Background. Spinal metastases frequently arise in patients with cancer. Modern oncology provides numerous treatment options that include effective systemic, radiation, and surgical options. We delineate and provide the evidence for the neurologic, oncologic, mechanical, and systemic (NOMS) decision framework, which is used at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center to determine the optimal therapy for patients with spine metastases. Methods. We provide a literature review of the integral publications that serve as the basis for the NOMS framework and report the results of systematic implementation of the NOMSguided treatment. Results. The NOMS decision framework consists of the neurologic, oncologic, mechanical, and systemic considerations and incorporates the use of conventional external beam radiation, spinal stereotactic radiosurgery, and minimally invasive and open surgical interventions. Review of radiation oncology and surgical literature that examine the outcomes of treatment of spinal metastatic tumors provides support for the NOMS decision framework. Application of the NOMS paradigm integrates multimodality therapy to optimize local tumor control, pain relief, and restoration or preservation of neurologic function and minimizes morbidity in this often systemically ill patient population. Conclusion. NOMS paradigm provides a decision framework that incorporates sentinel decision points in the treatment of spinal metastases. Consideration of the tumor sensitivity to radiation in conjunction with the extent of epidural extension allows determination of the optimal radiation treatment and the need for surgical decompression. Mechanical stability of the spine and the systemic disease considerations further help determine the need and the feasibility of surgical intervention. The Oncologist 2013;18:744 -751 Implications for Practice: Treatment of spinal metastatic tumors requires a multidisciplinary approach which integrates radiation and medical oncology, surgery, and interventional radiology. The NOMS framework described in this manuscript incorporates the neurologic, oncologic, mechanical, and systemic considerations to facilitate decision making in the care of patients with spinal metastases. Furthermore, this framework allows dynamic integration of novel systemic and radiation options which is crucial in these rapidly evolving disciplines. The article summarizes the supporting literature for this framework and provides the results of implementation of the NOMS paradigm in the care of cancer patients. INTRODUCTIONSpinal metastases occur in 20% of all patients with cancer [1, 2], with 5%-10% of patients with cancer developing spinal cord compression [3,4]. The treatment of spinal metastases is palliative, with the goals of providing pain relief, maintenance or recovery of neurologic function, local durable tumor control, spinal stability, and improved quality of life. Over the past decade, treatment has evolved from simple decisions regarding the need for either surgery or conventional external beam...

No abstract

No abstract

Metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD), a fatal disorder caused by deficiency of the lysosomal enzyme arylsulfatase A (ARSA), is associated with an accumulation of sulfatides, causing widespread demyelination in both central and peripheral nervous systems. On the basis of prior studies demonstrating that adeno-associated virus AAVrh.10 can mediate widespread distribution in the CNS of a secreted lysosomal transgene, and as a prelude to human trials, we comparatively assessed the optimal CNS delivery route of an AAVrh.10 vector encoding human ARSA in a large animal model for broadest distribution of ARSA enzyme. Five routes were tested (each total dose, 1.5 · 10 12 genome copies of AAVrh.10hARSA-FLAG): (1) delivery to white matter centrum ovale; (2) deep gray matter delivery (putamen, thalamus, and caudate) plus overlying white matter; (3) convection-enhanced delivery to same deep gray matter locations; (4) lateral cerebral ventricle; and (5) intraarterial delivery with hyperosmotic mannitol to the middle cerebral artery. After 13 weeks, the distribution of ARSA activity subsequent to each of the three direct intraparenchymal administration routes was significantly higher than in phosphate-buffered saline-administered controls, but administration by the intraventricular and intraarterial routes failed to demonstrate measurable levels above controls. Immunohistochemical staining in the cortex, white matter, deep gray matter of the striatum, thalamus, choroid plexus, and spinal cord dorsal root ganglions confirmed these results. Of the five routes studied, administration to the white matter generated the broadest distribution of ARSA, with 80% of the brain displaying more than a therapeutic (10%) increase in ARSA activity above PBS controls. No significant toxicity was observed with any delivery route as measured by safety parameters, although some inflammatory changes were seen by histopathology. We conclude that AAVrh.10-mediated delivery of ARSA via CNS administration into the white matter is likely to be safe and yields the widest distribution of ARSA, making it the most suitable route of vector delivery.