Objective: To date, the understanding of pediatric tumor genomics and how these genetic aberrations correlate with clinical outcome is lacking. Here, we report our experience with the next-generation sequencing (NGS) test program and discuss implications for the inclusion of molecular profiling into clinical pediatric oncology trials. We also aimed to explore studies on NGS in pediatric cancers and to quantify the variability of finding actionable mutations and the clinical implications.
Methods: We present a retrospective case series of all patients whose tumor tissue underwent NGS tests during treatment in our department. We also reviewed the literature and carried out a meta-analysis to explore studies on NGS in pediatric cancers.
Results: In 35/37 (94%) patients, we found at least one genomic alteration (GA); mean number of GAs per patient was 2 (range, 0–67), while 164 GAs were detected. Only 3 (8%) patients received precision medicine due to their GAs for a mean of 9 months (range, 5–14 months). Four studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled positive actionable mutation rate was 52% (95% CI 39%–66%), and the pooled rate of children who received precision medicine was 10% (95% CI 3%–20%).
Conclusions: In children and young adults with high-risk, recurrent, or refractory malignancies, tumor profiling results have clinical implications, despite barriers to the use of matched precision therapy.
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
Since its launch in 2010, Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal (RMMJ) has focused on its mission of expanding the knowledge base of medicine, science, humanity, and ethics throughout the world, flavored by the salt of the 850-year-old philosophy of Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon—known by the Hebrew acronym “RAMBAM” or, more commonly, as Maimonides.
We have carefully read and evaluated the letter writ¬ten by Drs Mungmunpuntipantip and Wiwanitkit regarding our article published in the July issue of Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal.
Xenotransplantation represents a viable solution to meet the great need to provide organ donors at a time when there are not enough human organ donors. A lot of clinical studies have focused on using genetically engineered pigs as the prime source for organ transplantation. However, several religions, such as Judaism and Islam, have restrictions on the use of pigs for food or in business. In this article, we review the Jewish perspectives on xenotransplantation. Overall, the preservation of human life trumps most of the potential religious concerns associated with xenotransplantation. However, there are religious nuances related to xenotransplantation that are highlighted here, and that must be addressed by rabbinical scholars.
Late-onset nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) as a result of inflammatory processes causing dacryostenosis is a common entity affecting mostly women. While a few mechanisms have been suggested as contributors to the expression of NLDO, the trigger for the inflammation remains mostly unknown. Familial predilection for this condition has not been previously reported. We present two families with multiple individuals affected with congenital or late-onset NLDO, describe the signs and symptoms of the affected individuals, and explore their medical history for any contributing factors. Family A, spanning four generations, included 7 female patients affected by late-onset NLDO. Family B, spanning two generations, included 8 individuals affected by either congenital or late-onset NLDO. This case series suggests a familial predisposition to NLDO, apparently with an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern. Further studies are needed to elucidate the molecular basis of this genetic predisposition.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were elaborated to allow authors of such papers to identify quality articles for inclusion in their scholarly work. However, we have identified several issues that point to an over-reliance on the PRISMA guidelines. Firstly, we question the rigor of implementation by authors and the rigor of verification by peer reviewers and editors, and whether they have screened papers to ensure adherence to the PRISMA guidelines. Secondly, we have identified cases where the PRISMA criteria led to as much as 99.97% of the published literature being ignored, suggesting that valid publications meeting these criteria might be at risk of being ignored. Thirdly, we have noted that exclusion is not only a quantitative problem—it is also a qualitative one, since the screening procedure groups all non-conforming literature into one basket. Fourthly, we have noted that seven copies of the PRISMA guidelines exist. This being the case, which one should be cited? To replace over-reliance on PRISMA screening, we encourage authors, peer reviewers, and editors to publish systematic reviews and meta-analyses that respect the dual criteria of scientific plausibility and diversity of included papers.
To the Editor:
I have followed, with great interest, the passionate debate held between Lichtman, and Ashkenazi and Olsha in Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal. Lichtman put forward a curious and enlightening proposal to offer a fractional value to each author, depending on the value of their relative contribution, with the total amounting to 1, as a way to reduce authorship abuses, such as gift or guest authorship, which are two very prevalent forms of authorship abuses in academic publishing today.
Objective: Medical decision-making is often uncertain. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) are conditional probabilities characterizing diagnostic tests and assessing diagnostic interventions in clinical medicine and epidemiology. The PPV is the probability that a patient has a specified disease, given a positive test result for that disease. The NPV is the probability that a patient does not have the disease, given a negative test result for that disease. Both values depend on disease incidence or prevalence, which may be highly uncertain for unfamiliar diseases, epidemics, etc. Probability distributions for this uncertainty are usually unavailable. We develop a non-probabilistic method for interpreting PPV and NPV with uncertain prevalence.
Methods: Uncertainty in PPV and NPV is managed with the non-probabilistic concept of robustness in info-gap theory. Robustness of PPV or NPV estimates is the greatest uncertainty (in prevalence) at which the estimate’s error is acceptable.
Results: Four properties are demonstrated. Zeroing: best estimates of PPV or NPV have no robustness to uncertain prevalence; best estimates are unreliable for interpreting diagnostic tests. Trade-off: robustness increases as error increases; this trade-off identifies robustly reliable error in PPV or NPV. Preference reversal: sometimes sub-optimal PPV or NPV estimates are more robust to uncertain incidence or prevalence than optimal estimates, motivating reversal of preference from the putative optimum to the sub-optimal estimate. Trade-off between specificity and robustness to uncertainty: the robustness increases as test-specificity decreases. These four properties underlie the interpretation of PPV and NPV.
Conclusions: The PPV and NPV assess diagnostic tests, but are sensitive to lack of knowledge that generates non-probabilistic uncertain prevalence and must be supplemented with robustness analysis. When uncertainties abound, as with unfamiliar diseases, assessing robustness is critical to avoiding erroneous decisions.
The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) epidemic started in late 2019, and was upgraded to a pandemic on March 11, 2020 by the World Health Organization (WHO). Well established epidemiological models have been used over the last few months in an attempt to predict how the virus would spread. The predictions were frightening, and the resulting panic caused many governments to impose lockdowns or other severe restrictions, with lasting effects. This short paper discusses another way of looking at the spread of COVID-19, by focusing on the daily rate of infection, defined as the daily rate of increase in the number of infected persons. It is shown that the daily rate is monotonically decreasing, after a short initial period, in all countries, and that the pattern is similar in all countries. This appears to be a universal phenomenon. Based on these calculations, the April 1, 2020 data for Western Europe were sufficient to predict the beginning of the end of COVID-19 in that region before the end of that month.
At the time of writing, in July 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has already inflicted dramatic international restrictions, including airports closing and limiting international travel. It has been suggested that re-opening of airports should involve and even rely on testing travelers for COVID-19. This paper discusses the methodology of estimating the detection and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 tests. It explains the clear distinction between the technical characteristics of the tests, the detection measures, and the diagnostic measures that have clinical and public health implications. It demonstrates the importance of the prevalence of COVID-19 in terms of determining the ability of a test to yield a diagnosis. We explain the methodology of evaluating diagnostic tests, using the predictive summary index (PSI), and the minimum number of tests that need to be performed in order to correctly diagnose one person, which is estimated by 1/PSI. In a population with low prevalence, even a high-sensitivity test may lead to a high percentage of false positive diagnoses, resulting in the need for multiple high-cost tests to achieve a correct diagnosis. Thus, basing a policy for opening airports on diagnostic testing, even with the best test for COVID-19, has some limits.
