Hôpital Saint-André

BACKGROUND: No effective systemic therapy exists for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. A preliminary study suggested that sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, the platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and Raf may be effective in hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this multicenter, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 602 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who had not received previous systemic treatment to receive either sorafenib (at a dose of 400 mg twice daily) or placebo. Primary outcomes were overall survival and the time to symptomatic progression. Secondary outcomes included the time to radiologic progression and safety. RESULTS: At the second planned interim analysis, 321 deaths had occurred, and the study was stopped. Median overall survival was 10.7 months in the sorafenib group and 7.9 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the sorafenib group, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.87; P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the median time to symptomatic progression (4.1 months vs. 4.9 months, respectively, P=0.77). The median time to radiologic progression was 5.5 months in the sorafenib group and 2.8 months in the placebo group (P<0.001). Seven patients in the sorafenib group (2%) and two patients in the placebo group (1%) had a partial response; no patients had a complete response. Diarrhea, weight loss, hand-foot skin reaction, and hypophosphatemia were more frequent in the sorafenib group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, median survival and the time to radiologic progression were nearly 3 months longer for patients treated with sorafenib than for those given placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00105443.)

BACKGROUND: Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials of the BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib (PLX4032) have shown response rates of more than 50% in patients with metastatic melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3 randomized clinical trial comparing vemurafenib with dacarbazine in 675 patients with previously untreated, metastatic melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either vemurafenib (960 mg orally twice daily) or dacarbazine (1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously every 3 weeks). Coprimary end points were rates of overall and progression-free survival. Secondary end points included the response rate, response duration, and safety. A final analysis was planned after 196 deaths and an interim analysis after 98 deaths. RESULTS: At 6 months, overall survival was 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78 to 89) in the vemurafenib group and 64% (95% CI, 56 to 73) in the dacarbazine group. In the interim analysis for overall survival and final analysis for progression-free survival, vemurafenib was associated with a relative reduction of 63% in the risk of death and of 74% in the risk of either death or disease progression, as compared with dacarbazine (P<0.001 for both comparisons). After review of the interim analysis by an independent data and safety monitoring board, crossover from dacarbazine to vemurafenib was recommended. Response rates were 48% for vemurafenib and 5% for dacarbazine. Common adverse events associated with vemurafenib were arthralgia, rash, fatigue, alopecia, keratoacanthoma or squamous-cell carcinoma, photosensitivity, nausea, and diarrhea; 38% of patients required dose modification because of toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: Vemurafenib produced improved rates of overall and progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation. (Funded by Hoffmann-La Roche; BRIM-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01006980.).

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab, a programmed death 1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor, was associated with encouraging overall survival in uncontrolled studies involving previously treated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This randomized, open-label, phase 3 study compared nivolumab with everolimus in patients with renal-cell carcinoma who had received previous treatment. METHODS: A total of 821 patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma for which they had received previous treatment with one or two regimens of antiangiogenic therapy were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive 3 mg of nivolumab per kilogram of body weight intravenously every 2 weeks or a 10-mg everolimus tablet orally once daily. The primary end point was overall survival. The secondary end points included the objective response rate and safety. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 25.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.8 to not estimable) with nivolumab and 19.6 months (95% CI, 17.6 to 23.1) with everolimus. The hazard ratio for death with nivolumab versus everolimus was 0.73 (98.5% CI, 0.57 to 0.93; P=0.002), which met the prespecified criterion for superiority (P≤0.0148). The objective response rate was greater with nivolumab than with everolimus (25% vs. 5%; odds ratio, 5.98 [95% CI, 3.68 to 9.72]; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.4) with nivolumab and 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.5) with everolimus (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.03; P=0.11). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19% of the patients receiving nivolumab and in 37% of the patients receiving everolimus; the most common event with nivolumab was fatigue (in 2% of the patients), and the most common event with everolimus was anemia (in 8%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously treated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, overall survival was longer and fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred with nivolumab than with everolimus. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 025 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01668784.).

