1,720,971 research outputs found

    Gemcitabine (GEM) and Vindesine (VDS) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): A phase II study in elderly or poor performance status patients

    No full text
    The aim of the study was to assess the activity and tolerability of the combination of gemcitabine (GEM) and vindesine (VDS) in elderly or poor performance patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Forty four patients (36 males and 8 females with a median age of 70 years and a median Karnofsky performance score of 60) were recruited between January 1998 and June 2001; 9 (20.5%) were stage IIIB patients and 35 (79.5%) were stage IV patients; 20 (45.5%) had squamous carcinoma and 24 (54.5%) non-squamous carcinoma. The patients received GEM 1000 mg/m2 and VDS 3 mg/m2 (max 5 mg) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, and were all evaluable for response and toxicity: 17 (38.6%) were partial responders, 17 (38.6%) experienced stable disease, and 10 (22.3%) progressive disease. Grade 3-4 anemia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were observed in, respectively, 6.8, 9.1 and 2.3% of the patients, and grade 2-3 fatigue, paresthesias and skin toxicity in, respectively, 11.4, 20.4 and 2.3%. After a median follow-up of 54 months, 43/44 patients died; median survival was 12 months, and a clinical benefit was observed in 54.5% of cases. GEM plus VDS is an active and well-tolerated schedule. © 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The 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
    corecore