Explore the vast range of titles available.

Primary hyperoxaluria type 1 is caused by hepatic overproduction of oxalate, leading to kidney stones, nephrocalcinosis, kidney failure, and systemic oxalosis. This trial tested whether an oligonucleotide drug can reduce the production of hepatic oxalate.

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors approved for myelofibrosis provide spleen and symptom improvements but do not meaningfully improve anaemia. Momelotinib, a first-in-class inhibitor of activin A receptor type 1 as well as JAK1 and JAK2, has shown symptom, spleen, and anaemia benefits in myelofibrosis. We aimed to confirm the differentiated clinical benefits of momelotinib versus the active comparator danazol in JAK-inhibitor-exposed, symptomatic patients with anaemia and intermediate-risk or high-risk myelofibrosis. MOMENTUM is an international, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study that enrolled patients at 107 sites across 21 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with a confirmed diagnosis of primary myelofibrosis or post-polycythaemia vera or post-essential thrombocythaemia myelofibrosis. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive momelotinib (200 mg orally once per day) plus danazol placebo (ie, the momelotinib group) or danazol (300 mg orally twice per day) plus momelotinib placebo (ie, the danazol group), stratified by total symptom score (TSS; <22 vs ≥22), spleen size (<12 cm vs ≥12 cm), red blood cell or whole blood units transfused in the 8 weeks before randomisation (0 units vs 1–4 units vs ≥5 units), and study site. The primary endpoint was the Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form (MFSAF) TSS response rate at week 24 (defined as ≥50% reduction in mean MFSAF TSS over the 28 days immediately before the end of week 24 compared with baseline). MOMENTUM is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04173494, and is active but not recruiting. 195 patients were randomly assigned to either the momelotinib group (130 [67%]) or danazol group (65 [33%]) and received study treatment in the 24-week randomised treatment period between April 24, 2020, and Dec 3, 2021. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the momelotinib group reported a 50% or more reduction in TSS than in the danazol group (32 [25%] of 130 vs six [9%] of 65; proportion difference 16% [95% CI 6–26], p=0·0095). The most frequent grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events with momelotinib and danazol were haematological abnormalities by laboratory values: anaemia (79 [61%] of 130 vs 49 [75%] of 65) and thrombocytopenia (36 [28%] vs 17 [26%]). The most frequent non-haematological grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events with momelotinib and danazol were acute kidney injury (four [3%] of 130 vs six [9%] of 65) and pneumonia (three [2%] vs six [9%]). Treatment with momelotinib, compared with danazol, resulted in clinically significant improvements in myelofibrosis-associated symptoms, anaemia measures, and spleen response, with favourable safety. These findings support the future use of momelotinib as an effective treatment in patients with myelofibrosis, especially in those with anaemia. Sierra Oncology.

\"This book provides an invaluable resource for scholars, students, and political observers who want a comprehensive picture of the past and present of the U.S. presidential nominating system across every state\"-- Provided by publisher.

