Background: In the treatment of achalasia, surgery has been traditionally reserved for patients with residual dysphagia after pneumatic dilatation. The results of laparoscopic Heller myotomy have proven to be so good, however, that most experts now consider surgery the primary treatment. Hypothesis: The outcome of laparoscopic myotomy and fundoplication for achalasia is dictated by technical factors.
The purpose of this study was to use the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) to evaluate the chest computed tomography (CT) images of patients suspected of having COVID-19, and to investigate its diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement. The Dutch Radiological Society developed CO-RADS as a diagnostic indicator for assessing suspicion of lung involvement of COVID-19 on a scale of 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). We investigated retrospectively 154 adult patients with clinically suspected COVID-19, between April and June 2020, who underwent chest CT and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The patients’ average age was 61.3 years (range, 21–93), 101 were male, and 76 were RT-PCR positive. Using CO-RADS, four radiologists evaluated the chest CT images. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated. Interobserver agreement was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) by comparing the individual reader’s score to the median of the remaining three radiologists. The average sensitivity was 87.8% (range, 80.2–93.4%), specificity was 66.4% (range, 51.3–84.5%), and AUC was 0.859 (range, 0.847–0.881); there was no significant difference between the readers (p > 0.200). In 325 (52.8%) of 616 observations, there was absolute agreement among observers. The average ICC of readers was 0.840 (range, 0.800–0.874; p < 0.001). CO-RADS is a categorical taxonomic evaluation scheme for COVID-19 pneumonia, using chest CT images, that provides outstanding performance and from substantial to almost perfect interobserver agreement for predicting COVID-19.
No clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of eribulin monotherapy has been obtained by a prospective clinical study in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who had well-defined taxane resistance. The present Phase II, multicenter, single-arm, open-label study aimed to obtain the evidence. Japanese female patients, aged 33–74 years who had the metastasis of taxane-resistant and histopathologically confirmed breast cancer, received eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m2 (equivalent to eribulin 1.23 mg/m2 [expressed as free base]) as a 2- to 5-min intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle. The primary endpoint was the clinical benefit rate (CBR) [complete response (CR), partial response (PR), and long-term stable disease (LSD) ≥24 weeks]. A total of 51 patients underwent chemotherapy cycles (median 4; range 1–42 cycles). The CBR was 39.2 % (CR 2.0 %; PR 23.5 %; and LSD 13.7 %), and the rate of progressive disease was 49.0 %. The median progression-free survival and the median overall survival were 3.6 months [95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.6–4.6 months] and 11.7 months (95 % CI 9.2–14.2 months), respectively. Grade 3 or greater adverse events were leukopenia (23.5 %), neutropenia (35.3 %), anemia (5.9 %), and febrile neutropenia (7.8 %). The incidences of grade 3 and 4 peripheral sensory neuropathy were 2.0 and 0 %, respectively. Eribulin showed a clinically manageable tolerability profile by dose adjustments or symptomatic treatment. Eribulin was effective and well tolerated in heavily pretreated patients with MBC who had well-defined taxane resistance, thus providing a potential therapeutic option in the clinical settings.
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.