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab was associated with higher rates of objective response than chemotherapy in a phase 3 study involving patients with ipilimumab-refractory metastatic melanoma. The use of nivolumab in previously untreated patients with advanced melanoma has not been tested in a phase 3 controlled study. METHODS: We randomly assigned 418 previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks and dacarbazine-matched placebo every 3 weeks) or dacarbazine (at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks and nivolumab-matched placebo every 2 weeks). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: At 1 year, the overall rate of survival was 72.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.5 to 78.9) in the nivolumab group, as compared with 42.1% (95% CI, 33.0 to 50.9) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.42; 99.79% CI, 0.25 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 5.1 months in the nivolumab group versus 2.2 months in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death or progression of disease, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.56; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 40.0% (95% CI, 33.3 to 47.0) in the nivolumab group versus 13.9% (95% CI, 9.5 to 19.4) in the dacarbazine group (odds ratio, 4.06; P<0.001). The survival benefit with nivolumab versus dacarbazine was observed across prespecified subgroups, including subgroups defined by status regarding the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Common adverse events associated with nivolumab included fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 11.7% of the patients treated with nivolumab and 17.6% of those treated with dacarbazine. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab was associated with significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival, as compared with dacarbazine, among previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 066 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01721772.).

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk. RESULTS: A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).

BACKGROUND: The multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib has shown activity against pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in preclinical models and phase 1 and 2 trials. METHODS: We conducted a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of sunitinib in patients with advanced, well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. All patients had Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors-defined disease progression documented within 12 months before baseline. A total of 171 patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive best supportive care with either sunitinib at a dose of 37.5 mg per day or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival; secondary end points included the objective response rate, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: The study was discontinued early, after the independent data and safety monitoring committee observed more serious adverse events and deaths in the placebo group as well as a difference in progression-free survival favoring sunitinib. Median progression-free survival was 11.4 months in the sunitinib group as compared with 5.5 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.66; P<0.001). A Cox proportional-hazards analysis of progression-free survival according to baseline characteristics favored sunitinib in all subgroups studied. The objective response rate was 9.3% in the sunitinib group versus 0% in the placebo group. At the data cutoff point, 9 deaths were reported in the sunitinib group (10%) versus 21 deaths in the placebo group (25%) (hazard ratio for death, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.89; P=0.02). The most frequent adverse events in the sunitinib group were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, asthenia, and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous daily administration of sunitinib at a dose of 37.5 mg improved progression-free survival, overall survival, and the objective response rate as compared with placebo among patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00428597.).

BACKGROUND: Combination therapy with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib plus the MEK inhibitor trametinib improved survival in patients with advanced melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. We sought to determine whether adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib would improve outcomes in patients with resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 870 patients with completely resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations to receive oral dabrafenib at a dose of 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib at a dose of 2 mg once daily (combination therapy, 438 patients) or two matched placebo tablets (432 patients) for 12 months. The primary end point was relapse-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, distant metastasis-free survival, freedom from relapse, and safety. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 2.8 years, the estimated 3-year rate of relapse-free survival was 58% in the combination-therapy group and 39% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for relapse or death, 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.58; P<0.001). The 3-year overall survival rate was 86% in the combination-therapy group and 77% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.79; P=0.0006), but this level of improvement did not cross the prespecified interim analysis boundary of P=0.000019. Rates of distant metastasis-free survival and freedom from relapse were also higher in the combination-therapy group than in the placebo group. The safety profile of dabrafenib plus trametinib was consistent with that observed with the combination in patients with metastatic melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant use of combination therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in a significantly lower risk of recurrence in patients with stage III melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations than the adjuvant use of placebo and was not associated with new toxic effects. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-AD ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01682083 ; EudraCT number, 2012-001266-15 .).

The pathological features of 155 adult patients with soft-tissue sarcomas were studied retrospectively, in an attempt to set up a grading system for these tumors. As the first step, seven histological criteria (tumor differentiation, cellularity, importance of nuclear atypia, presence of malignant giant cells, mitosis count, pattern of tumor necrosis and presence of vascular emboli) were evaluated in a monofactorial analysis. Five of these (tumor differentiation, cellularity, mitosis count, tumor necrosis, and vascular emboli) were correlated with the advent of metastases and with survival. A multivariate analysis, using a Cox model, selected a minimal set of three factors (tumor differentiation, mitosis count, and tumor necrosis) the combination of which was necessary and sufficient to retain all the prognostic information. A grading system was elaborated, which turned out to be correlated with the advent of metastasis and with patients' survival. A second multivariate analysis introducing clinical prognostic features showed that the histological grade was the most important prognostic factor for soft-tissue sarcomas. Thus, this grading system appears to be highly interesting because of its prognostic value and the facility of its elaboration. However, its reproducibility should be tested.

