scispace - formally typeset

Institution

British Hospital

HealthcareMontevideo, Uruguay
About: British Hospital is a(n) healthcare organization based out in Montevideo, Uruguay. It is known for research contribution in the topic(s): Population & Lung cancer. The organization has 445 authors who have published 358 publication(s) receiving 7878 citation(s). 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

539 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.

410 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
15 May 2007-Blood
Abstract: Treatment options are limited for patients with imatinib-resistant or -intolerant accelerated phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML-AP). Dasatinib is a novel, potent, oral, multitargeted kinase inhibitor of BCR-ABL and SRC-family kinases that showed marked efficacy in a phase 1 trial of patients with imatinib-resistant CML. Results are presented for 107 patients with CML-AP with imatinib-resistance or -intolerance from a phase 2, open-label study further evaluating dasatinib efficacy and safety. At 8 months' minimum follow-up, 81%, 64%, and 39% of patients achieved overall, major (MaHR), and complete hematologic responses, respectively, whereas 33% and 24% attained major and complete cytogenetic remission. Of 69 patients who achieved MaHR, 7 progressed. Seventy-six percent of patients are estimated to be alive and progression-free at 10 months. Response rates for the 60% of patients with baseline BCR-ABL mutations did not differ from the total population. Dasatinib was well tolerated: most nonhematologic adverse events (AEs) were mild to moderate; no imatinib-intolerant patients discontinued dasatinib because of AEs. Although common (76% of patients with severe neutropenia), cytopenias were manageable through dose modification. In summary, dasatinib induced significant hematologic and cytogenetic responses in patients with imatinib resistance or intolerance, was well tolerated, and may represent a potent new therapeutic option for CML-AP. Further follow-up is warranted. This trial was registered at [www.clinicaltrials.gov][1] as #CA180005. [1]: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov

362 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.
Abstract: This article proposes codes for the primary tumor categories of adenocarcinoma in situ (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. In 2011, new entities of AIS, MIA, and lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma were defined, and they were later incorporated into the 2015 World Health Organization classification of lung cancer. To fit these entities into the T component of the staging system, the Tis category is proposed for AIS, with Tis (AIS) specified if it is to be distinguished from squamous cell carcinoma in situ (SCIS), which is to be designated Tis (SCIS). We also propose that MIA be classified as T1mi. Furthermore, the use of the invasive size for T descriptor size follows a recommendation made in three editions of the Union for International Cancer Control tumor, node, and metastasis supplement since 2003. For tumor size, the greatest dimension should be reported both clinically and pathologically. In nonmucinous lung adenocarcinomas, the computed tomography (CT) findings of ground glass versus solid opacities tend to correspond respectively to lepidic versus invasive patterns seen pathologically. However, this correlation is not absolute; so when CT features suggest nonmucinous AIS, MIA, and lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma, the suspected diagnosis and clinical staging should be regarded as a preliminary assessment that is subject to revision after pathologic evaluation of resected specimens. The ability to predict invasive versus noninvasive size on the basis of solid versus ground glass components is not applicable to mucinous AIS, MIA, or invasive mucinous adenocarcinomas because they generally show solid nodules or consolidation on CT.

348 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The MPN-SAF TSS is a concise, valid, and accurate assessment of MPN symptom burden with demonstrated clinical utility in the largest prospective MPN symptoms study to date.
Abstract: Purpose Myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) symptoms are troublesome to patients, and alleviation of this burden represents a paramount treatment objective in the development of MPN-directed therapies. We aimed to assess the utility of an abbreviated symptom score for the most pertinent and representative MPN symptoms for subsequent serial use in assessing response to therapy. Patients and Methods The Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form total symptom score (MPN-SAF TSS) was calculated as the mean score for 10 items from two previously validated scoring systems. Questions focus on fatigue, concentration, early satiety, inactivity, night sweats, itching, bone pain, abdominal discomfort, weight loss, and fevers. Results MPN-SAF TSS was calculable for 1,408 of 1,433 patients with MPNs who had a mean score of 21.2 (standard deviation [SD], 16.3). MPN-SAF TSS results significantly differed among MPN disease subtypes (P < .001), with a mean of 18.7 (SD, 15.3), 21.8 (SD, 16.3), and 25.3 (SD, 17.2) f...

270 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