Objective: To explore the facilitators and barriers of the implementation of evidence based mental health practice, in order to provide practical experience for promoting the development of evidence based mental health services in primary schools in China. Methods: Semi structured interviews were conducted with 4 education bureau managers, 8 school administrators, 7 classroom teachers, and 7 treatment providers after providing evidence based practice in 10 primary schools in Henan Province, China. Data was analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Evidence based practice in primary schools faced multiple factors at the macro level, school level, and individual level. A total of 8 facilitators and 9 barriers were extracted. Among these factors, some factors were particularly striking. These included the "exclusion" of teacher title evaluation system, time conflict between practice and school schedule, stigmatization of mental health and mismatch between perceived effectiveness of services and expectations. Conclusion Evidence based mental health practice is feasible in Chinese schools. The implementation process needs to take full account of macro, school and individual multi level factors to move evidence based mental health services from theory and data to practice in China.

Insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF-1R) has been made an attractive anticancer target due to its overexpression in cancers. However, targeting it has often produced the disappointing results as the role played by cross talk with numerous downstream signalings. Here, we report a disobliging IGF-1R signaling which promotes growth of cancer through triggering the E3 ubiquitin ligase MEX3A-mediated degradation of RIG-I. The active β-arrestin-2 scaffolds this disobliging signaling to talk with MEX3A. In response to ligands, IGF-1Rβ activated the basal βarr2 into its active state by phosphorylating the interdomain domain on Tyr64 and Tyr250, opening the middle loop (Leu130‒Cys141) to the RING domain of MEX3A through the conformational changes of βarr2. The models of βarr2/IGF-1Rβ and βarr2/MEX3A could interpret the mechanism of the activated-IGF-1R in triggering degradation of RIG-I. The assay of the mutants βarr2^Y64A and βarr2^Y250A further confirmed the role of these two Tyr residues of the interlobe in mediating the talk between IGF-1Rβ and the RING domain of MEX3A. The truncated-βarr2 and the peptide ATQAIRIF, which mimicked the RING domain of MEX3A could prevent the formation of βarr2/IGF-1Rβ and βarr2/MEX3A complexes, thus blocking the IGF-1R-triggered RIG-I degradation. Degradation of RIG-I resulted in the suppression of the IFN-I-associated immune cells in the TME due to the blockade of the RIG-I-MAVS-IFN-I pathway. Poly(I:C) could reverse anti-PD-L1 insensitivity by recovery of RIG-I. In summary, we revealed a disobliging IGF-1R signaling by which IGF-1Rβ promoted cancer growth through triggering the MEX3A-mediated degradation of RIG-I.

The well-known insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1)/IGF-1 receptor (IGF-1R) signaling pathway is overexpressed in many tumors, and is thus an attractive target for cancer treatment. However, results have often been disappointing due to crosstalk with other signals. Here, we report that IGF-1R signaling stimulates the growth of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cells through the translocation of IGF-1R into the ER to enhance sarco-endoplasmic reticulum calcium ATPase 2 (SERCA2) activity. In response to ligand binding, IGF-1Rβ is translocated into the ER by β-arrestin2 (β-arr2). Mass spectrometry analysis identified SERCA2 as a target of ER IGF-1Rβ. SERCA2 activity is heavily dependent on the increase in ER IGF-1Rβ levels. ER IGF-1Rβ phosphorylates SERCA2 on Tyr⁹⁹⁰ to enhance its activity. Mutation of SERCA2-Tyr⁹⁹⁰ disrupted the interaction of ER IGF-1Rβ with SERCA2, and therefore ER IGF-1Rβ failed to promote SERCA2 activity. The enhancement of SERCA2 activity triggered Ca²⁺_ER perturbation, leading to an increase in autophagy. Thapsigargin blocked the interaction between SERCA2 and ER IGF-1Rβ and therefore SERCA2 activity, resulting in inhibition of HCC growth. In conclusion, the translocation of IGF-1R into the ER triggers Ca²⁺_ER perturbation by enhancing SERCA2 activity through phosphorylating Tyr⁹⁹⁰ in HCC.