This guideline was developed as a joint interdisciplinary European project, including physicians from all relevant disciplines as well as patients. It is a consensus-based guideline, taking available evidence from other guidelines, systematic reviews and published studies into account. This first part of the guideline covers methods, patient perspective, general measures and avoidance strategies, basic emollient treatment and bathing, dietary intervention, topical anti-inflammatory therapy, phototherapy and antipruritic therapy, whereas the second part covers antimicrobial therapy, systemic treatment, allergen-specific immunotherapy, complementary medicine, psychosomatic counselling and educational interventions. Management of AE must consider the individual clinical variability of the disease; highly standardized treatment rules are not recommended. Basic therapy is focused on treatment of disturbed barrier function by hydrating and lubricating topical treatment, besides further avoidance of specific and unspecific provocation factors. Topical anti-inflammatory treatment based on glucocorticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors is used for flare management and for proactive therapy for long-term control. Topical corticosteroids remain the mainstay of therapy, whereas tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are preferred in sensitive skin areas and for long-term use. Topical phosphodiesterase inhibitors may be a treatment alternative when available. Adjuvant therapy includes UV irradiation, preferably with UVB 311 nm or UVA1. Pruritus is targeted with the majority of the recommended therapies, but some patients may need additional antipruritic therapy. Antimicrobial therapy, systemic anti-inflammatory treatment, immunotherapy, complementary medicine and educational intervention will be addressed in part II of the guideline.

UNLABELLED: Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) based on transient elastography (TE, FibroScan) is gaining in popularity for noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis. However, LSM has limitations, which have not yet been thoroughly evaluated. We prospectively investigated the frequency and determinants of LSM failure and unreliable results over a 5-year period, based on 13,369 examinations (134,239 shots). LSM failure was defined as zero valid shots, and unreliable examinations were defined as fewer than 10 valid shots, an interquartile range (IQR)/LSM greater than 30%, or a success rate less than 60%. LSM failure occurred in 3.1% of all examinations (4% at first examination [n = 7261]) and was independently associated at first examination with body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m(2) (odds ratio [OR], 7.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6-10.2; P = 0.0001), operator experience fewer than 500 examinations (OR 2.5 [1.6-4.0]; P = 0.0001); age greater than 52 years (OR 2.3 [1.6-3.2]; P = 0.0001), and type 2 diabetes (OR 1.6 [1.1-2.2]; P = 0.009). Unreliable results were obtained in a further 15.8% of cases (17% at first examination) and were independently associated at first examination with BMI greater than 30 kg/m(2) (OR 3.3 [2.8-4.0]; P = 0.0001), operator experience fewer than 500 examinations (OR 3.1 [2.4-3.9]; P = 0.0001), age greater than 52 years (OR 1.8 [1.6-2.1]; P = 0.0001), female sex (OR 1.4 [1.2-1.6], P = 0.0001), hypertension (OR 1.3 [1.1-1.5]; P = 0.003), and type 2 diabetes (OR 1.2 [1.0-1.5]; P = 0.05). When metabolic syndrome and waist circumference were taken into account in a subgroup of 2835 patients, waist circumference was the most important determinant of LSM failure and unreliable results. CONCLUSION: In our experience, liver stiffness measurements are uninterpretable in nearly one in five cases. The principal reasons are obesity, particularly increased waist circumference, and limited operator experience. These results emphasize the need for adequate operator training and for technological improvements in specific patient subpopulations.

BACKGROUND: A phase 3 trial demonstrated superiority at interim analysis for everolimus over placebo in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) progressing on vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Final results and analysis of prognostic factors are reported. METHODS: Patients with mRCC (N = 416) were randomized (2:1) to everolimus 10 mg/d (n = 277) or placebo (n = 139) plus best supportive care. Progression-free survival (PFS) and safety were assessed to the end of double-blind treatment. Mature overall survival (OS) data were analyzed, and prognostic factors for survival were investigated by multivariate analyses. A rank-preserving structural failure time model estimated the effect on OS, correcting for crossover from placebo to everolimus. RESULTS: The median PFS was 4.9 months (everolimus) versus 1.9 months (placebo) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; P < .001) by independent central review and 5.5 months (everolimus) versus 1.9 months (placebo) (HR, 0.32; P < .001) by investigators. Serious adverse events with everolimus, independent of causality, in ≥ 5% of patients included infections (all types, 10%), dyspnea (7%), and fatigue (5%). The median OS was 14.8 months (everolimus) versus 14.4 months (placebo) (HR, 0.87; P = .162), with 80% of patients in the placebo arm crossed over to everolimus. By the rank-preserving structural failure time model, the survival corrected for crossover was 1.9-fold longer (95% confidence interval, 0.5-8.5) with everolimus compared with placebo only. Independent prognostic factors for shorter OS in the study included low performance status, high corrected calcium, low hemoglobin, and prior sunitinib (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: These results established the efficacy and safety of everolimus in patients with mRCC after progression on sunitinib and/or sorafenib.

