Clinical Relevance

Lymph nodes (LNs) are important hubs for metastatic cell arrest and growth, immune modulation, and secondary dissemination to distant sites through a series of mechanisms, and it has been proved that lymph node metastasis (LNM) is an essential prognostic indicator in many different types of cancer. Therefore, it is important for oncologists to understand the mechanisms of tumor cells to metastasize to LNs, as well as how LNM affects the prognosis and therapy of patients with cancer in order to provide patients with accurate disease assessment and effective treatment strategies. In recent years, with the updates in both basic and clinical studies on LNM and the application of advanced medical technologies, much progress has been made in the understanding of the mechanisms of LNM and the strategies for diagnosis and treatment of LNM. In this review, current knowledge of the anatomical and physiological characteristics of LNs, as well as the molecular mechanisms of LNM, are described. The clinical significance of LNM in different anatomical sites is summarized, including the roles of LNM playing in staging, prognostic prediction, and treatment selection for patients with various types of cancers. And the novel exploration and academic disputes of strategies for recognition, diagnosis, and therapeutic interventions of metastatic LNs are also discussed.

BackgroundClinical interpretation of changes measured on a scale is dependent on knowing the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for that scale: the threshold above which clinicians, patients, and researchers perceive an outcome difference. Until now, approaches to determining MCIDs were based upon individual studies or surveys of experts. However, the comparison of meta-analytic treatment effects to a MCID derived from a distribution of standard deviations (SDs) associated with all trial-specific outcomes in a meta-analysis could improve our clinical understanding of meta-analytic treatment effects.MethodsWe approximated MCIDs using a distribution-based approach that pooled SDs associated with baseline mean or mean change values for two scales (i.e. Mini-Mental State Exam [MMSE] and Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale [ADAS-Cog]), as reported in parallel randomized trials (RCTs) that were included in a systematic review of cognitive enhancing medications for dementia (i.e. cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine). We excluded RCTs that did not report baseline or mean change SD values. We derived MCIDs at 0.4 and 0.5 SDs of the pooled SD and compared our derived MCIDs to previously published MCIDs for the MMSE and ADAS-Cog.ResultsWe showed that MCIDs derived from a distribution-based approach approximated published MCIDs for the MMSE and ADAS-Cog. For the MMSE (51 RCTs, 12,449 patients), we derived a MCID of 1.6 at 0.4 SDs and 2 at 0.5 SDs using baseline SDs and we derived a MCID of 1.4 at 0.4 SDs and 1.8 at 0.5 SDs using mean change SDs. For the ADAS-Cog (37 RCTs, 10,006 patients), we derived a MCID of 4 at 0.4 SDs and 5 at 0.5 SDs using baseline SDs and we derived a MCID of 2.6 at 0.4 SDs and 3.2 at 0.5 SDs using mean change SDs.ConclusionA distribution-based approach using data included in a systematic review approximated known MCIDs. Our approach performed better when we derived MCIDs from baseline as opposed to mean change SDs. This approach could facilitate clinical interpretation of outcome measures reported in RCTs and systematic reviews of interventions. Future research should focus on the generalizability of this method to other clinical scenarios.

Recent research activities have provided new insights in vitamin D metabolism in various conditions. Furthermore, substantial progress has been made in the analysis of vitamin D metabolites and related biomarkers, such as vitamin D binding protein. Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometric (LC-MS/MS) methods are capable of accurately measuring multiple vitamin D metabolites in parallel. Nevertheless, only 25(OH)D and the biologically active form 1,25(OH)2D are routinely measured in clinical practice. While 25(OH)D remains the analyte of choice for the diagnosis of vitamin D deficiency, 1,25(OH)2D is only recommended in a few conditions with a dysregulated D metabolism. 24,25(OH)2D, free and bioavailable 25(OH)D, and the vitamin D metabolite ratio (VMR) have shown promising results, but technical pitfalls in their quantification, limited clinical data and the lack of reference values, impede their use in clinical practice. LC-MS/MS is the preferred method for the measurement of all vitamin D related analytes as it offers high sensitivity and specificity. In particular, 25(OH)D and 24,25(OH)2D can accurately be measured with this technology. When interpreted together, they seem to provide a functional measure of vitamin D metabolism beyond the analysis of 25(OH)D alone. The determination of VDBP, free and bioavailable 25(OH)D is compromised by unresolved analytical issues, lacking reference intervals and insufficient clinical data. Therefore, future research activities should focus on analytical standardization and exploration of their clinical value. This review provides an overview on established and new vitamin D related biomarkers including their pathophysiological role, preanalytical and analytical aspects, expected values, indications and influencing conditions.

PurposeEstablish the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) for the Orthostatic Hypotension Questionnaire (OHQ).BackgroundNeurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH) causes disabling symptoms that impair daily function and quality of life. The OHQ is a validated patient-reported outcome with a symptom assessment (OHSA) and daily activity scale (OHDAS), widely used in clinical trials, despite the MCID being unestablished.MethodsWe analyzed data from two phase 3, randomized placebo-controlled trials (SEQUOIA and REDWOOD), evaluating ampreloxetine for symptomatic nOH in patients with Parkinson disease, multiple system atrophy, and pure autonomic failure. Using anchor-based and distribution-based methods, we calculated the MCID for the total OHQ score, OHSA and OHDAS composite subscales, and for the single dizziness/lightheadedness question (OHSA1).ResultsThe analysis included 184 subjects from SEQUOIA and 128 from REDWOOD. The total OHQ MCID for improvement was a reduction of 0.9-1.2 points and for worsening was an increase of 0.7-1.1 points. The MCID for the OHSA composite ranged from a reduction of 0.9-1.3 points for improvement and an increase of 0.7-1.1 points for worsening. For the single-item OHSA1, the MCID was a reduction of 2.0-3.0 points for improvement and an increase of 1.0 point for worsening. Owing to poor correlation with the symptom-based anchors, a reliable MCID for the OHDAS component was not established.ConclusionsThese MCID thresholds for the OHQ, OHSA and OHSA item 1 alone, enhance the interpretability of scores and support their use in evaluating clinical benefit.