METHODS: 28 experts from 11 countries reviewed the evidence and modified the statements using the Delphi method, with consensus level predefined as ≥80% of agreement on each statement. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was followed.
RESULTS: Consensus was reached in 26 statements. At an individual level, eradication of H. pylori reduces the risk of GC in asymptomatic subjects and is recommended unless there are competing considerations. In cohorts of vulnerable subjects (eg, first-degree relatives of patients with GC), a screen-and-treat strategy is also beneficial. H. pylori eradication in patients with early GC after curative endoscopic resection reduces the risk of metachronous cancer and calls for a re-examination on the hypothesis of 'the point of no return'. At the general population level, the strategy of screen-and-treat for H. pylori infection is most cost-effective in young adults in regions with a high incidence of GC and is recommended preferably before the development of atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia. However, such a strategy may still be effective in people aged over 50, and may be integrated or included into national healthcare priorities, such as colorectal cancer screening programmes, to optimise the resources. Reliable locally effective regimens based on the principles of antibiotic stewardship are recommended. Subjects at higher risk of GC, such as those with advanced gastric atrophy or intestinal metaplasia, should receive surveillance endoscopy after eradication of H. pylori.
CONCLUSION: Evidence supports the proposal that eradication therapy should be offered to all individuals infected with H. pylori. Vulnerable subjects should be tested, and treated if the test is positive. Mass screening and eradication of H. pylori should be considered in populations at higher risk of GC.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving PCP with ≥1-year working experience in Malaysian primary care settings. An adapted and validated 25-item FH-KAP questionnaire was disseminated during primary care courses. Total score for each domain was calculated by summing-up the correct responses, converted into percentage scores. Normality distribution was examined and comparisons of mean/median percentage scores were made between the two groups of PCP.
RESULTS: A total of 372 PCP completed the questionnaire. Regarding knowledge, 77.7% correctly defined FH. However, only 8.3% correctly identified coronary artery disease risk in untreated FH. The mean percentage knowledge score was significantly higher in PCP-PG-Qual compared to PCP-noPG-Qual (48.9, SD ± 13.92 vs. 35.2, SD ± 14.13), t(370) = 8.66, p
METHODS: 79 patients with DLBCL (nodal, 59% and extranodal, 41%) treated with rituximab combined with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP) therapy were selected. Expression levels of BCR and linked signalling pathway molecules were inter-related with Lymph2Cx-based cell of origin (COO) types and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS: Activated B-cell (ABC) type DLBCL constituted 49% (39/79) compared with germinal centre B-cell (GCB) type DLBCL (29/79; 37%) and revealed poor prognosis (p=0.013). In ABC-DLBCL, high BTK expression exerted poor response to R-CHOP, while OS in ABC-DLBCL with low BTK expression was similar to GCB-DLBCL subtype (p=0.004). High LYN expression coupled with a poor OS for ABC-DLBCL as well as GCB-DLBCL subtypes (p=0.001). Furthermore, high coexpression of BTK/LYN (BTKhigh/LYNhigh) showed poor OS (p=0.019), which linked with upregulation of several genes associated with BCR repertoire and nuclear factor-kappa B pathway (p<0.01). In multivariate analysis, high BTK and LYN expression retained prognostic significance against established clinical predictive factors such as age, International Prognostic Index and COO (p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Our data provide a clear association between high BCR activity in DLBCL and response to therapy in a distinct population. Molecular data provided here will pave the pathway for the provision of promising novel-targeted therapies to patients with DLBCL in Southeast Asia.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Tumor tissue EGFRm status was determined at screening using the central cobas tissue test or a local tissue test. Baseline circulating tumor (ct)DNA EGFRm status was retrospectively determined with the central cobas plasma test.
RESULTS: Of 994 patients screened, 556 were randomized (289 and 267 with central and local EGFR test results, respectively) and 438 failed screening. Of those randomized from local EGFR test results, 217 patients had available central test results; 211/217 (97%) were retrospectively confirmed EGFRm positive by central cobas tissue test. Using reference central cobas tissue test results, positive percent agreements with cobas plasma test results for Ex19del and L858R detection were 79% [95% confidence interval (CI), 74-84] and 68% (95% CI, 61-75), respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) superiority with osimertinib over comparator EGFR-TKI remained consistent irrespective of randomization route (central/local EGFRm-positive tissue test). In both treatment arms, PFS was prolonged in plasma ctDNA EGFRm-negative (23.5 and 15.0 months) versus -positive patients (15.2 and 9.7 months).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results support utility of cobas tissue and plasma testing to aid selection of patients with EGFRm advanced NSCLC for first-line osimertinib treatment. Lack of EGFRm detection in plasma was associated with prolonged PFS versus patients plasma EGFRm positive, potentially due to patients having lower tumor burden.