Gaucher disease (GD, ORPHA355) is a rare, autosomal recessive genetic disorder. It is caused by a deficiency of the lysosomal enzyme, glucocerebrosidase, which leads to an accumulation of its substrate, glucosylceramide, in macrophages. In the general population, its incidence is approximately 1/40,000 to 1/60,000 births, rising to 1/800 in Ashkenazi Jews. The main cause of the cytopenia, splenomegaly, hepatomegaly, and bone lesions associated with the disease is considered to be the infiltration of the bone marrow, spleen, and liver by Gaucher cells. Type-1 Gaucher disease, which affects the majority of patients (90% in Europe and USA, but less in other regions), is characterized by effects on the viscera, whereas types 2 and 3 are also associated with neurological impairment, either severe in type 2 or variable in type 3. A diagnosis of GD can be confirmed by demonstrating the deficiency of acid glucocerebrosidase activity in leukocytes. Mutations in the GBA1 gene should be identified as they may be of prognostic value in some cases. Patients with type-1 GD—but also carriers of GBA1 mutation—have been found to be predisposed to developing Parkinson’s disease, and the risk of neoplasia associated with the disease is still subject to discussion. Disease-specific treatment consists of intravenous enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) using one of the currently available molecules (imiglucerase, velaglucerase, or taliglucerase). Orally administered inhibitors of glucosylceramide biosynthesis can also be used (miglustat or eliglustat).

Hepatocellular adenomas are benign tumors that can be difficult to diagnose. To refine their classification, we performed a comprehensive analysis of their genetic, pathological, and clinical features. A multicentric series of 96 liver tumors with a firm or possible diagnosis of hepatocellular adenoma was reviewed by liver pathologists. In all cases, the genes coding for hepatocyte nuclear factor 1alpha (HNF1alpha) and beta-catenin were sequenced. No tumors were mutated in both HNF1alpha and beta-catenin enabling tumors to be classified into 3 groups, according to genotype. Tumors with HNF1alpha mutations formed the most important group of adenomas (44 cases). They were phenotypically characterized by marked steatosis (P < 10(-4)), lack of cytological abnormalities (P < 10(-6)), and no inflammatory infiltrates (P < 10(-4)). In contrast, the group of tumors defined by beta-catenin activation included 13 lesions with frequent cytological abnormalities and pseudo-glandular formation (P < 10(-5)). The third group of tumors without mutation was divided into two subgroups based on the presence of inflammatory infiltrates. The subgroup of tumors consisting of 17 inflammatory lesions, resembled telangiectatic focal nodular hyperplasias, with frequent cytological abnormalities (P = 10(-3)), ductular reaction (P < 10(-2)), and dystrophic vessels (P = .02). In this classification, hepatocellular carcinoma associated with adenoma or borderline lesions between carcinoma and adenoma is found in 46% of the beta-catenin-mutated tumors whereas they are never observed in inflammatory lesions and are rarely found in HNF1alpha mutated tumors (P = .004). In conclusion, the molecular and pathological classification of hepatocellular adenomas permits the identification of strong genotype-phenotype correlations and suggests that adenomas with beta-catenin activation have a higher risk of malignant transformation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with renal-cell carcinoma who undergo nephrectomy have no options for adjuvant therapy to reduce the risk of recurrence that have high levels of supporting evidence. METHODS: In a double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who were at high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy, with or without metastasectomy, to receive either adjuvant pembrolizumab (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 17 cycles (approximately 1 year). The primary end point was disease-free survival according to the investigator's assessment. Overall survival was a key secondary end point. Safety was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 496 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab, and 498 to receive placebo. At the prespecified interim analysis, the median time from randomization to the data-cutoff date was 24.1 months. Pembrolizumab therapy was associated with significantly longer disease-free survival than placebo (disease-free survival at 24 months, 77.3% vs. 68.1%; hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 0.87; P = 0.002 [two-sided]). The estimated percentage of patients who remained alive at 24 months was 96.6% in the pembrolizumab group and 93.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.96). Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 32.4% of the patients who received pembrolizumab and in 17.7% of those who received placebo. No deaths related to pembrolizumab therapy occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab treatment led to a significant improvement in disease-free survival as compared with placebo after surgery among patients with kidney cancer who were at high risk for recurrence. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck; KEYNOTE-564 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03142334.).

