Search

With the increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adolescents, to actively prevent the occurrence of asthma in this population is important for reducing the burden of the disease. Lifestyle factors, including diet and exercise, are importance for overweight and obese adolescents, as well as an important modifiable factor affecting airway inflammation and asthma, whether healthy lifestyle was correlated with the risk of asthma in adolescents ≥ 12 years has not been reported. We suspected that there might be correlation between healthy lifestyle behaviors and the risk of asthma in overweight and obese adolescents. This cross-sectional study aimed to explore the association between the adherence to a healthy lifestyle behaviors and the risk of asthma in overweight and obese adolescents based on the data of 945 participants aged between 12-18 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). Univariable and multivariable weighted Logistic regression models were applied to evaluate the association between healthy lifestyle behaviors with asthma risk in overweight and obese adolescents. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were applied as estimates. We found that the risk of asthma was reduced in overweight and obese adolescents with intermediate (OR = 0.40, 95%CI: 0.17-0.94) or good lifestyle behaviors (OR = 0.33, 95%CI: 0.13-0.86) in comparison to those with poor lifestyle behaviors. In summary, intermediate or good lifestyle behaviors was correlated with decreased risk of asthma in overweight and obese adolescents, which might provide a reference for making further prevention strategies for asthma in adolescents., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: PIK3CA mutations frequently contribute to oncogenesis in solid tumors. Taselisib, a potent and selective inhibitor of phosphoinositide 3-kinase, has demonstrated clinical activity in PIK3CA -mutant breast cancer. Whether PIK3CA mutations predict sensitivity to taselisib in other cancer types is unknown. National Cancer Institute-Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice Arm EAY131-I is a single-arm, phase II study of the safety and efficacy of taselisib in patients with advanced cancers., Methods: Eligible patients had tumors with an activating PIK3CA mutation. Patients with breast or squamous cell lung carcinoma, or whose cancer had KRAS or PTEN mutations, were excluded. Patients received taselisib 4 mg, orally once daily continuously, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was objective response rate. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), 6-month PFS, overall survival (OS), and identification of predictive biomarkers., Results: Seventy patients were enrolled, and 61 were eligible and initiated protocol therapy. Types of PIK3CA mutations included helical 41 of 61 (67%), kinase 11 of 61 (18%), and other 9 of 61 (15%). With a median follow-up of 35.7 months, there were no complete or partial responses. Six-month PFS was 19.9% (90% CI, 12.0 to 29.3) and median PFS was 3.1 months (90% CI, 1.8 to 3.7). Six-month OS was 60.7% (90% CI, 49.6 to 70.0) and median OS was 7.2 months (90% CI, 5.9 to 10.0). Individual comutations were too heterogeneous to correlate with clinical outcome. Fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, and hyperglycemia were the most common toxicities, and most were grade 1 and 2., Conclusion: In this study, taselisib monotherapy had very limited activity in a heterogeneous cohort of heavily pretreated cancer patients with PIK3CA -mutated tumors; the presence of a PIK3CA mutation alone does not appear to be a sufficient predictor of taselisib activity., Competing Interests: Ian E. KropEmployment: Freeline Therapeutics (I), PureTech (I), AMAG Pharmaceuticals (I)Leadership: AMAG Pharmaceuticals (I), Freeline Therapeutics (I), PureTech (I)Stock and Other Ownership Interests: AMAG Pharmaceuticals (I), Freeline Therapeutics (I), PureTech (I)Honoraria: Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, CelltrionConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Macrogenics, Novartis, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Genentech (Inst), Pfizer (Inst) Juneko E. Grilley-OlsonConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, Chimerix, Kura Oncology, SpringWorks TherapeuticsResearch Funding: NanoCarrier (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Loxo (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Iovance Biotherapeutics (Inst) Josh D. LauringEmployment: Janssen Research & DevelopmentStock and Other Ownership Interests: Johnson & JohnsonConsulting or Advisory Role: Galderma (I), Regeneron (I), Novartis (I)Speakers' Bureau: Galderma (I), AbbVie (I), Pfizer (I)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: I intermittently receive royalty payments for cell lines created in my laboratory, which are licensed for commercial sale to Horizon Discovery, Ltd by Johns Hopkins UniversityTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Galderma (I), AbbVie (I) Edith P. MitchellLeadership: Corvus PharmaceuticalsHonoraria: Sanofi, ExelixisConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech, Novartis, Merck, Bristol Myers SquibSpeakers' Bureau: IpsenResearch Funding: Genentech (Inst), sanofi (Inst) Robert J. GrayResearch Funding: Agios, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Genomic Health, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Ortho, Onyx, Pfizer, Sequenta, Syndax, Novartis, Takeda, AbbVie, Sanofi, Merck Sharp & Dohme P. Mickey WilliamsResearch Funding: Illumina (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: I was a coinventor of the DLBCL cell of origin patent recently filed by the NIH Stanley R. HamiltonResearch Funding: Minerva Biotechnologies, Intima James M. FordThis author is the Editor-in-Chief for JCO Precision Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Research Funding: Genentech (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Merus (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Incyte (Inst) Agustin A. GarciaConsulting or Advisory Role: Biotheranostics, GlaxoSmithKlineResearch Funding: Advenchen Laboratories (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Merck (Inst), Iovance Pharm (Inst) Xingwei D. SuiConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis Robert D. SiegelResearch Funding: Merck (Inst), Mirati Therapeutics (Inst), GRAIL (Inst), Altor BioScience (Inst), Galera Therapeutics (Inst), Apollomics (Inst), Strata Oncology (Inst), Arcus Biosciences (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Cancer Insight (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Conjupro Biotherapeutics (Inst), Razor Genomics (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst)Other Relationship: American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Brian M. SlomovitzConsulting or Advisory Role: Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Incyte, Agenus, GlaxoSmithKline, GOG Foundation, Myriad Genetics, Merck, Eisai Carlos L. ArteagaStock and Other Ownership Interests: Provista DiagnosticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Lilly, Sanofi, Radius Health, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Puma Biotechnology, Merck, Origimed, Immunomedics, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Astrazeneca, ArvinasResearch Funding: Pfizer, Lilly, TakedaOther Relationship: Susan G. Komen for the Cure Lyndsay N. HarrisPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Philips Healthcare Peter J. O'DwyerConsulting or Advisory Role: GenentechResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Mirati Therapeutics (Inst), Celgene (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), BBI Healthcare (Inst), Pharmacyclics (Inst), Five Prime Therapeutics (Inst), Forty Seven (Inst), Amgen (Inst), H3 Biomedicine (Inst), Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), Array BioPharma (Inst), Lilly/ImClone (Inst), Syndax (Inst), Syndax (Inst), Syndax (Inst), Syndax (Inst), syndax (Inst), Minneamrita Therapeutics (Inst)Expert Testimony: Lilly, Dai-ichi Sankyo Alice P. Chen(OPTIONAL) Uncompensated Relationships: Frontiers in Medicine Keith T. FlahertyStock and Other Ownership Interests: Clovis Oncology, Loxo, X4 Pharma, Strata Oncology, PIC Therapeutics, Shattuck Labs, Apricity Health, Oncoceutics, FOGPharma, Tvardi Therapeutics, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Kinnate Biopharma, Scorpion Therapeutics, ALX Oncology, xCures, Monopteros Therapeutics, Vibliome Therapeutics, Transcode Therapeutics, Soley TherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Lilly, Oncoceutics, Tvardi Therapeutics, Takeda, Boston Biomedical, Debiopharm Group, FOGPharmaNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Mouse incisors are capable of continuously growing due to the renewal of dental epithelium stem cells and mesenchymal stem cells residing at the proximal ends. The transcription factor Sox9 plays important roles in maintaining the stem cells of hair follicles, retinal progenitor cells and neural crest stem cells. Whether Sox9 is involved during mouse incisor development is not reported yet. In this study, we examined the expression pattern of Sox9 during mouse incisor development by in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry. Sox9 mRNA and protein showed similar expression pattern from embryonic day (E) 13.5 to postnatal (PN) day 10. At E13.5 and E14.5, Sox9 was strongly expressed in the dental epithelium. At E16.5, Sox9 started to be detected in the mesenchymal cells within the dental pulp, especially the dental pulp cells that adjacent to the labial cervical loop. Similarly with E14.5, Sox9 was strongly detected in the labial cervical loop, including the basal epithelium, the stellate reticulum and the outer enamel epithelium from E16.5 to PN10. The mesenchyme adjacent to the labial cervical loop also showed strong signal of Sox9. The spatiotemporal expression of Sox9 suggested its possible involvement during mouse incisor development.

