stage 2). The aim of the present protocol is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of propranolol 0.2% eye micro-drops in preterm newborns at a more precocious stage of ROP (stage 1). Methods: A multicenter, open-label, phase II, clinical trial, planned according to the Simon optimal two-stage design, will be performed to analyze the safety and efficacy of propranolol 0.2% eye micro-drops in preterm newborns with stage 1 ROP. Preterm newborns with a gestational age of 23-32 weeks, with a stage 1 ROP will receive propranolol 0.2% eye micro-drops treatment until retinal vascularization has been completed, but for no longer than 90 days. Hemodynamic and respiratory parameters will be continuously monitored. Blood samplings checking metabolic, renal and liver functions, as well as electrocardiogram and echocardiogram, will be periodically performed to investigate treatment safety. Additionally, propranolol plasma levels will be measured at the steady state, on the 10th day of treatment. To assess the efficacy of topical treatment, the ROP progression from stage 1 ROP to stage 2 or 3 with plus will be evaluated by serial ophthalmologic examinations. Discussion: Propranolol eye micro-drops could represent an ideal strategy in counteracting ROP, because it is definitely safer than oral administration, inexpensive and an easily affordable treatment. Establishing the optimal dosage and treatment schedule is to date a crucial issue. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.govIdentifier NCT02504944, registered on July 19, 2015, updated July 12, 2016. EudraCT Number 2014-005472-29

Propranolol 0.1% eye micro-drops in newborns with retinopathy of prematurity: A pilot clinical trial

Background:Oral propranolol reduces retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) progression, although not safely. This study evaluated safety and efficacy of propranolol eye micro-drops in preterm newborns with ROP.Methods:A multicenter open-label trial, planned according to the Simon optimal two-stage design, was performed to analyze safety and efficacy of propranolol micro-drops in newborns with stage 2 ROP. To this end, hemodynamic and respiratory parameters were monitored, and blood samples were collected weekly, for 3 wk. Propranolol plasma levels were also monitored. The progression of the disease was evaluated with serial ophthalmologic examinations.Results:Twenty-three newborns were enrolled. Since the fourth of the first 19 newborns enrolled in the first stage of the study showed a progression to stage 2 or 3 with plus, the second stage was prematurely discontinued. Even though the objective to complete the second stage was not achieved, the percentage of ROP progression (26%) was similar to that obtained previously with oral propranolol administration. However, no adverse effects were observed and propranolol plasma levels were significantly lower than those measured after oral administration.Conclusion:Propranolol 0.1% eye micro-drops are well tolerated, but not sufficiently effective. Further studies are required to identify the optimal dose and administration schedule