Uncontrolled delayed nausea and vomiting remains a problem after high-dose preparative regimens used for autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants. Recently, aprepitant was approved for highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, and, in particular, is effective for decreasing delayed emesis. To evaluate its safety and efficacy in the transplantation setting, we performed a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of aprepitant in combination with ondansetron and dexamethasone in patients treated with ablative preparative regimens. Patients were randomized to receive oral aprepitant or placebo daily with oral ondansetron and dexamethasone during and for 3 days after the completion of the preparative regimen in this prospective randomized, double-blind study. The primary objective was complete response (CR) rate, defined as no emesis with no or mild nausea. Other endpoints included number of emetic episodes, nausea severity assessed using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS), the need for rescue antiemetics, and transplantation outcome, including regimen-related toxicity. One hundred eighty-one patients were randomized and 179 patients were eligible for analysis. Overall, CR rates were 81.9% for the aprepitant and 65.8% for the placebo arms (P < .001). Percentages of patients with no emesis all days were 73.3% for aprepitant and 22.5% placebo (P < .001). Mean VAS scores were 16.6 mm aprepitant and 16.9 mm placebo (NS), and there were no differences in the amount of rescue antiemetics used, regimen related toxicity, engraftment, or transplantation outcome. Aprepitant in combination with dexamethasone and ondansetron significantly decreased emesis and significant nausea, whereas not increasing RRT or affecting short-term survival but had no significant impact on the use of PRN antiemetics, or overall VAS nausea scores.

Purpose This systematic review summarizes research on the use of progestin and breast cancer risk. Although mainly used for contraception, progestin can help treat menstrual disorders, and benign breast, uterine and ovarian diseases. Breast cancer is the leading site of new, non-skin, cancers in females in the United States, and possible factors that may modulate breast cancer risk need to be identified. Methods ProQuest (Ann Arbor, MI) and PubMed-Medline (US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda MD, USA) databases were used to search for epidemiologic studies from 2000–2015 that examined the association between progestin and breast cancer. Search terms included epidemiologic studies + progesterone or progestin or progestogen or contraceptive or contraceptive agents + breast cancer or breast neoplasms. A total of six studies were included in the review. Results Five of the six studies reported no association between progestin-only formulations (including norethindrone oral contraceptives, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, injectable, levonorgestrel system users, implantable and intrauterine devices) and breast cancer risk. Duration of use was examined in a few studies with heterogeneous results. Conclusion Unlike studies of other oral contraceptives, studies indicate that progestin-only formulations do not increase the risk of breast cancer, although the literature is hampered by small sample sizes. Future research is needed to corroborate these findings, as further understanding of synthetic progesterone may initiate new prescription practices or guidelines for women’s health.

Conclusions-This is a small study, but it shows that, depending on the timing of the lumbar puncture, false negative results can occur with both ferritin and D-dimer measurements. It suggests that neither of these tests adds significantly to the information provided by CT, visualisation of CSF, and spectrophotometry and confirms that, despite the use of spectrophotometry, D-dimer and ferritin assays in selecting patients for angiography, the proportion ofpatients with negative CT scans and colourless CSF with demonstrable vascular lesions remains low.(7 Clin Pathol 1994;47:986-989)

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer among women and the second-leading cause of cancer death in United States women. African Americans and other minorities in the United States suffer lower survival and worse prognosis than European Americans despite European Americans having a much higher incidence of the disease. Adherence to breast cancer treatment–quality measures is limited, particularly when the data are stratified by race/ethnicity. We aimed to examine breast cancer incidence and mortality trends in South Carolina by race and explore possible racial disparities in the quality of breast cancer treatment received in South Carolina. African Americans have high rates of mammography and clinical breast exam screenings yet suffer lower survival compared to European Americans. For most treatment-quality metrics, South Carolina fairs well in comparison to the United States as a whole; however, South Carolina hospitals overall lag behind SC COC-accredited hospitals for all measured quality indicators including needle biopsy utilization, breast-conserving surgeries, and timely use of radiation therapy. Accreditation may a have a major role in increasing the standard of care related to breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. These descriptive findings may provide significant insight for future interventions and policies aimed at eliminating racial/ethnic disparities in health outcomes. Further risk-reduction approaches are necessary to reduce minority group mortality rates, especially among African-American women.