Hebron University

About: Hebron University is a education organization based out in Hebron, Palestinian Territory. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Cancer. The organization has 2714 authors who have published 4180 publications receiving 163736 citations.

Molecular pathology of endometrial carcinoma: transcriptional signature in endometrioid tumors.

Abstract: A dualistic model, which has been established on a morphological basis and that differentiates type I endometrioid from type II non-endometrioid endometrial cancer, is widely accepted. Molecular genetics have provided us with data supporting the dualistic model of endometrial tumorigenesis and with some clues to speculate about the sequence of the molecular alterations defining the tumorigenesis pathways. In type I endometrioid endometrial cancer, PTEN gene silencing, microsatellite instability associated with defects in DNA mismatch repair genes, or mutations in the K-ras gene are the known major alterations defining the progression from normal endometrium to hyperplasia and then on to carcinoma. Recently, cDNA microarray technology for identifying the differences in gene expression patterns between the histological types of endometrial cancer have permitted the identification of differentially expressed genes that could help us to understand differences in the biology and the clinical outcome between histiotypes. Genes involved in the mitotic checkpoint as a major mechanism of carcinogenesis in non-endometrioid endometrial cancer, or altered genes associated with the initial steps of myometrial infiltration in endometrioid endometrial cancer, represent examples of how useful large genetic screenings can be for understanding the tumorigenesis process and the future directions in the molecular pathogenesis of endometrial cancer.

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Research Priorities for Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Critical Illness

Abstract: Objectives To identify research priorities in the management, pathophysiology, and host response of coronavirus disease 2019 in critically ill patients. Design The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 17 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine, was virtually convened during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The committee iteratively developed the recommendations and subsequent document. Methods Each committee member submitted a list of what they believed were the most important priorities for coronavirus disease 2019 research. The entire committee voted on 58 submitted questions to determine top priorities for coronavirus disease 2019 research. Results The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 13 priorities for coronavirus disease 2019. Of these, the top six priorities were identified and include the following questions: 1) Should the approach to ventilator management differ from the standard approach in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure?, 2) Can the host response be modulated for therapeutic benefit?, 3) What specific cells are directly targeted by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and how do these cells respond?, 4) Can early data be used to predict outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 and, by extension, to guide therapies?, 5) What is the role of prone positioning and noninvasive ventilation in nonventilated patients with coronavirus disease?, and 6) Which interventions are best to use for viral load modulation and when should they be given? Conclusions Although knowledge of both biology and treatment has increased exponentially in the first year of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, significant knowledge gaps remain. The research priorities identified represent a roadmap for investigation in coronavirus disease 2019.

Systematic review and literature appraisal on methodology of conducting and reporting critical-care echocardiography studies: a report from the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine PRICES expert panel

Abstract: The echocardiography working group of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine recognized the need to provide structured guidance for future CCE research methodology and reporting based on a systematic appraisal of the current literature. Here is reported this systematic appraisal. We conducted a systematic review, registered on the Prospero database. A total of 43 items of common interest to all echocardiography studies were initially listed by the experts, and other “topic-specific” items were separated into five main categories of interest (left ventricular systolic function, LVSF n = 15, right ventricular function, RVF n = 18, left ventricular diastolic function, LVDF n = 15, fluid management, FM n = 7, and advanced echocardiography techniques, AET n = 17). We evaluated the percentage of items reported per study and the fraction of studies reporting a single item. From January 2000 till December 2017 a total of 209 articles were included after systematic search and screening, 97 for LVSF, 48 for RVF, 51 for LVDF, 36 for FM and 24 for AET. Shock and ARDS were relatively common among LVSF articles (both around 15%) while ARDS comprised 25% of RVF articles. Transthoracic echocardiography was the main echocardiography mode, in 87% of the articles for AET topic, followed by 81% for FM, 78% for LVDF, 70% for LVSF and 63% for RVF. The percentage of items per study as well as the fraction of study reporting an item was low or very low, except for FM. As an illustration, the left ventricular size was only reported by 56% of studies in the LVSF topic, and half studies assessing RVF reported data on pulmonary artery systolic pressure. This analysis confirmed sub-optimal reporting of several items listed by an expert panel. The analysis will help the experts in the development of guidelines for CCE study design and reporting.

Expert perspectives on biosimilar monoclonal antibodies in breast cancer

Abstract: While biosimilars of low molecular-weight biologics such as G-CSF have been available in Europe since 2006, biosimilars of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have only become available in the last year. Unlike G-CSF, mAbs are large and complex and often play a direct role in the survival of patients with life-threatening illnesses such as breast cancer. Several biosimilars are currently under development for the treatment of breast cancer, and the use of biosimilars in a setting that directly impacts patient survival raises a number of questions. In this review, we discuss the biosimilar mAbs currently in development for the treatment of breast cancer. We provide an overview of the European Medicine Agency guidelines and historic data on the development of biosimilars in order to discuss the development of biosimilar mAbs for breast cancer. Biosimilars offer a highly attractive path toward reducing the cost of medical care and should be pursued with great interest. However, for agents used to treat life-threatening diseases such as cancer, a cautious approach must be taken to ensure that there is no negative impact on patient care. Clinical trials for biosimilar mAbs must be carried out in an appropriately sensitive patient population using endpoints that can accurately demonstrate both the similarity of the biosimilar and its efficacy in the indication. Due to the abbreviated approval pathway, rigorous pharmacovigilance must be in place once a biosimilar mAb is approved in order to ensure its long-term safety and efficacy.