Jewish General Hospital

Assessment of risk of bias is regarded as an essential component of a systematic review on the effects of an intervention. The most commonly used tool for randomised trials is the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We updated the tool to respond to developments in understanding how bias arises in randomised trials, and to address user feedback on and limitations of the original tool.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a 10-minute cognitive screening tool (Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA) to assist first-line physicians in detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a clinical state that often progresses to dementia. DESIGN: Validation study. SETTING: A community clinic and an academic center. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-four patients meeting MCI clinical criteria supported by psychometric measures, 93 patients with mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) (Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score > or =17), and 90 healthy elderly controls (NC). MEASUREMENTS: The MoCA and MMSE were administered to all participants, and sensitivity and specificity of both measures were assessed for detection of MCI and mild AD. RESULTS: Using a cutoff score 26, the MMSE had a sensitivity of 18% to detect MCI, whereas the MoCA detected 90% of MCI subjects. In the mild AD group, the MMSE had a sensitivity of 78%, whereas the MoCA detected 100%. Specificity was excellent for both MMSE and MoCA (100% and 87%, respectively). CONCLUSION: MCI as an entity is evolving and somewhat controversial. The MoCA is a brief cognitive screening tool with high sensitivity and specificity for detecting MCI as currently conceptualized in patients performing in the normal range on the MMSE.

Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,
\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,
\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,
\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,
\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,
\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,
\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,
\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,
\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,
\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,
\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,
\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,
\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,
\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,
\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,
\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,
\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,
\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,
\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,
\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,
\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,
\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,
\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,
\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,
\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,
\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,
\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,
\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,
\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,
\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,
\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,
\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,
\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,
\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,
\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,
\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,
\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,
\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,
\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,
\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,
\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,
\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,
\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,
\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,
\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,
\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,
\nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002,
\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,
\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,
\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,
\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,
\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,
\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,
\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,
\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,
\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,
\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,
\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,
\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,
\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,
\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,
\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,
\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,
\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,
\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,
\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,
\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,
\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,
\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,
\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,
\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,
\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,
\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,
\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,
\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,
\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,
\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,
\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,
\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,
\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,
\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,
\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,
\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,
\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,
\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,
\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

Triple-negative breast cancer, so called because it lacks expression of the estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2, is often, but not always, a basal-like breast cancer. This review focuses on its origin, molecular and clinical characteristics, and treatment.

Importance: Mendelian randomization (MR) studies use genetic variation associated with modifiable exposures to assess their possible causal relationship with outcomes and aim to reduce potential bias from confounding and reverse causation. Objective: To develop the STROBE-MR Statement as a stand-alone extension to the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guideline for the reporting of MR studies. Design, Setting, and Participants: The development of the STROBE-MR Statement followed the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) framework guidance and used the STROBE Statement as a starting point to draft a checklist tailored to MR studies. The project was initiated in 2018 by reviewing the literature on the reporting of instrumental variable and MR studies. A group of 17 experts, including MR methodologists, MR study design users, developers of previous reporting guidelines, and journal editors, participated in a workshop in May 2019 to define the scope of the Statement and draft the checklist. The draft checklist was published as a preprint in July 2019 and discussed on the preprint platform, in social media, and at the 4th Mendelian Randomization Conference. The checklist was then revised based on comments, further refined through 2020, and finalized in July 2021. Findings: The STROBE-MR checklist is organized into 6 sections (Title and Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Other Information) and includes 20 main items and 30 subitems. It covers both 1-sample and 2-sample MR studies that assess 1 or multiple exposures and outcomes, and addresses MR studies that follow a genome-wide association study and are reported in the same article. The checklist asks authors to justify why MR is a helpful method to address the study question and state prespecified causal hypotheses. The measurement, quality, and selection of genetic variants must be described and attempts to assess validity of MR-specific assumptions should be well reported. An item on data sharing includes reporting when the data and statistical code required to replicate the analyses can be accessed. Conclusions and Relevance: STROBE-MR provides guidelines for reporting MR studies. Improved reporting of these studies could facilitate their evaluation by editors, peer reviewers, researchers, clinicians, and other readers, and enhance the interpretation of their results.