Objective:To evaluate the efficacy of high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) genotyping with vaginal self-sampling in primary screening and combining cytology or viral load for HR-HPV positive as secondary screening strategies.Methods:The data referring to HR-HPV genotyping of self-collected sample with mass array matrix-assisted laser desorption-ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF-MS), HR-HPV viral load of physician-collected sample with hybrid capture Ⅱ (HC-Ⅱ), liquid-based cytology and histology of 8 556 women were from Shenzhen cervical cancer screening trial Ⅱ (SHENCCAST-Ⅱ) conducted between April 2009 and April 2010. The data were reanalyzed to determine the sensitivity and specificity to cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) of grade 2 or worse (CIN Ⅱ +), CIN of grade 3 or worse (CIN Ⅲ +) when HR-HPV genotyping combining with colposcopy as primary screening strategy based on varied HR-HPV subtype (strategy 1, including 5 sub-strategies: 1a: HPV 16/18 positive; 1b: HPV 16/18/58 positive; 1c: HPV 16/18/58/31/33 positive; 1d: HPV 16/18/58/31/33/52 positive; 1e: any HR-HPV positive). The data were also compared to determine the efficacy of cytology (strategy 2, including 5 sub-strategies: 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e) or HR-HPV viral load (strategy 3, including 4 sub-strategies: 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d) of physician-collected sample as a triage with HR-HPV genotyping for self-sampling HR-HPV positives. Results:(1) The HR-HPV positive rate was 13.77% (1 178/8 556) in the self-collected samples of 8 556 pregnant women. Of them,the prevalences of HPV 16/18, HPV 16/18/58, HPV 16/18/58/31/33 and HPV 16/18/58/31/33/52 were 3.16% (270/8 556), 5.14% (440/8 556), 6.66% (570/8 556) and 9.81% (839/8 556), respectively. The HR-HPV viral load ≥10 relative light units/control (RLU/CO) was 8.87%(759/ 8 556), while cytological results ≥atypical squamous cell of undetermined signification (ASCUS) were 12.05% (1 031/8 556). (2) The strategy 1e had the highest sensitivities for CIN Ⅱ +, CIN Ⅲ + which were 92.70% and 94.33%,respectively,among 14 sub-strategies,while the lowest specificity and positive predictive value (PPV). Meanwhile,the required colposcopy referral rates were much higher than other 13 sub-strategies (13.77%). The other 4 sub-strategies of strategy 1 (1a, 1b, 1c, 1d), strategy 1a had the highest specificities for CIN Ⅱ + and CIN Ⅲ + (97.92%, 97.69%, respectively), while 1d had the highest sensitivities for CIN Ⅱ + and CIN Ⅲ + (88.41%, 92.20%, respectively). (3) Both strategies of referring self-sampling HPV 16/18 positives for immediate colposcopy followed by triage physician-collected sample cytology (≥ASCUS) or viral load (≥10 RLU/CO) for non-HPV 16/18 positives had significantly higher sensitivity and specificity for CIN Ⅱ, CIN Ⅲ +, as well as lower referral rates (strategy 2a and 3a). Additionally, based on these two secondary screening strategies, cumulatively using the other four HR-HPV (HPV 58, 31, 33 and 52) positives as triage for immediate colposcopy showed an enhanced sensitivity. Conclusions:Primary HR-HPV cervical cancer screening strategy based on self-sampling with triage of cytology (≥ASCUS) or viral load (≥10 RUL/CO) provides a good balance among sensitivity, specificity for CIN Ⅱ + and CIN Ⅲ + and the number of tests required, referral rates. The efficacy of HR-HPV genotyping combining cytology or viral load secondary screening strategies will have a spiral escalation when HPV 58, 31, 33, 52 are included.

Objective:Evaluation of the clinical value of the BioPerfectus multiplex real time (BMRT)-HPV for cervical cancer screening.Methods:Physician-collected specimens of 1 495 women who were positive of Cobas 4800 HPV (Cobas-HPV), HPV genotyping based on SEQ uencing (SEQ-HPV), and (or) cytology ≥low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) in the primary screening of Chinese Multiple-center Screening Trial (CHIMUST), and 2 990 women selected from those who were negative of primary screening in the same project through nested control randomization with age-matching were tested for BMRT-HPV, which reported type-specific viral loads/10 000 cells in each specimen. With comparing to Cobas-HPV results and taking cervical histopathological diagnosis as the endpoint, the concordance of high-risk (HR)-HPV subtypes among the three assays was explored ,and the sensitivity and specificity of BMRT-HPV for cervical cancer screening were evaluated.Results:(1) The overall agreenment of HR-HPV subtypes between BMRT-HPV and Cobas-HPV, or SEQ-HPV test sample was 94.8%, 94.4%, with Kappa values 0.827, 0.814. (2) The sensitivity and specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) Ⅱ + of BMRT-HPV, Cobas-HPV and SEQ-HPV were 92.62%, 94.26%, 93.44% and 84.67%, 83.25%, 82.76%, respectively. There were no significant difference in sensitivity among the three HPV assays (all P>0.05), but the specificity of BMRT-HPV for CIN Ⅱ + was higher than those of Cobas-HPV and SEQ-HPV ( P<0.01). The sensitivity for CIN Ⅲ + of three HPV assays were all 100.00%, and the specificity for CIN Ⅲ + of BMRT-HPV was higher than those of Cobas-HPV and SEQ-HPV (83.40% vs 81.95%, 83.40% vs 81.50%; P<0.01). The number of pathological examinations of colposcopy for cervical biopsy detected in 1 case of CIN Ⅱ + or CIN Ⅲ + in BMRT-HPV was less than those in Cobas-HPV and SEQ-HPV ( P<0.01). When using HPV 16/18 + cytology ≥atypical squamous cell of undetermined signification (ASCUS) to triage HPV positive women among three assays, there was no different in the sensitivities of detecting CIN Ⅱ + and CIN Ⅲ + ( P>0.05). The specificity BMRT-HPV was slightly higher than those in Cobas-HPV or SEQ-HPV (all P<0.05), and the colposcopy referral rate was lower than those in Cobas-HPV and SEQ-HPV (all P<0.05). Conclusions:BMRT-HPV is as sensitive as Cobas-HPV or SEQ-HPV for primary cervical cancer screening, and has higher specificity. Therefore it could be used as a primary screening method for cervical cancer, which is worthy of clinical application.

