scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

British Hospital

HealthcareMontevideo, Uruguay
About: British Hospital is a healthcare organization based out in Montevideo, Uruguay. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Lung cancer. The organization has 445 authors who have published 358 publications receiving 7878 citations. The organization is also known as: British Hospital.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
03 May 2016-JAMA
TL;DR: In this open-label, randomized trial involving patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer with disease controlled after 4 months of induction chemotherapy, there was no significant difference in overall survival with chemoradiotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone and there wasno significant difference with gem citabine compared with gemcitabine plus erlotinib used as maintenance therapy.
Abstract: Importance In locally advanced pancreatic cancer, the role of chemoradiotherapy is controversial and the efficacy of erlotinib is unknown. Objectives To assess whether chemoradiotherapy improves overall survival of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer controlled after 4 months of gemcitabine-based induction chemotherapy and to assess the effect of erlotinib on survival. Design, Setting, and Participants In LAP07, an international, open-label, phase 3 randomized trial, 449 patients were enrolled between 2008 and 2011. Follow-up ended in February 2013. Interventions In the first randomization, 223 patients received 1000 mg/m 2 weekly of gemcitabine alone and 219 patients received 1000 mg/m 2 of gemcitabine plus 100 mg/d of erlotinib. In the second randomization involving patients with progression-free disease after 4 months, 136 patients received 2 months of the same chemotherapy and 133 underwent chemoradiotherapy (54 Gy plus capecitabine). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was overall survival from the date of the first randomization. Secondary outcomes were the effect of erlotinib and quality assurance of radiotherapy on overall survival, progression-free survival of gemcitabine-erlotinib and erlotinib maintenance with gemcitabine alone at the second randomization, and toxic effects. Results A total of 442 of the 449 patients (232 men; median age, 63.3 years) enrolled underwent the first randomization. Of these, 269 underwent the second randomization. Interim analysis was performed when 221 patients died (109 in the chemoradiotherapy group and 112 in the chemotherapy group), reaching the early stopping boundaries for futility. With a median follow-up of 36.7 months, the median overall survival from the date of the first randomization was not significantly different between chemotherapy at 16.5 months (95% CI, 14.5-18.5 months) and chemoradiotherapy at 15.2 months (95% CI, 13.9-17.3 months; hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.79-1.34; P = .83). Median overall survival from the date of the first randomization for the 223 patients receiving gemcitabine was 13.6 months (95% CI, 12.3-15.3 months) and was 11.9 months (95% CI, 10.4-13.5 months) for the 219 patients receiving gemcitabine plus erlotinib (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.97-1.45; P = .09; 188 deaths vs 191 deaths). Chemoradiotherapy was associated with decreased local progression (32% vs 46%, P = .03) and no increase in grade 3 to 4 toxicity, except for nausea. Conclusions and Relevance In this open-label, randomized trial involving patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer with disease controlled after 4 months of induction chemotherapy, there was no significant difference in overall survival with chemoradiotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone and there was no significant difference in overall survival with gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine plus erlotinib used as maintenance therapy. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT00634725

