Notes

Nanomaterials like a Champion regarding Prescription medication throughout Antibiotic-Resistant, Biofilm Infected Wounds?
The development of consensus guidelines for interpretation of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA)-Positron Emission Tomography (PET) is needed to provide more consistent reports in clinical practice. The standardization of PSMA-PET interpretation may also contribute to increasing the data reproducibility within clinical trials. Finally, guidelines in PSMA-PET interpretation are needed to communicate the exact location of findings to referring physicians, to support clinician therapeutic management decisions.

A panel of worldwide experts in PSMA-PET was established. Panelists were selected based on their expertise and publication record in the diagnosis or treatment of PCa, in their involvement in clinical guidelines and according to their expertise in the clinical application of radiolabeled PSMA inhibitors. Panelists were actively involved in all stages of a modified, nonanonymous, Delphi consensus process.

According to the findings obtained by modified Delphi consensus process, panelist recommendations were implemented in a structured report for PSMA-PET.

The E-PSMA standardized reporting guidelines, a document supported by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), provide consensus statements among a panel of experts in PSMA-PET imaging, to develop a structured report for PSMA-PET in prostate cancer and to harmonize diagnostic interpretation criteria.
The E-PSMA standardized reporting guidelines, a document supported by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), provide consensus statements among a panel of experts in PSMA-PET imaging, to develop a structured report for PSMA-PET in prostate cancer and to harmonize diagnostic interpretation criteria.
FDG-positive neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have a poorer prognosis and exhibit shorter response duration to peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). The aim of this prospective phase II study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of PRRT with
Lu-DOTATATE associated with metronomic capecitabine as a radiosensitizer agent in patients with advanced progressive FDG-positive gastro-entero-pancreatic (GEP) NETs.

Patients with advanced somatostatin receptor- and FDG-positive G1-G3 GEP-NETs (Ki67 < 55%) were treated with a cumulative activity of 27.5GBq of
Lu-DOTATATE divided in five cycles of 5.5GBq each every 8weeks. Capecitabine (1000-1500mg daily) was administered orally in the inter-cycle period between
Lu-DOTATATE treatments. Prior to commencing capecitabine, all patients were triaged with the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) test. Only DPD-proficient individuals were enrolled. The primary objectives were disease control rate (DCR) and safety. Secondary aims included progression-free ( The median follow-up was 38months (range 4.6-51.1months). The median PFS was 31.4months (17.6-45.4), and mOS was not reached.

This study demonstrated that the combination of PRRT with
Lu-DOTATATE and metronomic capecitabine is active and well tolerated in patients with aggressive FDG-positive G1-G3 GEP-NETs. These data constitute the basis for a randomized study of PPRT alone vs. PRRT plus metronomic capecitabine.
This study demonstrated that the combination of PRRT with 177Lu-DOTATATE and metronomic capecitabine is active and well tolerated in patients with aggressive FDG-positive G1-G3 GEP-NETs. These data constitute the basis for a randomized study of PPRT alone vs. PRRT plus metronomic capecitabine.
To systematically review the literature evaluating clinical utility of imaging metrics derived from baseline fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for prediction of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

A search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus and clinicaltrials.gov databases was undertaken for articles evaluating PET/CT imaging metrics as outcome predictors in HL and DLBCL. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Compound Library supplier Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool.

Forty-one articles were included (31 DLBCL, 10 HL). Significant predictive ability was reported in 5/20 DLBCL studies assessing SUVmax (PFS HR 0.13-7.35, OS HR 0.83-11.23), 17/19 assessing metabolic tumour volume (MTV) (PFS HR 2.09-11.20, OS HR 2.40-10.32) and 10/13 assessing total lesion glycolysis (TLG) (PFS HR 1.078-11.21, OS HR 2.40-4.82). Significant predictive ability was reported in 1/4 HL studies assessing SUVmax (HR not reported), 6/8 assessing MTV (PFS HR 1.2-10.71, OS HR 1.00-13.20) and 2/3 assessing TLG (HR not reported). There are 7/41 studies assessing the use of radiomics (4 DLBCL, 2 HL); 5/41 studies had internal validation and 2/41 included external validation. All studies had overall moderate or high risk of bias.

Most studies are retrospective, underpowered, heterogenous in their methodology and lack external validation of described models. Further work in protocol harmonisation, automated segmentation techniques and optimum performance cut-off is required to develop robust methodologies amenable for clinical utility.
Most studies are retrospective, underpowered, heterogenous in their methodology and lack external validation of described models. Further work in protocol harmonisation, automated segmentation techniques and optimum performance cut-off is required to develop robust methodologies amenable for clinical utility.Following the publication of the above article, the authors contacted the Editorial Office to explain that Fig. 1A and some of the images in Fig. 1B in the paper had already been published in Fig. 1 in another article by the same authors, and they had forgotten to cite the former publication. The paper in which these data appeared was as follows Li X, Yang Q, Bai J, Xuan Y and Wang Y Identification of appropriate reference genes for human mesenchymal stem cell analysis by quantitative real‑time PCR. Biotechnol Lett 37 67‑73, 2015. Fig. 1 of the above paper is reprinted opposite, now with the original source of the figure acknowledged in the form of a reference citation at the end of the Figure caption. The authors apologize to the publishers of Biotechnology Letters for having failed to include a proper acknowledgement for use of the figure in the above publication. [the original article was published in Molecular Medicine Reports 12 7721-7727, 2015; DOI 10.3892/mmr.2015.4396].
Read More: https://www.selleckchem.com/screening-libraries.html