Institution
East Surrey Hospital
Healthcare•Redhill, Surrey, United Kingdom•
About: East Surrey Hospital is a healthcare organization based out in Redhill, Surrey, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Cancer & Health care. The organization has 673 authors who have published 623 publications receiving 28027 citations.
Topics: Cancer, Health care, Population, Laparoscopic surgery, Risk assessment
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: The revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions, and a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included.
20,760 citations
••
Columbia University Medical Center1, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital2, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer3, University Medical Center Groningen4, East Surrey Hospital5, Mayo Clinic6, National Institutes of Health7, Queen's University8, Bristol-Myers Squibb9, Harvard University10, VU University Medical Center11, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center12
TL;DR: The purpose of this paper was to summarise the questions posed and the clarifications provided as an update to the 2009 publication of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours.
1,005 citations
••
TL;DR: The data challenge the assumption that, in this non-curative setting, maximum tolerable treatment must necessarily be used first-line in patients with advanced colorectal cancer, and suggest the staged approach of initial single-agent treatment upgraded to combination when required is not worse than first- line combination.
540 citations
••
TL;DR: The author identifies that neither approach is superior to the other; qualitative research appears invaluable for the exploration of subjective experiences of patients and nurses, and quantitative methods facilitate the discovery of quantifiable information.
Abstract: The overall purpose of research for any profession is to discover the truth of the discipline. This paper examines the controversy over the methods by which truth is obtained, by examining the differences and similarities between quantitative and qualitative research. The historically negative bias against qualitative research is discussed, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches, with issues highlighted by reference to nursing research. Consideration is given to issues of sampling; the relationship between the researcher and subject; methodologies and collated data; validity; reliability, and ethical dilemmas. The author identifies that neither approach is superior to the other; qualitative research appears invaluable for the exploration of subjective experiences of patients and nurses, and quantitative methods facilitate the discovery of quantifiable information. Combining the strengths of both approaches in triangulation, if time and money permit, is also proposed as a valuable means of discovering the truth about nursing. It is argued that if nursing scholars limit themselves to one method of enquiry, restrictions will be placed on the development of nursing knowledge.
420 citations
••
TL;DR: Adding panitumumab to irinotecan did not improve the overall survival of patients with wild-type KRAS tumours, and further refinement of molecular selection is needed for substantial benefits to be derived from EGFR targeting agents.
Abstract: Summary Background Therapeutic antibodies targeting EGFR have activity in advanced colorectal cancer, but results from clinical trials are inconsistent and the population in which most benefit is derived is uncertain. Our aim was to assess the addition of panitumumab to irinotecan in pretreated advanced colorectal cancer. Methods In this open-label, randomised trial, we enrolled patients who had advanced colorectal cancer progressing after fluoropyrimidine treatment with or without oxaliplatin from 60 centres in the UK. From December, 2006 until June, 2008, molecularly unselected patients were recruited to a three-arm design including irinotecan (control), irinotecan plus ciclosporin, and irinotecan plus panitumumab (IrPan) groups. From June 10, 2008, in response to new data, the trial was amended to a prospectively stratified design, restricting panitumumab randomisation to patients with KRAS wild-type tumours; the results of the comparison between the irinotcan and IrPan groups are reported here. We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence (stratified by previous EGFR targeted therapy and then minimised by centre, WHO performance status, previous oxaliplatin, previous bevacizumab, previous dose modifications, and best previous response) to randomly allocate patients to either irinotecan or IrPan. Patients in both groups received 350 mg/m 2 intravenous irinotecan every 3 weeks (300 mg/m 2 if aged ≥70 years or a performance status of 2); patients in the IrPan group also received intravenous panitumumab 9 mg/kg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients who had not received previous EGFR targeted therapy, analysed by intention to treat. Tumour DNA was pyrosequenced for KRAS c.146 , BRAF, NRAS , and PIK3CA mutations, and predefined molecular subgroups were analysed for interaction with the effect of panitumumab. This study is registered, number ISRCTN93248876. Results Between Dec 4, 2006, and Aug 31, 2010, 1198 patients were enrolled, of whom 460 were included in the primary population of patients with KRAS c.12–13,61 wild-type tumours and no previous EGFR targeted therapy. 230 patients were randomly allocated to irinotecan and 230 to IrPan. There was no difference in overall survival between groups (HR 1·01, 95% CI 0·83–1·23; p=0·91), but individuals in the IrPan group had longer progression-free survival (0·78, 0·64–0·95; p=0·015) and a greater number of responses (79 [34%] patients vs 27 [12%]; p vs 39 [18%] of 218 patients), skin toxicity (41 [19%] vs none), lethargy (45 [21]% vs 24 [11%]), infection (42 [19%] vs 22 [10%]) and haematological toxicity (48 [22%] vs 27 [12%]) were reported more commonly in the IrPan group than in the irinotecan group. We recorded five treatment-related deaths, two in the IrPan group and three in the irinotecan group. Interpretation Adding panitumumab to irinotecan did not improve the overall survival of patients with wild-type KRAS tumours. Further refinement of molecular selection is needed for substantial benefits to be derived from EGFR targeting agents. Funding Cancer Research UK, Amgen Inc.
327 citations
Authors
Showing all 674 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Declan G. Murphy | 95 | 820 | 37076 |
Christian Heiss | 58 | 398 | 13034 |
Ian R. Daniels | 33 | 177 | 4784 |
Prasanna Sooriakumaran | 31 | 190 | 4021 |
Abhay Rane | 27 | 111 | 2830 |
Sean Molloy | 22 | 78 | 2273 |
Azhar Ansari | 20 | 48 | 1941 |
Mayank A. Nanavaty | 19 | 81 | 1069 |
Mariya Moosajee | 19 | 117 | 1173 |
George Garas | 18 | 68 | 1005 |
Shahid Niaz Khan | 18 | 83 | 1170 |
Polychronis Pavlidis | 18 | 52 | 915 |
Alastair Henderson | 17 | 54 | 938 |
P.M. Spielmann | 16 | 40 | 575 |
Benjamin C. T. Field | 16 | 25 | 1087 |