Charité

About: Charité is a healthcare organization based out in Berlin, Germany. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Transplantation. The organization has 30624 authors who have published 64507 publications receiving 2437322 citations. The organization is also known as: Charite & Charité – University Medicine Berlin.

Predictive Value of the sFlt-1: PlGF Ratio in Women With Suspected Preeclampsia EDITORIAL COMMENT

Abstract: Predictive Value of the sFlt-1 : PlGF Ratio in Women With Suspected Preeclampsia EDITORIAL COMMENT

Clinical relevance of host immunity in breast cancer: from TILs to the clinic

Abstract: The clinical relevance of the host immune system in breast cancer has long been unexplored. Studies developed over the past decade have highlighted the biological heterogeneity of breast cancer, prompting researchers to investigate whether the role of the immune system in this malignancy is similar across different molecular subtypes of the disease. The presence of high levels of lymphocytic infiltration has been consistently associated with a more-favourable prognosis in patients with early stage triple-negative and HER2-positive breast cancer. These infiltrates seem to reflect favourable host antitumour immune responses, suggesting that immune activation is important for improving survival outcomes. In this Review, we discuss the composition of the immune infiltrates observed in breast cancers, as well as data supporting the clinical relevance of host antitumour immunity, as represented by lymphocytic infiltration, and how this biomarker could be used in the clinical setting. We also discuss the rationale for enhancing immunity in breast cancer, including early data on the efficacy of T-cell checkpoint inhibition in this setting.

Treatment and outcomes of acute basilar artery occlusion in the Basilar Artery International Cooperation Study (BASICS): a prospective registry study.

Abstract: Summary Background Treatment strategies for acute basilar artery occlusion (BAO) are based on case series and data that have been extrapolated from stroke intervention trials in other cerebrovascular territories, and information on the efficacy of different treatments in unselected patients with BAO is scarce. We therefore assessed outcomes and differences in treatment response after BAO. Methods The Basilar Artery International Cooperation Study (BASICS) is a prospective, observational registry of consecutive patients who presented with an acute symptomatic and radiologically confirmed BAO between November 1, 2002, and October 1, 2007. Stroke severity at time of treatment was dichotomised as severe (coma, locked-in state, or tetraplegia) or mild to moderate (any deficit that was less than severe). Outcome was assessed at 1 month. Poor outcome was defined as a modified Rankin scale score of 4 or 5, or death. Patients were divided into three groups according to the treatment they received: antithrombotic treatment only (AT), which comprised antiplatelet drugs or systemic anticoagulation; primary intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), including subsequent intra-arterial thrombolysis; or intra-arterial therapy (IAT), which comprised thrombolysis, mechanical thrombectomy, stenting, or a combination of these approaches. Risk ratios (RR) for treatment effects were adjusted for age, the severity of neurological deficits at the time of treatment, time to treatment, prodromal minor stroke, location of the occlusion, and diabetes. Findings 619 patients were entered in the registry. 27 patients were excluded from the analyses because they did not receive AT, IVT, or IAT, and all had a poor outcome. Of the 592 patients who were analysed, 183 were treated with only AT, 121 with IVT, and 288 with IAT. Overall, 402 (68%) of the analysed patients had a poor outcome. No statistically significant superiority was found for any treatment strategy. Compared with outcome after AT, patients with a mild-to-moderate deficit (n=245) had about the same risk of poor outcome after IVT (adjusted RR 0·94, 95% CI 0·60–1·45) or after IAT (adjusted RR 1·29, 0·97–1·72) but had a worse outcome after IAT compared with IVT (adjusted RR 1·49, 1·00–2·23). Compared with AT, patients with a severe deficit (n=347) had a lower risk of poor outcome after IVT (adjusted RR 0·88, 0·76–1·01) or IAT (adjusted RR 0·94, 0·86–1·02), whereas outcomes were similar after treatment with IAT or IVT (adjusted RR 1·06, 0·91–1·22). Interpretation Most patients in the BASICS registry received IAT. Our results do not support unequivocal superiority of IAT over IVT, and the efficacy of IAT versus IVT in patients with an acute BAO needs to be assessed in a randomised controlled trial. Funding Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Utrecht.