OBJECTIVE: The 1980 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria for systemic sclerosis (SSc) lack sensitivity for early SSc and limited cutaneous SSc. The present work, by a joint committee of the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), was undertaken for the purpose of developing new classification criteria for SSc. METHODS: Using consensus methods, 23 candidate items were arranged in a multicriteria additive point system with a threshold to classify cases as SSc. The classification system was reduced by clustering items and simplifying weights. The system was tested by 1) determining specificity and sensitivity in SSc cases and controls with scleroderma-like disorders, and 2) validating against the combined view of a group of experts on a set of cases with or without SSc. RESULTS: It was determined that skin thickening of the fingers extending proximal to the metacarpophalangeal joints is sufficient for the patient to be classified as having SSc; if that is not present, 7 additive items apply, with varying weights for each: skin thickening of the fingers, fingertip lesions, telangiectasia, abnormal nailfold capillaries, interstitial lung disease or pulmonary arterial hypertension, Raynaud's phenomenon, and SSc-related autoantibodies. Sensitivity and specificity in the validation sample were, respectively, 0.91 and 0.92 for the new classification criteria and 0.75 and 0.72 for the 1980 ACR classification criteria. All selected cases were classified in accordance with consensus-based expert opinion. All cases classified as SSc according to the 1980 ACR criteria were classified as SSc with the new criteria, and several additional cases were now considered to be SSc. CONCLUSION: The ACR/EULAR classification criteria for SSc performed better than the 1980 ACR criteria for SSc and should allow for more patients to be classified correctly as having the disease.

Importance: Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy synthesize data from primary diagnostic studies that have evaluated the accuracy of 1 or more index tests against a reference standard, provide estimates of test performance, allow comparisons of the accuracy of different tests, and facilitate the identification of sources of variability in test accuracy. Objective: To develop the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagnostic test accuracy guideline as a stand-alone extension of the PRISMA statement. Modifications to the PRISMA statement reflect the specific requirements for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies and the abstracts for these reviews. Design: Established standards from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network were followed for the development of the guideline. The original PRISMA statement was used as a framework on which to modify and add items. A group of 24 multidisciplinary experts used a systematic review of articles on existing reporting guidelines and methods, a 3-round Delphi process, a consensus meeting, pilot testing, and iterative refinement to develop the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline. The final version of the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline checklist was approved by the group. Findings: The systematic review (produced 64 items) and the Delphi process (provided feedback on 7 proposed items; 1 item was later split into 2 items) identified 71 potentially relevant items for consideration. The Delphi process reduced these to 60 items that were discussed at the consensus meeting. Following the meeting, pilot testing and iterative feedback were used to generate the 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist. To reflect specific or optimal contemporary systematic review methods for diagnostic test accuracy, 8 of the 27 original PRISMA items were left unchanged, 17 were modified, 2 were added, and 2 were omitted. Conclusions and Relevance: The 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist provides specific guidance for reporting of systematic reviews. The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline can facilitate the transparent reporting of reviews, and may assist in the evaluation of validity and applicability, enhance replicability of reviews, and make the results from systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies more useful.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without targeted biopsy, is an alternative to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy for prostate-cancer detection in men with a raised prostate-specific antigen level who have not undergone biopsy. However, comparative evidence is limited. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously to undergo MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, or standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. Men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group underwent a targeted biopsy (without standard biopsy cores) if the MRI was suggestive of prostate cancer; men whose MRI results were not suggestive of prostate cancer were not offered biopsy. Standard biopsy was a 10-to-12-core, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. The primary outcome was the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. RESULTS: A total of 500 men underwent randomization. In the MRI-targeted biopsy group, 71 of 252 men (28%) had MRI results that were not suggestive of prostate cancer, so they did not undergo biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 95 men (38%) in the MRI-targeted biopsy group, as compared with 64 of 248 (26%) in the standard-biopsy group (adjusted difference, 12 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 20; P=0.005). MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, was noninferior to standard biopsy, and the 95% confidence interval indicated the superiority of this strategy over standard biopsy. Fewer men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group than in the standard-biopsy group received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer (adjusted difference, -13 percentage points; 95% CI, -19 to -7; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of risk assessment with MRI before biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy was superior to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men at clinical risk for prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the European Association of Urology Research Foundation; PRECISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02380027 .).