Objective:To evaluate the value of p16 INK4a detected by p16 INK4a immunostaining as a new generation of cervical cytology for primary screening and secondary screening in population-based cervical cancer screening, and in improving cytological diagnosis. Methods:Between 2016 and 2018, 5 747 non-pregnant women aged 25-65 years with sexual history were recruited and underwent cervical cancer screening via high-risk (HR)-HPV/liquid-based cytological test (LCT) test in Shenzhen and surrounding areas. All slides were immuno-stained using p16 INK4a technology, among them, 902 cases were offered p16 INK4a detection during primary screening, and the remaining 4 845 cases were called-back by the virtue of abnormal HR-HPV and LCT results for p16 INK4a staining. Participants with complete LCT examination, HR-HPV test, p16 INK4a staining and histopathological examination results were included in this study. The performance of p16 INK4a in primary and secondary screening, and in assisting cytology to detect high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion [HSIL, including cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) Ⅱ or Ⅲ] or worse [HSIL (CIN Ⅱ) + or HSIL (CIN Ⅲ) +] were analyzed. Results:(1) One-thousand and ninety-seven cases with complete data of p16 INK4a and histology were included. Pathological diagnosis: 995 cases of normal cervix, 37 cases of low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL), 64 cases of HSIL and one case of cervical cancer were found. Among them, 65 cases of HSIL (CIN Ⅱ) + and 34 cases of HSIL (CIN Ⅲ) + were detected. The positive rate of p16 INK4a in HSIL (CIN Ⅱ) + was higher than that in CINⅠ or normal pathology (89.2% vs 10.2%; P<0.01). (2) p16 INK4a as primary screening for HSIL (CIN Ⅱ) + or HSIL (CIN Ⅲ) + was equally sensitive to primary HR-HPV screening (89.2% vs 95.4%, 94.1% vs 94.1%; P>0.05), but more specific than HR-HPV screening (89.8% vs 82.5%, 87.7% vs 80.2%; P<0.05). p16 INK4a was equally sensitive and similarly specific to cytology (≥LSIL; P>0.05). (3) The specificity of LCT adjunctive p16 INK4a for detecting HSIL (CIN Ⅱ) + or HSIL (CIN Ⅲ) + were higher than that of LCT alone or adjunctive HR-HPV ( P<0.01), while the sensitivity were similar ( P>0.05). (4) p16 INK4a staining as secondary screening: p16 INK4a was significantly more specific (94.1% vs 89.7%, 91.9% vs 87.4%; P<0.01) and comparably sensitive (84.6% vs 90.8%, 88.2% vs 91.2%; P>0.05) to cytology for triaging primary HR-HPV screening. HPV 16/18 to colposcopy and triage other HR-HPV with p16 INK4a was equally sensitive (88.2% vs 94.1%; P=0.500) and more specific (88.3% vs 83.0%; P<0.01) than HPV 16/18 to colposcopy and triage other HR-HPV with LCT≥ atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS), and the referral rate decreased (14.0% vs 19.4%; P=0.005). Conclusions:For primary screening, p16 INK4a is equally specific to cytology and equally sensitive to HR-HPV screening. p16 INK4a alone could be an efficient triage after primary HR-HPV screening. In addition, p16 INK4a immunostaining could be used as an ancillary tool to cervical cytological diagnosis, and improves its accuracy in cervical cancer screening.