IntroductionCurrent methods to determine HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) status are affected by reproducibility issues and do not reliably predict benefit from anti-HER2 therapy. Quantitative measurement of HER2 may more accurately identify breast cancer (BC) patients who will respond to anti-HER2 treatments.MethodsUsing selected reaction monitoring mass spectrometry (SRM-MS), we quantified HER2 protein levels in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue samples that had been classified as HER2 0, 1+, 2+ or 3+ by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis was conducted to obtain optimal HER2 protein expression thresholds predictive of HER2 status (by standard IHC or in situ hybridization [ISH]) and of survival benefit after anti-HER2 therapy.ResultsAbsolute HER2 amol/μg levels were significantly correlated with both HER2 IHC and amplification status by ISH (p < 0.0001). A HER2 threshold of 740 amol/μg showed an agreement rate of 94% with IHC and ISH standard HER2 testing (p < 0.0001). Discordant cases (SRM-MS-negative/ISH-positive) showed a characteristic amplification pattern known as double minutes. HER2 levels >2200 amol/μg were significantly associated with longer disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in an adjuvant setting and with longer OS in a metastatic setting.ConclusionQuantitative HER2 measurement by SRM-MS is superior to IHC and ISH in predicting outcome after treatment with anti-HER2 therapy.

Our results suggest that patients can psychologically cope with cancer panel testing, but distress and uncertainty observed in carriers of moderate penetrance cancer variants in this cohort warrant further research.

Rationale Optimal pre-hospital delivery pathways for acute stroke patients suspected to harbor a large vessel occlusion have not been assessed in randomized trials. Aim To establish whether stroke subjects with rapid arterial occlusion evaluation scale based suspicion of large vessel occlusion evaluated by emergency medical services in the field have higher rates of favorable outcome when transferred directly to an endovascular center (endovascular treatment stroke center), as compared to the standard transfer to the closest local stroke center (local-SC). Design Multicenter, superiority, cluster randomized within a cohort trial with blinded endpoint assessment. Procedure Eligible patients must be 18 or older, have acute stroke symptoms and not have an immediate life threatening condition requiring emergent medical intervention. They must be suspected to have intracranial large vessel occlusion based on a pre-hospital rapid arterial occlusion evaluation scale of ≥5, be located in geographical areas where the default health authority assigned referral stroke center is a non-thrombectomy capable hospital, and estimated arrival at a thrombectomy capable stroke hospital in less than 7 h from time last seen well. Cluster randomization is performed according to a pre-established temporal sequence (temporal cluster design) with three strata: day/night, distance to the endovascular treatment stroke center, and week/week-end day. Study outcome The primary endpoint is the modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days. The primary safety outcome is mortality at 90 days. Analysis The primary endpoint based on the modified intention-to-treat population is the distribution of modified Rankin Scale scores at 90 days analyzed under a sequential triangular design. The maximum sample size is 1754 patients, with two planned interim analyses when 701 (40%) and 1227 patients have completed follow-up. Hypothesized common odds ratio is 1.35.

Background: Precision medicine is the Holy Grail of interventions that are tailored to a patient’s individual characteristics. However, conventional clinical trials are designed to find differences in averages, and interpreting these differences depends on untestable assumptions. Although only an ideal, a constant effect of treatment would facilitate individual management. A direct consequence of a constant effect is that the variance of the outcome measure would be the same in the treated and control arms. We reviewed the literature to explore the similarity of these variances as a foundation for examining whether and how often precision medicine is definitively required. Methods: We reviewed parallel clinical trials with numerical primary endpoints published in 2004, 2007, 2010 and 2013. We collected the baseline and final standard deviations of the main outcome measure. We assessed homoscedasticity by comparing the variance of the primary endpoint between arms through the outcome variance ratio (treated to control group). Results: The review provided 208 articles with enough information to conduct the analysis. One out of five studies (n = 40, 19.2%) had statistically different variances between groups, implying a non-constant-effect. The adjusted point estimate of the mean outcome variance ratio (treated to control group) is 0.89 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97). Conclusions: The mean variance ratio is significantly lower than 1 and the lower variance was found more often in the intervention group than in the control group, suggesting it is more usual for treated patients to be stable. This observed reduction in variance might also imply that there could be a subgroup of less ill patients who derive no benefit from treatment. This would require further study as to whether the treatment effect outweighs the side effects as well as the economic costs. We have shown that there are ways to analyze the apparently unobservable constant effect.

