130,965 research outputs found
Example BRIA lesion.
No full textAppearance of BRIA in a 65-year-old male two months after starting bevacizumab for recurrent right parietal glioblastoma on a) FLAIR, b) T1 post-contrast, c) DWI, and d) ADC. Abbreviations: FLAIR, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery; DWI, diffusion-weighted imaging; ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient.</p
Re: Survival With Aromatase Inhibitors and Inactivators Versus Standard Hormonal Therapy in Advanced Breast Cancer: Meta-analysis [Mauri D et al, J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 1285 – 91]
No full textNon applicabile
MeSH term explosion and author rank improve expert recommendations
No full textInformation overload is an often-cited phenomenon that reduces the productivity, efficiency and efficacy of scientists. One challenge for scientists is to find appropriate collaborators in their research. The literature describes various solutions to the problem of expertise location, but most current approaches do not appear to be very suitable for expert recommendations in biomedical research. In this study, we present the development and initial evaluation of a vector space model-based algorithm to calculate researcher similarity using four inputs: 1) MeSH terms of publications; 2) MeSH terms and author rank; 3) exploded MeSH terms; and 4) exploded MeSH terms and author rank. We developed and evaluated the algorithm using a data set of 17,525 authors and their 22,542 papers. On average, our algorithms correctly predicted 2.5 of the top 5/10 coauthors of individual scientists. Exploded MeSH and author rank outperformed all other algorithms in accuracy, followed closely by MeSH and author rank. Our results show that the accuracy of MeSH term-based matching can be enhanced with other metadata such as author rank
Prognostic stratification of node-negative NSCLC patients: is it worthwhile?
No full textNon applicabile
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
No full textThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Patients’ perception of chemotherapy side effects: Expectations, doctor–patient communication and impact on quality of life – An Italian survey
No full textChemotherapy side effects (CSE) have a strong impact on patients’ quality of life (QOL). To assess patient perceptions of CSE, their impact on QOL and doctor–patient communication regarding these aspects, a survey was conducted among Italian cancer patients. Patients at least 18 years of age, who received chemotherapy, were administered a dedicated questionnaire to assess their point of view on five domains: expectations about CSE and impact on QOL; doctor–patient communication about CSE; treatments to reduce the impact of CSE; sexual life; family relationships/activities and employment. A total of 761 patients participated. CSE had a considerable impact on patient QOL. Nausea/vomiting was the most feared adverse effect before initiating chemotherapy and the one most commonly experienced during treatment. Patients generally reported good doctor–patient communication regarding information about CSE. In almost all cases, the oncologists prescribed an antiemetic treatment, but the incidence of nausea/vomiting was high. Cancer and CSE severely affected sexual life, daily activities and employment. CSE had a strong negative impact on QOL. Good doctor–patient communication is essential. Improving antiemetic strategies may improve QOL. Doctors’ ability to inform patients about delicate issues, such as the impact of CSE on sexual life, needs to be improved
Recommended from our members
Bria-IMT + checkpoint inhibitor: Phase I/II survival results compared to benchmark trials in metastatic breast cancer
No full text1096Background: Bria-IMT is a combination immunotherapy consisting of allogeneic whole cell cancer vaccine (SV-BR-1-GM) administered w/ immune checkpoint inhibitor (CPI). SV-BR-1-GM breast cancer cells are engineered to directly stimulate anti tumor immunity via expression of tumor associated antigens and secretion of GM-CSF to enhance dendritic cell activation. Addition of CPI potentiates SV-BR-1-GM to overcome the immune suppressive tumor microenvironment. Methods: This Ph I/randomized Ph II study evaluated the Bria-IMT regimen in pts w/ metastatic breast cancer; CTX (300 mg/m²) on day -2/-3, SV-BR-1-GM and CPI on Day 0, w/ low dose peg interferon α at inoculation sites on day 2 (±1) . Phase II pts were randomized 1:1 to receive CPI at cycle 1 or cycle 2. Two SV-BR-1-GM formulations (w/ vs w/o IFNγ incubation) were evaluated. Biomarkers included cancer-associated macrophage-like cells, circulating tumor cells, PD-L1 scores, and delayed-type hypersensitivity skin tests. Results: 54 pts (22 Ph I, 32 Ph II) enrolled; 11 received pembrolizumab, 44 retifanlimab (1 crossover). 33 (61%) pts were ER+/PR+/HER2-, 18 (33%) TNBC, 3 (6%) HER2+. Median OS, PFS, ORR, and CBR were evaluated against two pivotal Ph 3 trials, ASCENT1 (SG in TNBC) and TROPiCS-022 (SG in HR+/HER2- MBC) (see Table 1). In randomized pts, C1 vs C2 CPI had PFS (3.7 vs 3.2 mos, P=0.09) and OS (11.4 vs 7.4 mos, P=0.19). Pts receiving Ph 3 formulation (w/o IFNγ; N=37) had greater PFS (3.6 vs 2.6 mos, P=0.01) and OS (13.4 vs 6.9 mos, P=0.01). Bria-IMT was well tolerated w/ no Tx related D/Cs. Conclusions: The Bria-IMT Ph 3 formulation cohort OS was comparable to ASCENT and TROPiCS-02 (13.43 vs 11.8, 14.4 mos), exceeding TPC arms (6.9, 11.2 mos). CBR (61%) compared favorably to ASCENT (40%) and TROPiCS-02 (34%); ORR (14%) matched or exceeded TPC arms (4%, 14%). These outcomes were observed in a more heavily pretreated population, demonstrating Bria-IMT's clinical activity. Randomized Ph 2 results suggest efficacy and safety in heavily pretreated MBC, w/ no significant OS difference between C1 and C2 CPI initiation and 22% of pts still in active survival follow up. Superior outcomes w/ the Ph 3 formulation support its continued evaluation. A randomized Ph 3 trial is ongoing, comparing Bria-IMT vs treatment of physician's choice (NCT06072612). Clinical trial information: NCT03328026.Trial (Cohort)Age (Median, Range)Prior Therapies (Median)OS (Median, mos)PFS (Median, mos)ORR (%)CBR (%)Bria-IMT (Overall Cohort)61 (38-81)6 (2-13)9.9 (1.8-30.3)3.610%55%Bria-IMT (Ph 3 Formulation)62 (44-80)6 (2-13)13.43 (1.8-30.3)3.6 (1.8-16.5)14%61%ASCENT (SG)54 (27-82)4 (2-17)11.84.831%40%ASCENT (TPC)53 (27-81)4 (2-14)6.91.74%8%TROPiCS-02 (SG)57 (49-65)314.45.521%34%TROPiCS-02 (TPC)55 (48-63)311.2414%22%References:Bardia A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2024 May 20;42(15):1738-1744Rugo, Hope S et al. The Lancet, Volume 402, Issue 10411, 1423 - 1433
Detecting Clusters of Microcalcifications with a Cascade-Based Approach
No full textIn this paper we present a cascade-based framework to detect clusters of microcalcifications on mammograms. The algorithm is based on a sliding window technique where a detector is structured as a “cascade” of simple boosting classifiers with increasing complexity. Such a method couples the effectiveness of the cascade approach with the Rank-
Boost algorithm that is aimed at maximizing the area under the ROC curve and represents a good choice when dealing with unbalanced data sets
- …