BACKGROUND: Among patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) leads to longer overall survival than gemcitabine therapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen with gemcitabine as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned 493 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to receive a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen (oxaliplatin [85 mg per square meter of body-surface area], irinotecan [180 mg per square meter, reduced to 150 mg per square meter after a protocol-specified safety analysis], leucovorin [400 mg per square meter], and fluorouracil [2400 mg per square meter] every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks. The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival and safety. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, the median disease-free survival was 21.6 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 12.8 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for cancer-related event, second cancer, or death, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.73; P<0.001). The disease-free survival rate at 3 years was 39.7% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 21.4% in the gemcitabine group. The median overall survival was 54.4 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 35.0 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.86; P=0.003). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 63.4% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 48.6% in the gemcitabine group. Adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 75.9% of the patients in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and in 52.9% of those in the gemcitabine group. One patient in the gemcitabine group died from toxic effects (interstitial pneumonitis). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant therapy with a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen led to significantly longer survival than gemcitabine among patients with resected pancreatic cancer, at the expense of a higher incidence of toxic effects. (Funded by R&D Unicancer and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01526135 ; EudraCT number, 2011-002026-52 .).

BACKGROUND: Primary pulmonary hypertension is a progressive disease for which no treatment has been shown in a prospective, randomized trial to improve survival. METHODS: We conducted a 12-week prospective, randomized, multicenter open trial comparing the effects of the continuous intravenous infusion of epoprostenol (formerly called prostacyclin) plus conventional therapy with those of conventional therapy alone in 81 patients with severe primary pulmonary hypertension (New York Heart Association functional class III or IV). RESULTS: Exercise capacity was improved in the 41 patients treated with epoprostenol (median distance walked in six minutes, 362 m at 12 weeks vs. 315 m at base line), but it decreased in the 40 patients treated with conventional therapy alone (204 m at 12 weeks vs. 270 m at base line; P < 0.002 for the comparison of the treatment groups). Indexes of the quality of life were improved only in the epoprostenol group (P < 0.01). Hemodynamics improved at 12 weeks in the epoprostenol-treated patients. The changes in mean pulmonary-artery pressure for the epoprostenol and control groups were -8 percent and +3 percent, respectively (difference in mean change, -6.7 mm Hg; 95 percent confidence interval, -10.7 to -2.6 mm Hg; P < 0.002), and the mean changes in pulmonary vascular resistance for the epoprostenol and control groups were -21 percent and +9 percent, respectively (difference in mean change, -4.9 mm Hg/liter/min; 95 percent confidence interval, -7.6 to -2.3 mm Hg/liter/min; P < 0.001). Eight patients died during the study, all of whom had been randomly assigned to conventional therapy (P = 0.003). Serious complications included four episodes of catheter-related sepsis and one thrombotic event. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with conventional therapy, the continuous intravenous infusion of epoprostenol produced symptomatic and hemodynamic improvement, as well as improved survival in patients with severe primary pulmonary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: In a single-group, phase 1b trial, avelumab plus axitinib resulted in objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3 trial involving previously untreated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma compared avelumab plus axitinib with the standard-of-care sunitinib. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive avelumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. A key secondary end point was progression-free survival in the overall population; other end points included objective response and safety. RESULTS: A total of 886 patients were assigned to receive avelumab plus axitinib (442 patients) or sunitinib (444 patients). Among the 560 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (63.2%), the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months with avelumab plus axitinib, as compared with 7.2 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.79; P<0.001); in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months, as compared with 8.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84; P<0.001). Among the patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, the objective response rate was 55.2% with avelumab plus axitinib and 25.5% with sunitinib; at a median follow-up for overall survival of 11.6 months and 10.7 months in the two groups, 37 patients and 44 patients had died, respectively. Adverse events during treatment occurred in 99.5% of patients in the avelumab-plus-axitinib group and in 99.3% of patients in the sunitinib group; these events were grade 3 or higher in 71.2% and 71.5% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with avelumab plus axitinib than with sunitinib among patients who received these agents as first-line treatment for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Renal 101 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02684006.).

Insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) is a mitogen for prostate epithelial cells. To investigate associations between plasma IGF levels and prostate cancer risk, a nested case-control study within the Physicians' Health Study was conducted on prospectively collected plasma from 152 cases and 152 controls. A strong positive association was observed between IGF-I levels and prostate cancer risk. Men in the highest quartile of IGF-I levels had a relative risk of 4.3 (95 percent confidence interval 1.8 to 10.6) compared with men in the lowest quartile. This association was independent of baseline prostate-specific antigen levels. Identification of plasma IGF-I as a predictor of prostate cancer risk may have implications for risk reduction and treatment.