Sequencing of tumors is now routine and guides personalized cancer therapy. Mutant allele fractions (MAFs, or the ‘mutation dose’) of a driver gene may reveal the genomic structure of tumors and influence response to targeted therapies. We performed a comprehensive analysis of MAFs of driver alterations in unpaired primary and metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) at our institution from 2010 to 2015 and studied their potential clinical relevance. Of 763 CRC samples, 622 had detailed annotation on overall survival in the metastatic setting (OSmet) and 89 received targeted agents matched to KRAS (MEK inhibitors), BRAF (BRAF inhibitors), or PIK3CA mutations (PI3K pathway inhibitors). MAFs of each variant were normalized for tumor purity in the sample (adjMAFs). We found lower adjMAFs for BRAFV 600E and PIK3CA than for KRAS,NRAS, and BRAF non‐V600 variants. TP53 and BRAFV 600E adjMAFs were higher in metastases as compared to primary tumors, and high KRAS adjMAFs were found in CRC metastases of patients with KRAS wild‐type primary tumors previously exposed to EGFR antibodies. Patients with RAS‐ or BRAFV 600E‐mutated tumors, irrespective of adjMAFs, had worse OSmet. There was no significant association between adjMAFs and time to progression on targeted therapies matched to KRAS,BRAF, or PIK3CA mutations, potentially related to the limited antitumor activity of the employed drugs (overall response rate of 4.5%). In conclusion, the lower BRAFV 600E and PIK3CA adjMAFs in subsets of primary CRC tumors indicate subclonality of these driver genes. Differences in adjMAFs between metastases and primary tumors suggest that approved therapies may result in selection of BRAFV 600E‐ and KRAS‐resistant clones and an increase in genomic heterogeneity with acquired TP53 alterations. Despite significant differences in prognosis according to mutations in driver oncogenes, adjMAFs levels did not impact on survival and did not help predict benefit with matched targeted agents in the metastatic setting.

Background: Precision medicine is the Holy Grail of interventions that are tailored to a patient’s individual characteristics. However, conventional clinical trials are designed to find differences in averages, and interpreting these differences depends on untestable assumptions. Although ideal, a constant effect would facilitate individual management. Another consequence of a constant effect is that the outcome variance would be the same in treated and control arms. We reviewed the literature to explore the similarity of these variances as a foundation for examining whether and how often precision medicine is definitively needed. Methods: We reviewed parallel trials with quantitative outcomes published in 2004, 2007, 2010 and 2013. We collected baseline and final standard deviations of the main outcome. We assessed homoscedasticity by comparing the variance of the primary endpoint between arms through the outcome variance ratio (treated to control group). Results: The review provided 208 articles with enough information to conduct the analysis. One out of seven studies (n = 30, 14.4%) had statistically different variances between groups, leading a non-constant-effect. The adjusted point estimate of the mean outcome variance ratio (treated to control group) is 0.89 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97). Conclusions: We found that the outcome variance was more often smaller in the intervention group, suggesting that treated patients may end up pertaining more often to reference values. This observed reduction in variance might also imply that there could be a subgroup of less ill patients who derive no benefit, which would require studying whether the effect merits enduring the side effects as well as the economic costs. We have shown that the comparison of variances is a useful but not definitive tool for assessing whether or not the assumption of a constant effect holds.

Precision medicine is the Holy Grail of interventions that are Background tailored to a patient's individual characteristics. However, the conventional design of randomized trials assumes that each individual benefits by the same amount.: We reviewed parallel trials with quantitative outcomes published in Methods 2004, 2007, 2010 and 2013. We collected baseline and final standard deviations of the main outcome. We assessed homoscedasticity by comparing the outcome variability between treated and control arms.: The review provided 208 articles with enough information to conduct Results the analysis. At the end of the study, 113 (54%, 95% CI 47 to 61%) papers find less variability in the treated arm. The adjusted point estimate of the mean ratio (treated to control group) of the outcome variances is 0.89 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97).: Some variance inflation was observed in just 1 out of 6 Conclusions interventions, suggesting the need for further eligibility criteria to tailor precision medicine. Surprisingly, the variance was more often smaller in the intervention group, suggesting, if anything, a reduced role for precision medicine. Homoscedasticity is a useful tool for assessing whether or not the premise of constant effect is reasonable.

Background From 2005 to 2010, we conducted 2 randomized studies on a journal (Medicina Clínica), where we took manuscripts received for publication and randomly assigned them to either the standard editorial process or to additional processes. Both studies were based on the use of methodological reviewers and reporting guidelines (RG). Those interventions slightly improved the items reported on the Manuscript Quality Assessment Instrument (MQAI), which assesses the quality of the research report. However, masked evaluators were able to guess the allocated group in 62% (56/90) of the papers, thus presenting a risk of detection bias. In this post-hoc study, we analyse whether those interventions that were originally designed for improving the completeness of manuscript reporting may have had an effect on the number of citations, which is the measured outcome that we used. Methods Masked to the intervention group, one of us used the Web of Science (WoS) to quantify the number of citations that the participating manuscripts received up December 2016. We calculated the mean citation ratio between intervention arms and then quantified the uncertainty of it by means of the Jackknife method, which avoids assumptions about the distribution shape. Results Our study included 191 articles (99 and 92, respectively) from the two previous studies, which all together received 1336 citations. In both studies, the groups subjected to additional processes showed higher averages, standard deviations and annual rates. The intervention effect was similar in both studies, with a combined estimate of a 43% (95% CI: 3 to 98%) increase in the number of citations. Conclusions We interpret that those effects are driven mainly by introducing into the editorial process a senior methodologist to find missing RG items. Those results are promising, but not definitive due to the exploratory nature of the study and some important caveats such as: the limitations of using the number of citations as a measure of scientific impact; and the fact that our study is based on a single journal. We invite journals to perform their own studies to ascertain whether or not scientific repercussion is increased by adhering to reporting guidelines and further involving statisticians in the editorial process. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0746-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.