The work of liver stem cell biologists, largely carried out in rodent models, has now started to manifest in human investigations and applications. We can now recognize complex regenerative processes in tissue specimens that had only been suspected for decades, but we also struggle to describe what we see in human tissues in a way that takes into account the findings from the animal investigations, using a language derived from species not, in fact, so much like our own. This international group of liver pathologists and hepatologists, most of whom are actively engaged in both clinical work and scientific research, seeks to arrive at a consensus on nomenclature for normal human livers and human reactive lesions that can facilitate more rapid advancement of our field.

This guideline was developed as a joint interdisciplinary European project, including physicians from all relevant disciplines as well as patients. It is a consensus-based guideline, taking available evidence from other guidelines, systematic reviews and published studies into account. This second part of the guideline covers antimicrobial therapy, systemic treatment, allergen-specific immunotherapy, complementary medicine, psychosomatic counselling and educational interventions, whereas the first part covers methods, patient perspective, general measures and avoidance strategies, basic emollient treatment and bathing, dietary intervention, topical anti-inflammatory therapy, phototherapy and antipruritic therapy. Management of AE must consider the individual clinical variability of the disease. Systemic immunosuppressive treatment with cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine and mycophenolic acid is established option for severe refractory cases, and widely available. Biologicals targeting the T helper 2 pathway such as dupilumab may be a safe and effective, disease-modifying alternative when available. Oral drugs such as JAK inhibitors and histamine 4 receptor antagonists are in development. Microbial colonization and superinfection may cause disease exacerbation and can require additional antimicrobial treatment. Allergen-specific immunotherapy with aeroallergens may be considered in selected cases. Psychosomatic counselling is recommended especially in stress-induced exacerbations. Therapeutic patient education ('Eczema school') is recommended for children and adult patients. General measures, basic emollient treatment, bathing, dietary intervention, topical anti-inflammatory therapy, phototherapy and antipruritic therapy have been addressed in the first part of the guideline.

The existing evidence for treatment of atopic eczema (atopic dermatitis, AE) is evaluated using the national standard Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation. The consensus process consisted of a nominal group process and a DELPHI procedure. Management of AE must consider the individual symptomatic variability of the disease. Basic therapy is focused on hydrating topical treatment, and avoidance of specific and unspecific provocation factors. Anti-inflammatory treatment based on topical glucocorticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) is used for exacerbation management and more recently for proactive therapy in selected cases. Topical corticosteroids remain the mainstay of therapy, but the TCI tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are preferred in certain locations. Systemic immune-suppressive treatment is an option for severe refractory cases. Microbial colonization and superinfection may induce disease exacerbation and can justify additional antimicrobial treatment. Adjuvant therapy includes UV irradiation preferably with UVA1 wavelength or UVB 311 nm. Dietary recommendations should be specific and given only in diagnosed individual food allergy. Allergen-specific immunotherapy to aeroallergens may be useful in selected cases. Stress-induced exacerbations may make psychosomatic counselling recommendable. 'Eczema school' educational programs have been proven to be helpful. Pruritus is targeted with the majority of the recommended therapies, but some patients need additional antipruritic therapies.

