Multimodal therapy comprising neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy prior to radical resection is increasingly utilized in gastroesophageal cancer. The achievement of a complete pathological response (pCR) or a major response is associated with an improved survival. However, up to 70% of patients show an incomplete or no response to the neoadjuvant regimen, and the identification of factors which predict a response would be of considerable clinical benefit. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively updated esophageal cancer database was performed. The predictive values of the following clinicopathological factors were investigated: age, sex, tobacco, alcohol, weight, clinical history, tumor type, site, length, width, morphology and differentiation. Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square test with Pearson's test or Kruskal-Wallis test. One hundred and seventy-six patients were identified who had undergone neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy at St James's Hospital Dublin, between January 1990 and June 2003. A complete pathological response was seen in 40 cases (23%). There was a significant (P < 0.05) relationship between response to chemoradiotherapy and pretreatment tumor length. The median tumor length in the pCR group was 2 cm (1-5 cm) compared with 3 cm (2-7 cm) in non-responders (P < 0.05). Body weight, sex, tobacco or alcohol usage, tumor site, or differentiation were not predictive of response, although a trend (P = 0.08) was observed for squamous cell cancer compared with adenocarcinoma. Smaller tumor length was predictive of a greater response to chemotherapy and radiation therapy. This may reflect different tumor biology, perhaps with acquired resistance to treatment-induced apoptosis in the larger tumors. A simpler explanation is that the existing dose and treatment schedule for combination chemoradiotherapy is suboptimal in patients with larger tumors.
There is wide variation in infusion practice in UK critical care units. Standardising infusion concentrations may lead to efficiency gains through reduced training burdens, common nomenclature, reductions in error rates and mass production of ready-to-use products by the pharmaceutical industry. A proposed list of standard concentrations for 20 medications given by infusion was produced. Critical care units were surveyed to assess the acceptability of the list for adoption as a national standard; 164 critical care units responded (63% of UK NHS trusts). High acceptance of the list has been shown, with the exception of concentrations of adrenaline, potassium and phosphate where further work is required. The proposed concentrations of the remaining 17 medications should be adopted as a national standard.
Developments in diagnostics reform legislation in the United States are occurring at a rapid pace. The framework for future regulatory oversight of clinical laboratory testing is currently under intensive debate among stakeholders that represent patients, practitioners, laboratories, diagnostic manufacturers, and regulators. The importance of clinical laboratory test standardization is a key component of any plan for regulatory reform. A laboratory-developed test is performed in a specific laboratory setting, often led by clinical laboratory professionals who possess specific expertise for developing and running the test to fill a clinical need. A test commercially marketed as an in vitro diagnostic kit is designed to operate across a spectrum of laboratory settings in laboratories with a range of expertise. Both types of tests are stringently regulated, laboratory-developed tests by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments and in vitro diagnostic kits by the US Food and Drug Administration. Interlaboratory comparisons of laboratory-developed tests have been published, demonstrating highly reproducible results. Comparisons of laboratory-developed tests with in vitro diagnostic kits have also found high concordance. Several important clinical laboratory test standardization projects are currently under way. The US Food and Drug Administration has acknowledged the need for such standardization. In its most recent draft guidance, the agency requested input from the scientific community as to actions that can be taken to facilitate standardization.
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.