Empirical chemotherapy remains the standard of care in patients with unfavourable cancer of unknown primary (CUP). Gene-expression profiling assays have been developed to identify the tissue of origin in patients with CUP; however, their clinical benefit has not yet been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of site-specific therapy directed by a 90-gene expression assay compared with empirical chemotherapy in patients with CUP. This randomised controlled trial was conducted at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (Shanghai, China). We enrolled patients aged 18–75 years, with previously untreated CUP (histologically confirmed metastatic adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated carcinoma, or poorly differentiated neoplasms) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2, who were not amenable to local radical treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by the Pocock and Simon minimisation method to receive either site-specific therapy or empirical chemotherapy (taxane [175 mg/m2 by intravenous infusion on day 1] plus platinum [cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve 5 by intravenous infusion on day 1], or gemcitabine [1000 mg/m2 by intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8] plus platinum [same as above]). The minimisation factors were ECOG performance status and the extent of the disease. Clinicians and patients were not masked to interventions. The tumour origin in the site-specific therapy group was predicted by the 90-gene expression assay and treatments were administered accordingly. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial has been completed and the analysis is final. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03278600). Between Sept 18, 2017, and March 18, 2021, 182 patients (105 [58%] male, 77 [42%] female) were randomly assigned to receive site-specific therapy (n=91) or empirical chemotherapy (n=91). The five most commonly predicted tissues of origin in the site-specific therapy group were gastro-oesophagus (14 [15%]), lung (12 [13%]), ovary (11 [12%]), cervix (11 [12%]), and breast (nine [10%]). At the data cutoff date (April 30, 2023), median follow-up was 33·3 months (IQR 30·4–51·0) for the site-specific therapy group and 30·9 months (27·6–35·5) for the empirical chemotherapy group. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer with site-specific therapy than with empirical chemotherapy (9·6 months [95% CI 8·4–11·9] vs 6·6 months [5·5–7·9]; unadjusted hazard ratio 0·68 [95% CI 0·49–0·93]; p=0·017). Among the 167 patients who started planned treatment, 46 (56%) of 82 patients in the site-specific therapy group and 52 (61%) of 85 patients in the empirical chemotherapy group had grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events; the most frequent of these in the site-specific therapy and empirical chemotherapy groups were decreased neutrophil count (36 [44%] vs 42 [49%]), decreased white blood cell count (17 [21%] vs 26 [31%]), and anaemia (ten [12%] vs nine [11%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in five (6%) patients in the site-specific therapy group and two (2%) in the empirical chemotherapy group. No treatment-related deaths were observed. This single-centre randomised trial showed that site-specific therapy guided by the 90-gene expression assay could improve progression-free survival compared with empirical chemotherapy among patients with previously untreated CUP. Site-specific prediction by the 90-gene expression assay might provide more disease information and expand the therapeutic armamentarium in these patients. Clinical Research Plan of Shanghai Hospital Development Center, Program for Shanghai Outstanding Academic Leader, and Shanghai Anticancer Association SOAR PROJECT. For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Patients with metastatic melanoma, 50% of whose tumours harbour a BRAF mutation, have a poor prognosis. Selumetinib, a MEK1/2 inhibitor, has shown antitumour activity in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma and in preclinical models when combined with chemotherapy. This study was designed to look for a signal of improved efficacy by comparing the combination of selumetinib and dacarbazine with dacarbazine alone. This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study investigated selumetinib plus dacarbazine versus placebo plus dacarbazine as first-line treatment in patients older than 18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced BRAF-mutant cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma. Patients were randomly assigned by central interactive voice response system (1:1 ratio, block size four) to take either oral selumetinib (75 mg twice daily in a 21-day cycle) or placebo; all patients received intravenous dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 21-day cycle). Patients, investigators, and the study team were masked to the treatment assigned. The primary endpoint was overall survival analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00936221. Between July 20, 2009, and April 8, 2010, 91 patients were randomly assigned to receive dacarbazine in combination with selumetinib (n=45) or placebo (n=46). Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups (median 13·9 months, 80% CI 10·2–15·6, in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group and 10·5 months, 9·6–14·7, in the placebo plus dacarbazine group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·93, 80% CI 0·67–1·28, one-sided p=0·39). However, progression-free survival was significantly improved in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group versus the placebo plus dacarbazine group (HR 0·63, 80% CI 0·47–0·84, one-sided p=0·021), with a median of 5·6 months (80% CI 4·9–5·9) versus 3·0 months (2·8–4·6), respectively. The most frequent adverse events included nausea (28 [64%] of 44 patients on selumetinib vs 25 [56%] of 45 on placebo), acneiform dermatitis (23 [52%] vs one [2%]), diarrhoea (21 [48%] vs 13 [29%]), vomiting (21 [48%] vs 15 [33%]), and peripheral oedema (19 [43%] vs three [7%]). The most common grade 3–4 adverse event was neutropenia (six [14%] patients in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group vs four [9%] in the placebo plus dacarbazine group). Selumetinib plus dacarbazine showed clinical activity in patients with BRAF-mutant cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma, reflected by a significant benefit in progression-free survival compared with placebo plus dacarbazine group, although no significant change in overall survival was noted. The tolerability of this combination was generally consistent with monotherapy safety profiles. AstraZeneca.

Reflecting on 2016, it might seem that the national parties have little control over how the presidential nominations unfold and who becomes their presidential candidate. Yet the parties wield more influence than voters in determining who prevails at the National Conventions. Although the reforms of the late 1960s and 1970s gave rank-and-file party members a clear voice in the selection of presidential candidates, the parties retain influence through their ability to set the electoral rules. Despite this capability, party elites do not always fully understand the consequences of the rules and therefore often promote a system that undermines their goals. The Primary Rules illuminates the balance of power that the parties, states, and voters assert on the process. By utilizing an original, comprehensive data set that details the electoral rules each party employed in each state during every nomination from 1976 to 2016, Caitlin E. Jewitt uncovers the effects of the rules on the competitiveness of the nomination, the number of voters who participate, and the nomination outcomes. This reveals how the parties exert influence over their members and limit the impact of voters. The Primary Rules builds on prior analyses and extends work highlighting the role of the parties in the invisible primary stage, as it investigates the parties' influence once the nominations begin. The Primary Rules provides readers with a clearer sense of what the rules are, how they have changed, their consequences, and practical guidance on how to modify the rules of the nomination system to achieve their desired outcomes in future elections.

This report finds that in developing countries over the past 15 years, high priority was accorded to increasing enrolments in primary schools, but much less attention was directed to the crucial issue of whether children are learning adequately. The report recommends that countries, the World Bank and development partners give the same emphasis to learning outcomes as to access, so that the world's increasing investments in primary education have a far greater impact on poverty reduction and national development. The World Bank is the largest provider of external financial support to education in developing world. Since 1963, it has transferred about US$36.5 billion for education, over $14 billion of which has been for primary education. Its current lending portfolio consists of about 143 operations in 88 countries amounting to US$8.4 billion. (DIPF/Orig.).