UNLABELLED: Molecular classifications defining new tumor subtypes have been recently refined with genetic and transcriptomic analyses of benign and malignant hepatocellular tumors. Here, we performed microRNA (miRNA) profiling in two series of fully annotated liver tumors to uncover associations between oncogene/tumor suppressor mutations and clinical and pathological features. Expression levels of 250 miRNAs in 46 benign and malignant hepatocellular tumors were compared to those of 4 normal liver samples with quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. miRNAs associated with genetic and clinical characteristics were validated in a second series of 43 liver tumor samples and 16 nontumor samples. miRNA profiling unsupervised analysis classified samples in unique clusters characterized by histological features (tumor/nontumor, P < 0.001; benign/malignant tumors, P < 0.01; inflammatory adenoma and focal nodular hyperplasia, P < 0.01), clinical characteristics [hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, P < 0.001; alcohol consumption, P < 0.05], and oncogene/tumor suppressor gene mutations [beta-catenin, P < 0.01; hepatocyte nuclear factor 1alpha (HNF1alpha), P < 0.01]. Our study identified and validated miR-224 overexpression in all tumors and miR-200c, miR-200, miR-21, miR-224, miR-10b, and miR-222 specific deregulation in benign or malignant tumors. Moreover, miR-96 was overexpressed in HBV tumors, and miR-126* was down-regulated in alcohol-related hepatocellular carcinoma. Down-regulations of miR-107 and miR-375 were specifically associated with HNF1alpha and beta-catenin gene mutations, respectively. miR-375 expression was highly correlated to that of beta-catenin-targeted genes as miR-107 expression was correlated to that of HNF1alpha in a small interfering RNA cell line model. Thus, this strongly suggests that beta-catenin and HNF1alpha could regulate miR-375 and miR-107 expression levels, respectively. CONCLUSION: Hepatocellular tumors may have a distinct miRNA expression fingerprint according to malignancy, risk factors, and oncogene/tumor suppressor gene alterations. Dissecting these relationships provides a new hypothesis to understand the functional impact of miRNA deregulation in liver tumorigenesis and the promising use of miRNAs as diagnostic markers.

BACKGROUND: Ablation of the slow pathway has been performed to eliminate atrioventricular (AV) nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) either by a surgical approach or by using radiofrequency catheter technique guided by retrograde slow pathway activation mapping. From previous experience of midseptal and posteroseptal mapping, we were aware of the existence of peculiar slow potentials in most humans. Postulating their role in AVNRT, we studied these potentials and the effects of radiofrequency energy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty-four patients (mean age, 48 +/- 19 years) with the usual form of AVNRT were studied. Slow, low-amplitude potentials were recorded when using the anterograde AV conducting system. Slow potentials occupied all (giving a continuum of electrograms) or some of the time between the atrial and ventricular electrograms. Their most specific patterns were their progressive response to increasing atrial rates, which resulted in a dramatic decline in amplitude and slope, a corresponding increase in duration, and a separation from preceding atrial potentials until the disappearance of any consistent activity. Slow potentials were recorded along a vertical band at the mid or posterior part of the septum near the tricuspid annulus. Radiofrequency energy applied at the slow potential site resulted in interruption of induced tachycardia within a few seconds and rendered tachycardia noninducible in all patients. A median of two impulses was delivered to each patient. In 69% of patients, postablation atrial stimulation cannot achieve a long atrial-His interval, which previously was critical for tachycardia induction or maintenance. No patient had AVNRT over a follow-up period of 1-16 months, and all had preserved AV conduction. In all except two patients, the PR interval was unchanged. In 47 patients, long-term electrophysiological studies confirmed the efficacy of ablation and the nonreversibility of results by isoproterenol; however, echo beats remained inducible in 40% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: An area showing slow potentials is present at the perinodal region in humans. In patients with AVNRT, application of radiofrequency energy renders tachycardia noninducible through the preferential modification of the anterograde slow pathway. With present clinical methods, the exact origin and significance of these physiological potentials cannot be specified.

PURPOSE: Complete resection of liver metastases of colorectal origin is the only potentially curative treatment. In order to decrease recurrences, the use of adjuvant systemic chemotherapy after liver resection is controversial because no randomized study demonstrated its benefit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 173 patients with completely resected (R0) hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer to surgery alone and observation (87 patients) or to surgery followed by 6 months of systemic adjuvant chemotherapy with a fluorouracil and folinic acid monthly regimen (86 patients). The main outcome criterion was disease-free survival. Secondary outcome measures were overall survival and treatment-related toxicity. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat analysis was based on 171 patients, after a median follow-up of 87 months (SE = 5.8). The 5-year disease-free survival rate, after adjustment for major prognostic factors, was 33.5% for patients in the chemotherapy group and 26.7% for patients in the control group (Cox multivariate analysis: odds ratio for recurrence or death = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.96; P = .028). With regard to secondary outcome measures, a trend towards increased overall survival was observed but did not reach statistical significance (5-year overall survival: chemotherapy group, 51.1% v control group, 41.1%; odds ratio for death, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.10; P = .13). CONCLUSION: Despite a suboptimal regimen, which was the standard at the beginning of the study, adjuvant intravenous systemic chemotherapy provided a significant disease-free survival benefit for patients with resected liver metastases from colorectal cancer.