Institution
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Education•Leuven, Belgium•
About: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven is a education organization based out in Leuven, Belgium. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Transplantation. The organization has 61109 authors who have published 176584 publications receiving 6210872 citations.
Topics: Population, Transplantation, CMOS, European union, Stars
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Radboud University Nijmegen1, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer2, Université catholique de Louvain3, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven4, Charité5, Utrecht University6, PSL Research University7, François Rabelais University8, Institut Gustave Roussy9, University of Tübingen10, University of Amsterdam11, University of Zurich12, Rambam Health Care Campus13
TL;DR: In patients with early-stage breast cancer, irradiation of the regional nodes had a marginal effect on overall survival, disease-free survival and distant disease- free survival were improved, and breast-cancer mortality was reduced.
Abstract: BACKGROUND The effect of internal mammary and medial supraclavicular lymph-node irradiation (regional nodal irradiation) added to whole-breast or thoracic-wall irradiation after surgery on survival among women with early-stage breast cancer is unknown. METHODS We randomly assigned women who had a centrally or medially located primary tumor, irrespective of axillary involvement, or an externally located tumor with axillary involvement to undergo either whole-breast or thoracic-wall irradiation in addition to regional nodal irradiation (nodal-irradiation group) or whole-breast or thoracic-wall irradiation alone (control group). The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points were the rates of disease-free survival, survival free from distant disease, and death from breast cancer. RESULTS Between 1996 and 2004, a total of 4004 patients underwent randomization. The majority of patients (76.1%) underwent breast-conserving surgery. After mastectomy, 73.4% of the patients in both groups underwent chest-wall irradiation. Nearly all patients with node-positive disease (99.0%) and 66.3% of patients with node-negative disease received adjuvant systemic treatment. At a median follow-up of 10.9 years, 811 patients had died. At 10 years, overall survival was 82.3% in the nodal-irradiation group and 80.7% in the control group (hazard ratio for death with nodal irradiation, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.00; P = 0.06). The rate of disease-free survival was 72.1% in the nodal-irradiation group and 69.1% in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.00; P = 0.04), the rate of distant disease-free survival was 78.0% versus 75.0% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.98; P = 0.02), and breast-cancer mortality was 12.5% versus 14.4% (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.97; P = 0.02). Acute side effects of regional nodal irradiation were modest. CONCLUSIONS In patients with early-stage breast cancer, irradiation of the regional nodes had a marginal effect on overall survival. Disease-free survival and distant disease-free survival were improved, and breast-cancer mortality was reduced. (Funded by Fonds Cancer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002851.)
810 citations
Paris Descartes University1, Institut Gustave Roussy2, Mount Sinai Hospital3, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center4, University of Kiel5, Thomas Jefferson University6, Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli7, University of Toronto8, University of Massachusetts Medical School9, Louisiana State University10, Ghent University11, Flanders Institute for Biotechnology12, Cancer Research UK13, Queen Mary University of London14, Roswell Park Cancer Institute15, Karolinska Institutet16, University of Freiburg17, Buck Institute for Research on Aging18, University of California, San Francisco19, French Institute of Health and Medical Research20, Université Paris-Saclay21, University College London22, University of Rome Tor Vergata23, Northwestern University24, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center25, National Institutes of Health26, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology27, Johns Hopkins University28, University of Chieti-Pescara29, University of Ulm30, Genentech31, New York University32, Pennsylvania State University33, University of Salento34, Yale University35, Goethe University Frankfurt36, University of Burgundy37, Pasteur Institute38, University of Strasbourg39, University of Zurich40, University of Tokyo41, Technische Universität München42, University of Bern43, University of Michigan44, Medical Research Council45, University of South Australia46, University of Adelaide47, Medical University of South Carolina48, University of Texas at Dallas49, Howard Hughes Medical Institute50, St. John's University51, University of Oviedo52, University of Graz53, Istituto Superiore di Sanità54, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven55, Trinity College, Dublin56, University of Geneva57, University of Amsterdam58, Stony Brook University59, University of Washington60, University of Ferrara61, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland62, La Trobe University63, University of Buenos Aires64, University of Virginia65, University of Padua66, University of Lisbon67, University of Cambridge68, University of Würzburg69, Soochow University (Suzhou)70, Columbia University71, University of Glasgow72, University of Crete73, Foundation for Research & Technology – Hellas74, Innsbruck Medical University75, Carlos III Health Institute76, Rutgers University77, University of Minnesota78, Harvard University79, City University of New York80, Moscow State University81
TL;DR: The Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death formulates a set of recommendations to help scientists and researchers to discriminate between essential and accessory aspects of cell death.