732 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Alessandro Fiocchi, MD, Pediatric Division, Department of Child and Maternal Medicine, University of Milan Medical School at the Melloni Hospital, Milan 20129, Italy, and Holger Schünemann,MD, department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, 1200 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract: Alessandro Fiocchi, MD, Pediatric Division, Department of Child and Maternal Medicine, University of Milan Medical School at the Melloni Hospital, Milan 20129, Italy. Holger Schünemann, MD, Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, 1200 Main Street West Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada. Sami L. Bahna, MD, Pediatrics & Medicine, Allergy & Immunology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA 71130. Andrea Von Berg, MD, Research Institute, Children s department , Marien-Hospital, Wesel, Germany. Kirsten Beyer, MD, Charité Klinik für Pädiatrie m.S. Pneumologie und Immunologie, Augustenburger Platz 1, D-13353 Berlin, Germany. Martin Bozzola, MD, Department of Pediatrics, British Hospital-Perdriel 74-CABA-Buenos Aires, Argentina. Julia Bradsher, PhD, Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network, 11781 Lee Jackson Highway, Suite 160, Fairfax, VA 22033. Jan Brozek, MD, Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, 1200 Main Street West Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada. Enrico Compalati, MD, Allergy & Respiratory Diseases Clinic, Department of Internal Medicine. University of Genoa, 16132, Genoa, Italy. Motohiro Ebisawa, MD, Department of Allergy, Clinical Research Center for Allergy and Rheumatology, Sagamihara National Hospital, Kanagawa 228-8522, Japan. Maria Antonieta Guzman, MD, Immunology and Allergy Division, Clinical Hospital University of Chile, Santiago, Chile. Santos Dumont 999. Haiqi Li, MD, Professor of Pediatric Division, Department of Primary Child Care, Children’s Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, China, 400014. Ralf G. Heine, MD, FRACP, Department of Allergy & Immunology, Royal Children’s Hospital, University of Melbourne, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia. Paul Keith, MD, Allergy and Clinical Immunology Division, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Gideon Lack, MD, King’s College London, Asthma-UK Centre in Allergic Mechanisms of Asthma, Department of Pediatric Allergy, St Thomas’ Hospital, London SE1 7EH, United Kingdom. Massimo Landi, MD, National Pediatric Healthcare System, Italian Federation of Pediatric Medicine, Territorial Pediatric Primary Care Group, Turin, Italy. Alberto Martelli, MD, Pediatric Division, Department of Child and Maternal Medicine, University of Milan Medical School at the Melloni Hospital, Milan 20129, Italy. Fabienne Rancé, MD, Allergologie, Hôpital des Enfants, Pôle Médicochirurgical de Pédiatrie, 330 av. de Grande Bretagne, TSA 70034, 31059 Toulouse CEDEX, France. Hugh Sampson, MD, Jaffe Food Allergy Institute, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, One Gustave L. Levy Place, NY 10029-6574. Airton Stein, MD, Conceicao Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil. Luigi Terracciano, MD, Pediatric Division, Department of Child and Maternal Medicine, University of Milan Medical School at the Melloni Hospital, Milan 20129, Italy. Stefan Vieths, MD, Division of Allergology, Paul-EhrlichInstitut, Federal Institute for Vaccines and Biomedicines, Paul-Ehrlich-Str. 51-59, D-63225 Langen, Germany.

478 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
William D. Travis1, Hisao Asamura2, Alexander A. Bankier3, Mary Beth Beasley4, Frank C. Detterbeck5, Douglas B. Flieder6, Jin Mo Goo7, Heber MacMahon8, David P. Naidich9, Andrew G. Nicholson10, Charles A. Powell, Mathias Prokop11, Ramón Rami-Porta12, Valerie W. Rusch1, Paul Van Schil, Yasushi Yatabe, Peter Goldstraw10, David Ball13, David G. Beer14, Ricardo Beyruti15, Vanessa Bolejack16, Kari Chansky16, John Crowley16, Wilfried Eberhardt17, John G. Edwards18, Françoise Galateau-Salle19, Dorothy Giroux16, Fergus V. Gleeson20, Patti A. Groome21, James Huang1, Catherine Kennedy22, Jhingook Kim23, Young Tae Kim24, Laura Kingsbury16, Haruhiko Kondo25, Mark Krasnik26, Kaoru Kubota27, Antoon Lerut28, Gustavo Lyons29, Mirella Marino, Edith M. Marom30, Jan P. van Meerbeeck31, Alan Mitchell16, Takashi Nakano32, Anna K. Nowak33, Michael D Peake34, Thomas W. Rice35, Kenneth E. Rosenzweig36, Enrico Ruffini37, Nagahiro Saijo, Jean-Paul Sculier38, Lynn Shemanski16, Kelly G. Stratton16, Kenji Suzuki39, Yuji Tachimori40, Charles F. Thomas41, William D. Travis1, Ming-Sound Tsao42, Andrew T. Turrisi43, Johan Vansteenkiste28, Hirokazu Watanabe, Yi-Long Wu, Paul Baas44, Jeremy J. Erasmus30, Seiki Hasegawa32, Kouki Inai45, Kemp H. Kernstine46, Hedy L. Kindler8, Lee M. Krug1, Kristiaan Nackaerts28, Harvey I. Pass9, David C. Rice30, Conrad Falkson21, Pier Luigi Filosso37, Giuseppe Giaccone47, Kazuya Kondo48, Marco Lucchi49, Meinoshin Okumura50, Eugene H. Blackstone35 
TL;DR: Codes for the primary tumor categories of AIS and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) and a uniform way to measure tumor size in part‐solid tumors for the eighth edition of the tumor, node, and metastasis classification of lung cancer are proposed.

