Findings indicate that information on breast awareness should be delivered to this group of women in Chinese by health professionals through Chinese mass media.
Background To investigate the differences between doublet and triplet neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) regimens in efficacy and safety profile. Methods A total of 227 locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) patients who received NAC and sequential radical gastrectomy were reviewed. After propensity score matching (PSM), 140 patients with similar baseline characteristics were selected. Among them, 70 received doublet NAC regimens consisted of platinum and fluorouracil; the other 70 received triplet NAC regimens consisted of docetaxel, platinum, and fluorouracil. Results The efficacy of doublet and triplet regimens was comparable after propensity score matching in terms of tumor regression (pathological complete response, Doublet 11.4% vs. Triplet 15.7%, p = 0.642), achieving of R0 resection (Doublet 88.6% vs. Triplet 88.6%, p = 1), 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) (Doublet 77.1% vs. Triplet 68.6%, p = 0.178), 3-years overall survival (OS) (Doublet 54.3% vs. Triplet 60.9%, p = 0.941). Post-surgery complications were more common in the triplet cohort (Doublet 5.7% vs. Triplet 27.1%, p = 0.001), especially abdominal infection (Doublet 0% vs. Triplet 11.1%, p = 0.001). Conclusions A more intense preoperative triplet NAC regimen does not bring extra downstage effect and survival benefit compared to a doublet regimen. It may even result in a higher risk of post-surgery complications.
Background In order to ensure the accuracy of the product, we established 1 st model of metrological traceability hierarchy for light‐initiated chemiluminescent assay (LICA) of 17β‐estradiol (E 2 ) at the manufacturer, based on International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 17511:2020. Moreover, we verified/validated the basic performance (such as matrix effect and long‐term stability of end‐user IVD MD calibrator, precision, linearity interval, accuracy/ trueness, and detection capability) at the clinical end‐user. Methods Human serum samples were used in this study. E 2 was detected by mass spectrometry (MS) and LICA. The metrological traceability of LICA for E 2 was established according to ISO 17511: 2020 standards, and pools of human samples were used as the m.3. secondary calibrator. Precision was validated according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) EP05‐A3. The linear interval was verified according to CLSI EP06‐ED2. Comparison of accuracy and trueness of E 2 with MS and Roche according to CLSI EP09‐A3. The detection capability was validated according to EP17‐A2. Matrix effect and long‐term stability evaluation of end‐user IVD MD calibrator were carried out according to CLSI EP14‐A2, EP25‐A. Statistical software was used for data analyses. Results The use of pools of human samples and fine adjusting calibrators ensured the accuracy of end‐user test results. The metrological traceability of LICA for E 2 was established. It showed excellent precision, meeting the requirements of allowable imprecision (7.5%). The allowable deviation from linearity (ADL) of 5% was allowed to show a good linear interval (12.52–4167.25 pg/ml). The accuracy/ trueness was verified, and relative deviation in the medical decision level met the performance specification of 10.03% compared with MS or Roche. The validated limit of blank, limit of detection, and limit of quantitation of E 2 were 4.95 pg/ml, 8.93 pg/ml, and 9.88 pg/ml, respectively (the allowed imprecision is 20.00%). The interference rate of E 2 ranged from −5.5% to 6.6%. Conclusion LICA showed high sensitivity, high specificity, excellent precision, wide linearity interval, IVD MD calibrator has long‐term stability, and no matrix effect. The metrological traceability of E 2 established by using pools of human samples as M.3. can deliver accuracy to the end‐user IVD MD and show good consistency with MS and Roche.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.