1,721,007 research outputs found

    Second and third line treatment in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

    No full text
    Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. About 50% of the patients present locally advanced or metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. First line therapy usually consists of a combination of cisplatin or carboplatin with a third-generation agent (paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine) that results in less than 5% 5-year survival (Goldstraw et al., 2007). Recently a different approach based on histological subtype has been introduced in the first line treatment of NSCLC: in the non-squamous histotypes, cisplatin plus pemetrexed, compared to the cisplatin plus gemcitabine combination, showed a better outcome, leading to its introduction in the first line treatment setting. In recent years advances in the second and third line treatments have led to a prognostic improvement. Two cytotoxic agents, docetaxel and pemetrexed, are approved as NSCLC second line treatment, and a new class of drugs against specific molecular targets -- tyrosine Kinase inhibitors (TKI) -- has emerged as an alternative to conventional treatment. Many trials are ongoing to assess the activity of new drugs, alone or in combination with other agents, or new combinations of third-generation chemotherapeutic agents

    Treatment of Unfit Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Definition Criteria According an Expert Panel

    No full text
    The assessment of special categories of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients requires a comprehensive analysis of all factors potentially influencing the daily quality of life and the relative contribution of tumor-related symptoms on the overall patient health status. While for elderly patients prospective evidence and recommendations allow clinicians to better address their patients to a shared treatment, a paucity of reliable data refers to treatment opportunities for these patients, termed frail or unfit, who are not considered eligible for chemotherapy usually administered to adult patients. This consensus was inspired by the absence of clear criteria to define the category of unfit patients in the context of advanced NSCLC in order to share all the available tools for their classification and evaluation and to support decisions for clinical practice on a daily basis. After review of the literature and panelist consensus, a series of items was identified as relevant: age, performance status, renal function, heart failure, previous cerebrovascular events, uncontrolled hypertension, neuropathy, hearing loss, symptomatic brain metastases, severe psychiatric disorders, and absence of caregiver support. On the basis of these factors, a treatment algorithm for clinical practice to categorize unfit NSCLC patient into 3 major clinical scenarios was defined: (1) unfit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy, (2) unfit for carboplatin-based chemotherapy, and (3) unfit for single-agent chemotherapy

    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

    Variations on the Author

    Full text link
    “Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship

    Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis

    Full text link
    We provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis

    Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts

    Full text link
    We conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more sophisticated methods
    corecore