431 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The effect of the number and location of metastases in patients receiving first-line systemic chemotherapy is investigated to assess the prognostic associations of peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer with overall survival and progression-free survival.
Abstract: Summary Background Patients with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer have reduced overall survival compared with patients with metastatic colorectal cancer without peritoneal involvement. Here we further investigated the effect of the number and location of metastases in patients receiving first-line systemic chemotherapy. Methods We analysed individual patient data for previously untreated patients enrolled in 14 phase 3 randomised trials done between 1997 and 2008. Trials were included if protocols explicitly pre-specified and solicited for patients with peritoneal involvement in the trial data collection process or had done a formal peritoneum-focused review of individual pre-treatment scans. We used stratified multivariable Cox models to assess the prognostic associations of peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer with overall survival and progression-free survival, adjusting for other key clinical-pathological factors (age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score, primary tumour location [colon vs rectum], previous treatment, and baseline BMI). The primary endpoint was difference in overall survival between populations with and without peritoneal metastases. Findings Individual patient data were available for 10 553 patients. 9178 (87%) of 10 553 patients had non-peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer (4385 with one site of metastasis, 4793 with two or more sites of metastasis), 194 (2%) patients had isolated peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer, and 1181 (11%) had peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer and other organ involvement. These groups were similar in age, ethnic origin, and use of targeted treatment. Patients with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer were more likely than those with non-peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer to be women (565 [41%] of 1371 vs 3312 [36%] of 9169 patients; p=0·0003), have colon primary tumours (1116 [84%] of 1334 patients vs 5603 [66%]; p vs 521 [6%]; p BRAF in patients with peritoneal-only (eight [18%] of 44 patients with available data) and peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer with other sites of metastasis (34 [12%] of 289), compared with patients with non-peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer (194 [9%] of 2230; p=0·028 comparing the three groups). Overall survival (adjusted HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·63–0·91; p=0·003) was better in patients with isolated non-peritoneal sites than in those with isolated peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer. Overall survival of patients with two of more non-peritoneal sites of metastasis (adjusted HR 1·04, 95% CI 0·86–1·25, p=0.69) and those with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer plus one other site of metastasis (adjusted HR 1·10, 95% CI 0·89–1·37, p=0·37) was similar to those with isolated peritoneal metastases. Compared with patients with isolated peritoneal metastases, those with peritoneal metastases and two or more additional sites of metastasis had the shortest survival (adjusted HR 1·40; CI 1·14–1·71; p=0·0011). Interpretation Patients with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer have significantly shorter overall survival than those with other isolated sites of metastases. In patients with several sites of metastasis, poor survival is a function of both increased number of metastatic sites and peritoneal involvement. The pattern of metastasis and in particular, peritoneal involvement, results in prognostic heterogeneity of metastatic colorectal cancer. Funding None.

386 citations


Authors

Showing all 445 results

Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Mayo Clinic
169.5K papers, 8.1M citations

80% related

Vita-Salute San Raffaele University
22.4K papers, 953K citations

80% related

Aarhus University Hospital
27.3K papers, 991.8K citations

79% related

Cleveland Clinic
79.3K papers, 3.4M citations

79% related

Rush University Medical Center
29K papers, 1.3M citations

78% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202140
202031
201926
201821
201726
201616