A molecular biology and phase II trial of lapatinib in children with refractory CNS malignancies: a pediatric brain tumor consortium study.

High expression of ERBB2 has been reported in medulloblastoma and ependymoma; EGFR is amplified and over-expressed in brainstem glioma suggesting these proteins as potential therapeutic targets. We conducted a molecular biology (MB) and phase II study to estimate inhibition of tumor ERBB signaling and sustained responses by lapatinib in children with recurrent CNS malignancies. In the MB study, patients with recurrent medulloblastoma, ependymoma, and high-grade glioma (HGG) undergoing resection were stratified and randomized to pre-resection treatment with lapatinib 900 mg/m(2) dose bid for 7-14 days or no treatment. Western blot analysis of ERBB expression and pathway activity in fresh tumor obtained at surgery estimated ERBB receptor signaling inhibition in vivo. Drug concentration was simultaneously assessed in tumor and plasma. In the phase II study, patients, stratified by histology, received lapatinib continuously, to assess sustained response. Eight patients, on the MB trial (four medulloblastomas, four ependymomas), received a median of two courses (range 1-6+). No intratumoral target inhibition by lapatinib was noted in any patient. Tumor-to-plasma ratios of lapatinib were 10-20 %. In the 34 patients (14 MB, 10 HGG, 10 ependymoma) in the phase II study, lapatinib was well-tolerated at 900 mg/m(2) dose bid. The median number of courses in the phase II trial was two (range 1-12). Seven patients (three medulloblastoma, four ependymoma) remained on therapy for at least four courses range (4-26). Lapatinib was well-tolerated in children with recurrent or CNS malignancies, but did not inhibit target in tumor and had little single agent activity.Fil: Fouladi, Maryam. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital; Estados UnidosFil: Stewart, Clinton F.. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital; Estados UnidosFil: Blaney, Susan M.. Baylor College of Medicine. Texas Children’s Cancer Center; Estados UnidosFil: Onar Thomas, Arzu. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital; Estados UnidosFil: Schaiquevich, Paula Susana. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital; Estados Unidos. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Packer, Roger J.. Children’s National Medical Center; Estados UnidosFil: Goldman, Stewart. Anne and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago; Estados UnidosFil: Geyer, J. Rusell. Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center; Estados UnidosFil: Gajjar, Amar. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital; Estados UnidosFil: Kun, Larry E.. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital; Estados UnidosFil: Boyett, James M.. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital; Estados UnidosFil: Gilbertson, Richard J.. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital; Estados Unido

Telegram from Reverend Joe M. Russell to Minnie Meacham Carter

Telegram from Reverend Joe M. Russell of Polytechnic Presbyterian Church to Minnie Meacham Carter and the Carter Family upon the death of Amon Giles Carter. The telegram expresses condolences about his death.https://mavmatrix.uta.edu/specialcollections_meachamcarterpapers/1571/thumbnail.jp

Explanatory pluralism in the medical sciences: theory and practice

Explanatory pluralism is the view that the best form and level of explanation depends on the kind of question one seeks to answer by the explanation, and that in order to answer all questions in the best way possible, we need more than one form and level of explanation. In the first part of this article, we argue that explanatory pluralism holds for the medical sciences, at least in theory. However, in the second part of the article we show that medical research and practice is actually not fully and truly explanatory pluralist yet. Although the literature demonstrates a slowly growing interest in non-reductive explanations in medicine, the dominant approach in medicine is still methodologically reductionist. This implies that non-reductive explanations often do not get the attention they deserve. We argue that the field of medicine could benefit greatly by reconsidering its reductive tendencies and becoming fully and truly explanatory pluralist. Nonetheless, trying to achieve the right balance in the search for and application of reductive and non-reductive explanations will in any case be a difficult exercise