1,721,031 research outputs found

    Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in colonrectal cancer: from prevention to therapy

    No full text
    In this review, we discuss the available experimental evidences supporting the chemopreventive efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on colorectal cancer and the biological basis for their possible role as anticancer agents. Although the comprehension of the mechanisms underlying the effects of these drugs on colon cancer cells is incomplete, research efforts in identifying the biochemical pathway by which NSAIDs exert their chemopreventive effect have provided a rationale for the potential use of NSAIDs alone or in combination with conventional and experimental anticancer agents in the treatment of colorectal cancer. In this paper, we review three main issues: (i) the role of COX-2 in colon cancer, (ii) the common death pathways between NSAIDs and anticancer drugs; and (iii) the biological basis for the combination therapy with COX-2 selective inhibitors and new selective inhibitors of growth factor signal transduction pathways. (C) 2003 Cancer Research UK

    Treating Thalassemia Patients with Luspatercept: An Expert Opinion Based on Current Evidence

    Full text link
    Luspatercept has recently been approved for the treatment of beta-thalassemia and its use in clinical practice has been increasing. As it is the first erythroid maturation drug available for this diagnosis, the expertise about its use is still limited. To address this point, and to promote awareness and guide the clinical use of luspatercept in beta-thalassemia, this paper was developed as a consensus by experts from the Italian Society of Thalassemia and Hemoglobinopathies (SITE). After a brief presentation of the core features of luspatercept, a comprehensive set of questions is addressed, covering relevant aspects for the practical management of this new therapeutic option

    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