Background: P53 has been reported to be involved with tumorigenesis and has also been implicated as a significant biomarker in oral squamous cell carcinoma(OSCC). However, the diagnostic value of p53 antibodies remains controversial; hence, we comprehensively and quantitatively assessed the potential in the present systematic review., Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was performed using PubMed and Embase, up to October 31, 2014, without language restriction. Studies were assessed for quality using QUADAS (quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy). The positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were pooled separately and compared with overall accuracy measures using diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) and symmetric summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves., Results: Of 150 studies initially identified, 7 eligible regarding serum p53 antibodies met the inclusion criteria. Some 85.7% (6/7) were of relatively high quality (QUADAS score≥7). The summary estimates for quantitative analysis of serum p53 antibody in the diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma were: PLR 2.06 [95% confidence interval (CI) : 1.35-3.15], NLR 0.85 (95%CI: 0.80- 0.90) and DOR 2.47 (95%CI: 1.49- 4.12)., Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that the use of s-p53-antibodies has potential diagnostic value with relatively high sensitivity and specificity for OSCC particularly with serum specimens for discrimination of OSCCs from healthy controls. However, its discrimination power is not perfect because of low sensitivity.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the association of area strain and tissue components and vulnerability of atherosclerotic plaques in a rabbit model. Forty purebred New Zealand rabbits underwent balloon-induced abdominal aorta endothelium injury, then a high-cholesterol diet for 24 weeks. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) images of abdominal aortas were acquired in situ and two consecutive frames near the end-diastole were used to construct an IVUS elastogram. Histologic slices matched with corresponding IVUS images were stained for fatty and collagen components, smooth muscle cells (SMCs) and macrophages. Regions-of-interest (ROIs) in plaques were classified as fibrous, fibro-fatty or fatty according to histologic study. Vulnerability indexes of ROIs were calculated as (fat + macrophage)/(collagen + SMCs). The area strain of these ROIs was calculated by use of an in-house-designed software system with a block-matching-based algorithm. Area strain was significantly higher in fatty ROIs (0.056 ± 0.003) than in fibrous (0.019 ± 0.002, p < 0.001) or fibro-fatty ROIs (0.033 ± 0.003, p < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of area strain for fatty ROIs characterization was 75.0% and 80.2% (area under the curve [AUC] 0.858, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.800-0.916, p < 0.001) and 75.0% and 75.3% (AUC 0.859, 95% CI = 0.801-0.917, p < 0.001) for fibrous ROIs, as demonstrated by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Area strain was positively correlated with vulnerability index (r(2) = 0.495, p < 0.001), fatty components (r(2) = 0.332, p < 0.001) and macrophage infiltration (r(2) = 0.406, p < 0.001); and negatively correlated with collagen and SMC composition (r(2) = 0.115 and r(2) = 0.169, p < 0.001, respectively). Area strain calculation with IVUS elastography based on digital B-mode analysis is feasible and can be useful for tissue characterization and plaque vulnerability assessment., (Copyright © 2011 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)