Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose Trial E1609 demonstrated superior overall survival with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (ipi3) compared to high-dose interferon (HDI) for patients with resected high-risk melanoma. To inform treatment tolerability, we compared health-related quality of life (HRQoL), gastrointestinal (GI), and treatment-specific physical and cognitive/emotional symptoms. We also compared treatment-specific concerns between all arms. Methods We assessed HRQoL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, physical and cognitive/emotional concerns using the FACT-Biologic Response Modifier subscale, and GI symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Diarrhea subscale pre-treatment and every 3 months. The primary outcome was the difference in HRQoL at 3 months between ipi3/ipi10 vs. HDI. Results 549 patients ( n  = 158 ipi3; n  = 191 ipi10; n  = 200 HDI) were analyzed. 3-month completion was 58.7%. Compared to HDI, ipilimumab patients reported better HRQoL (ipi3 = 87.5 ± 14.6 vs. HDI = 74.7 ± 15.4, p  < .001; ipi10 = 84.9 ± 16.5 vs. HDI, p  < .001) and fewer physical (ipi3 = 22.3 ± 4.6 vs. HDI = 17.1 ± 5.4, p  < .001; ipi10 = 21.8 ± 5.0 vs. HDI p  < .001) and cognitive/emotional (ipi3 = 18.6 ± 4.4 vs. HDI = 15.0 ± 5.3, p  < .001; ipi10 = 17.7 ± 4.8 vs. HDI p  < .001) concerns, but worse GI symptoms (ipi3 = 40.8 ± 5.0 vs. HDI = 42.2 ± 2.9, p  =  . 011; ipi10 = 39.5 ± 7.0 vs. HDI, p  < .001). Fewer ipilimumab patients reported worsening treatment-specific concerns (e.g., 52% of ipi3 and 58% of ipi10 reported worsening fatigue vs. 82% HDI, p’s  < .001). Conclusion PROs demonstrated less toxicity of ipi3 compared to HDI and ipi10. Priorities for symptom management among patients receiving ipilimumab include GI toxicities, fatigue, weakness, appetite loss, arthralgia, and depression. Trial Registration: NCT01274338, January 11, 2011 (first posted date) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01274338?term=NCT01274338&draw=2&rank=1 .

The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) is not clearly understood after the approval of targeted therapies, particularly in the elderly population. The aim of this study was to compare survivals between patients who did and did not receive CN. The SEER-18 database was utilized in order to identify elderly patients with mRCC to compare overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) between patients who did or did not receive CN between February 2006 and 2012. Kaplan-Meier curve and log rank test were used to compare OS and CSS between these two arms. Cox proportional hazard model was used for multivariate analysis and statistical significance was defined as p≤0.05. There was a significant survival benefit for those who received CN compared to those who did not receive CN (median OS: 18 months vs. 4 months, p<0.001; median CSS: 21 months vs. 5 months, p<0.001). CN offered significant survival benefit, even in elderly patients with metastatic renal cell cancer.

The crystal structure of the ligand‐binding domain of RARβ, a suspect tumour suppressor, reveals important features that distinguish it from the two other RAR isotypes. The most striking difference is an extra cavity allowing RARβ to bind more bulky agonists. Accordingly, we identified a ligand that shows RARβ selectivity with a 100‐fold higher affinity to RARβ than to α or γ isotypes. The structural differences between the three RAR ligand‐binding pockets revealed a rationale explaining how a single retinoid can be at the same time an RARα, γ antagonist and an RARβ agonist. In addition, we demonstrate how to generate an RARβ antagonist by gradually modifying the bulkiness of a single substitution. Together, our results provide structural guidelines for the synthesis of RARβ‐selective agonists and antagonists, allowing for the first time to address pharmacologically the tumour suppressor role of RARβ in vitro and in animal models.