Abstract: Cells exposed to extreme physicochemical or mechanical stimuli die in an uncontrollable manner, as a result of their immediate structural breakdown. Such an unavoidable variant of cellular demise is generally referred to as ‘accidental cell death’ (ACD). In most settings, however, cell death is initiated by a genetically encoded apparatus, correlating with the fact that its course can be altered by pharmacologic or genetic interventions. ‘Regulated cell death’ (RCD) can occur as part of physiologic programs or can be activated once adaptive responses to perturbations of the extracellular or intracellular microenvironment fail. The biochemical phenomena that accompany RCD may be harnessed to classify it into a few subtypes, which often (but not always) exhibit stereotyped morphologic features. Nonetheless, efficiently inhibiting the processes that are commonly thought to cause RCD, such as the activation of executioner caspases in the course of apoptosis, does not exert true cytoprotective effects in the mammalian system, but simply alters the kinetics of cellular demise as it shifts its morphologic and biochemical correlates. Conversely, bona fide cytoprotection can be achieved by inhibiting the transduction of lethal signals in the early phases of the process, when adaptive responses are still operational. Thus, the mechanisms that truly execute RCD may be less understood, less inhibitable and perhaps more homogeneous than previously thought. Here, the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death formulates a set of recommendations to help scientists and researchers to discriminate between essential and accessory aspects of cell death.
809 citations
TL;DR: Methods and excipients associated with the development of supersaturating drug delivery systems are assessed and the future directions and factors likely to contribute to or detract from optimal dosage form selection are assessed.
807 citations
University of Cambridge1, Max Planck Society2, Boston Children's Hospital3, University of Bari4, University of Cagliari5, University of Eastern Piedmont6, Charité7, Ruhr University Bochum8, Copenhagen University Hospital9, Oslo University Hospital10, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven11, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research12, Medical University of Łódź13
TL;DR: The Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score (MSSS) as mentioned in this paper measures the severity of a patient with multiple sclerosis using the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score.
Abstract: Background: There is no consensus method for determining progression of disability in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) when each patient has had only a single assessment in the course of the disease. Methods: Using data from two large longitudinal databases, the authors tested whether cross-sectional disability assessments are representative of disease severity as a whole. An algorithm, the Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score (MSSS), which relates scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) to the distribution of disability in patients with comparable disease durations, was devised and then applied to a collection of 9,892 patients from 11 countries to create the Global MSSS. In order to compare different methods of detecting such effects the authors simulated the effects of a genetic factor on disability. Results: Cross-sectional EDSS measurements made after the first year were representative of overall disease severity. The MSSS was more powerful than the other methods the authors tested for detecting different rates of disease progression. Conclusion: The Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score (MSSS) is a powerful method for comparing disease progression using single assessment data. The Global MSSS can be used as a reference table for future disability comparisons. While useful for comparing groups of patients, disease fluctuation precludes its use as a predictor of future disability in an individual.
807 citations
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven1, University of Bergen2, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens3, University of Brescia4, University of Gothenburg5, University of Padua6, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich7, University of Pavia8, University of Oslo9, Uppsala University10, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki11, Sheba Medical Center12, University of Basel13, Children's National Medical Center14, University College London15, University of L'Aquila16
TL;DR: A consensus document from the Study Group of Sports Cardiology and the Working Group of Cardiac Rehabilitation and Exercise Physiology of the European Society of Cardiology has been published in this paper.
Abstract: A consensus document from the Study Group of Sports Cardiology of the Working Group of Cardiac Rehabilitation and Exercise Physiology and the Working Group of Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology.
807 citations
Authors
Showing all 61602 results
| Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eugene Braunwald | 230 | 1711 | 264576 |
| Joseph L. Goldstein | 207 | 556 | 149527 |
| Rakesh K. Jain | 200 | 1467 | 177727 |
| Stefan Schreiber | 178 | 1233 | 138528 |
| Masayuki Yamamoto | 171 | 1576 | 123028 |
| Jun Wang | 166 | 1093 | 141621 |
| David R. Jacobs | 165 | 1262 | 113892 |
| Klaus Müllen | 164 | 2125 | 140748 |
| Peter Carmeliet | 164 | 844 | 122918 |
| Hua Zhang | 163 | 1503 | 116769 |
| William J. Sandborn | 162 | 1317 | 108564 |
| Elliott M. Antman | 161 | 716 | 179462 |
| Tobin J. Marks | 159 | 1621 | 111604 |
| Ian A. Wilson | 158 | 971 | 98221 |
| Johan Auwerx | 158 | 653 | 95779 |