Study design Eighty-six SGTs (65 malignant and 21 benign tumors

Study design. Eighty-six SGTs (65 malignant and 21 benign tumors of various histopathologic subtypes) were immunohistochemically

stained with antisurvivin or anti-phosphorylated tyrosine-705 (p-tyr) Stat3 antibodies. Immunohistochemical reactivity was XMU-MP-1 nmr graded in a semiquantitative manner; a combined score of immunohistochemical positivity (0-6) was calculated for each tumor by adding the individual scores for percentage of tumor cells (0-3) and intensity of staining (0-3).

Results. Survivin was immunohistochemically detected in all studied benign and malignant SGTs; p-tyr Stat3 was also detected in the majority (91%) of SGTs. The average combined scores for survivin and p-tyr Stat3 immunohistochemical expression in the studied malignant SGTs

was 4.40 and 3.35, respectively; the corresponding combined scores for survivin and p-tyr Stat3 in the studied benign SGTs were 4.37 and 3.22, respectively. No statistically www.selleckchem.com/products/mln-4924.html significant differences (P > .05) in p-tyr Stat3 or survivin expression were detected between the benign and malignant groups, or among the various examined histopathologic subtypes of SGTs. In contrast, normal salivary gland tissues revealed only weak and focal survivin or p-tyr Stat3 immunoreactivity, mainly localized to ductal and mucous cells.

Conclusions. Our data indicate an almost universal expression of activated Stat3 and survivin in benign and malignant SGTs. Considering the well established proliferative and antiapoptotic properties of these molecules and their functional interrelationship, selective targeting techniques against Stat3 and/or survivin Givinostat may represent promising therapeutic strategies against neoplasms of salivary gland origin. (Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107: 837-843)”
“To assess the impact of providing healthcare

professionals with feedback on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

This is a systematic review including controlled studies investigating the effectiveness of PROMs feedback, specifically examining the impact at a group-level and a patient-level.

Only one study provided feedback at a group-level as a measure of professional performance, which found no intervention effect. At a patient-level, sixteen studies were identified and only one study found an overall significant difference in the PROM score. However, an additional six studies found a significant result favouring the intervention group for a particular subgroup or domain. The studies which demonstrated the greatest impact primarily used PROMs as a management tool in an outpatient setting on a specialised patient population. In contrast, there was weak evidence supporting with the use of PROMs as a screening tool. The studies which found a positive effect had a lower quality score on average.

The effectiveness of PROMs feedback seems to be related to the function of the PROM.

Comments are closed.