BACKGROUND: In March 2003, several hospitals in Quebec, Canada, noted a marked increase in the incidence of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. METHODS: In 2004 we conducted a prospective study at 12 Quebec hospitals to determine the incidence of nosocomial C. difficile-associated diarrhea and its complications and a case-control study to identify risk factors for the disease. Isolates of C. difficile were typed by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and analyzed for binary toxin genes and partial deletions in the toxin A and B repressor gene tcdC. Antimicrobial susceptibility was evaluated in a subgroup of isolates. RESULTS: A total of 1703 patients with 1719 episodes of nosocomial C. difficile-associated diarrhea were identified. The incidence was 22.5 per 1000 admissions. The 30-day attributable mortality rate was 6.9 percent. Case patients were more likely than matched controls to have received fluoroquinolones (odds ratio, 3.9; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.3 to 6.6) or cephalosporins (odds ratio, 3.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.2 to 6.6). A predominant strain, resistant to fluoroquinolones, was found in 129 of 157 isolates (82.2 percent), and the binary toxin genes and partial deletions in the tcdC gene were present in 132 isolates (84.1 percent). CONCLUSIONS: A strain of C. difficile that was resistant to fluoroquinolones and had binary toxin and a partial deletion of the tcdC gene was responsible for this outbreak of C. difficile-associated diarrhea. Exposure to fluoroquinolones or cephalosporins was a risk factor.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for screening to detect major depression. DESIGN: Individual participant data meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (January 2000-February 2015). INCLUSION CRITERIA: Eligible studies compared PHQ-9 scores with major depression diagnoses from validated diagnostic interviews. Primary study data and study level data extracted from primary reports were synthesized. For PHQ-9 cut-off scores 5-15, bivariate random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity, separately, among studies that used semistructured diagnostic interviews, which are designed for administration by clinicians; fully structured interviews, which are designed for lay administration; and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric (MINI) diagnostic interviews, a brief fully structured interview. Sensitivity and specificity were examined among participant subgroups and, separately, using meta-regression, considering all subgroup variables in a single model. RESULTS: Data were obtained for 58 of 72 eligible studies (total n=17 357; major depression cases n=2312). Combined sensitivity and specificity was maximized at a cut-off score of 10 or above among studies using a semistructured interview (29 studies, 6725 participants; sensitivity 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.92; specificity 0.85, 0.82 to 0.88). Across cut-off scores 5-15, sensitivity with semistructured interviews was 5-22% higher than for fully structured interviews (MINI excluded; 14 studies, 7680 participants) and 2-15% higher than for the MINI (15 studies, 2952 participants). Specificity was similar across diagnostic interviews. The PHQ-9 seems to be similarly sensitive but may be less specific for younger patients than for older patients; a cut-off score of 10 or above can be used regardless of age.. CONCLUSIONS: PHQ-9 sensitivity compared with semistructured diagnostic interviews was greater than in previous conventional meta-analyses that combined reference standards. A cut-off score of 10 or above maximized combined sensitivity and specificity overall and for subgroups. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014010673.

In observational epidemiology, mendelian randomisation (MR) studies provide an opportunity to study the causal association between an exposure and an outcome while reducing the risk of certain biases Little consensus exists around the reporting of MR studies, and the quality of reporting of these studies has been inconsistent; many MR study reports do not state or examine the various assumptions of MR and report insufficient details on the data sources STROBE-MR (strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology using mendelian randomisation), a checklist of 20 reporting items, has been developed for the communication of MR studies This article explains the rationale of these checklist items and provides examples of transparent reporting MR study authors, reviewers, and journal editors are encouraged to use STROBE-MR to improve the reporting of these studies on 18 July

Rapid induction of type I interferon expression, a central event in establishing the innate antiviral response, requires cooperative activation of numerous transcription factors. Although signaling pathways that activate the transcription factors nuclear factor kappaB and ATF-2/c-Jun have been well characterized, activation of the interferon regulatory factors IRF-3 and IRF-7 has remained a critical missing link in understanding interferon signaling. We report here that the IkappaB kinase (IKK)-related kinases IKKepsilon and TANK-binding kinase 1 are components of the virus-activated kinase that phosphorylate IRF-3 and IRF-7. These studies illustrate an essential role for an IKK-related kinase pathway in triggering the host antiviral response to viral infection.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis has been shown to reduce the risk of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection in some studies, but conflicting results have been reported among studies, probably due to challenges of adherence to a daily regimen. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial of antiretroviral therapy for preexposure HIV-1 prophylaxis among men who have unprotected anal sex with men. Participants were randomly assigned to take a combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and emtricitabine (FTC) or placebo before and after sexual activity. All participants received risk-reduction counseling and condoms and were regularly tested for HIV-1 and HIV-2 and other sexually transmitted infections. RESULTS: Of the 414 participants who underwent randomization, 400 who did not have HIV infection were enrolled (199 in the TDF-FTC group and 201 in the placebo group). All participants were followed for a median of 9.3 months (interquartile range, 4.9 to 20.6). A total of 16 HIV-1 infections occurred during follow-up, 2 in the TDF-FTC group (incidence, 0.91 per 100 person-years) and 14 in the placebo group (incidence, 6.60 per 100 person-years), a relative reduction in the TDF-FTC group of 86% (95% confidence interval, 40 to 98; P=0.002). Participants took a median of 15 pills of TDF-FTC or placebo per month (P=0.57). The rates of serious adverse events were similar in the two study groups. In the TDF-FTC group, as compared with the placebo group, there were higher rates of gastrointestinal adverse events (14% vs. 5%, P=0.002) and renal adverse events (18% vs. 10%, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The use of TDF-FTC before and after sexual activity provided protection against HIV-1 infection in men who have sex with men. The treatment was associated with increased rates of gastrointestinal and renal adverse events. (Funded by the National Agency of Research on AIDS and Viral Hepatitis [ANRS] and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01473472.).

BACKGROUND: Some observational studies suggest that the use of pulmonary-artery catheters to guide therapy is associated with increased mortality. METHODS: We performed a randomized trial comparing goal-directed therapy guided by a pulmonary-artery catheter with standard care without the use of a pulmonary-artery catheter. The subjects were high-risk patients 60 years of age or older, with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class III or IV risk, who were scheduled for urgent or elective major surgery, followed by a stay in an intensive care unit. Outcomes were adjudicated by observers who were unaware of the treatment-group assignments. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality from any cause. RESULTS: Of 3803 eligible patients, 1994 (52.4 percent) underwent randomization. The base-line characteristics of the two treatment groups were similar. A total of 77 of 997 patients who underwent surgery without the use of a pulmonary-artery catheter (7.7 percent) died in the hospital, as compared with 78 of 997 patients in whom a pulmonary-artery catheter was used (7.8 percent)--a difference of 0.1 percentage point (95 percent confidence interval, -2.3 to 2.5). There was a higher rate of pulmonary embolism in the catheter group than in the standard-care group (8 events vs. 0 events, P=0.004). The survival rates at 6 months among patients in the standard-care and catheter groups were 88.1 and 87.4 percent, respectively (difference, -0.7 percentage point [95 percent confidence interval, -3.6 to 2.2]; negative survival differences favor standard care); at 12 months, the rates were 83.9 and 83.0 percent, respectively (difference, -0.9 percentage point [95 percent confidence interval, -4.3 to 2.4]). The median hospital stay was 10 days in each group. CONCLUSIONS: We found no benefit to therapy directed by pulmonary-artery catheter over standard care in elderly, high-risk surgical patients requiring intensive care.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer have a poor prognosis. Sacituzumab govitecan is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an antibody targeting the human trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (Trop-2), which is expressed in the majority of breast cancers, coupled to SN-38 (topoisomerase I inhibitor) through a proprietary hydrolyzable linker. METHODS: In this randomized, phase 3 trial, we evaluated sacituzumab govitecan as compared with single-agent chemotherapy of the physician's choice (eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine) in patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. The primary end point was progression-free survival (as determined by blinded independent central review) among patients without brain metastases. RESULTS: A total of 468 patients without brain metastases were randomly assigned to receive sacituzumab govitecan (235 patients) or chemotherapy (233 patients). The median age was 54 years; all the patients had previous use of taxanes. The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3 to 6.3; 166 events) with sacituzumab govitecan and 1.7 months (95% CI, 1.5 to 2.6; 150 events) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.52; P<0.001). The median overall survival was 12.1 months (95% CI, 10.7 to 14.0) with sacituzumab govitecan and 6.7 months (95% CI, 5.8 to 7.7) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.59; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with an objective response was 35% with sacituzumab govitecan and 5% with chemotherapy. The incidences of key treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (51% with sacituzumab govitecan and 33% with chemotherapy), leukopenia (10% and 5%), diarrhea (10% and <1%), anemia (8% and 5%), and febrile neutropenia (6% and 2%). There were three deaths owing to adverse events in each group; no deaths were considered to be related to sacituzumab govitecan treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free and overall survival were significantly longer with sacituzumab govitecan than with single-agent chemotherapy among patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Myelosuppression and diarrhea were more frequent with sacituzumab govitecan. (Funded by Immunomedics; ASCENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02574455; EudraCT number, 2017-003019-21.).