43 research outputs found
Evaluating the impact of the Patient Preference Assessment Tool on clinicians' recommendations for phase I oncology clinical trials
No full textDerazantinib (ARQ 087) in advanced or inoperable FGFR2 gene fusion-positive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
No full textBackground: Next-generation sequencing has identified actionable genetic aberrations in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas (iCCA), including the fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusions. Derazantinib (ARQ 087), an orally bioavailable, multi-kinase inhibitor with potent pan-FGFR activity, has shown preliminary therapeutic activity against FGFR2 fusion-positive iCCA. Methods: This multicentre, phase 1/2, open-label study enrolled adult patients with unresectable iCCA with FGFR2 fusion, who progressed, were intolerant or not eligible to first-line chemotherapy (NCT01752920). Subjects received derazantinib in continuous daily doses. Tumour response was assessed according to RECIST 1.1 every 8 weeks. Results: Twenty-nine patients (18 women/11 men; median age, 58.7 years), 2 treatment-naive and 27 who progressed after at least one prior systemic therapy, were enrolled. Overall response rate was 20.7%, disease control rate was 82.8%. Estimated median progression-free survival was 5.7 months (95% CI: 4.04–9.2 months). Treatment-related adverse events (AE) were observed in 27 patients (93.1%, all grades), including asthenia/fatigue (69.0%), eye toxicity (41.4%), and hyperphosphatemia (75.9%). Grade ≥ 3 AEs occurred in 8 patients (27.6%). Conclusion: Derazantinib demonstrated encouraging anti-tumour activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with advanced, unresectable iCCA with FGFR2 fusion who progressed after chemotherapy. A pivotal trial of derazantinib in iCCA is ongoing (NCT03230318)
Performance, bacterial shedding and microbial drug resistance in two tortoise species
No full text[No abstract available]Altherr Sandra, 2000, Turtle and Tortoise Newsletter, V1, P7; Barbour EK, 1999, REV SCI TECH OIE, V18, P710; BARZYK JE, 1999, TORTOISE TRUST; BAUER AW, 1966, AM J CLIN PATHOL, V45, P493; BEHLER JL, 1997, P INT C CONS REST MA; BREMNER DA, 1979, J MED MICROBIOL, V12, P303; CORRIER DE, 1993, POULTRY SCI, V72, P1164; Ernst C. H., 1989, TURTLES WORLD; Falkiner F R, 1982, J Hosp Infect, V3, P253, DOI 10.1016-0195-6701(82)90044-5; Highfield AC, 1996, PRACTICAL ENCY KEEPI; HOLLISTER AG, 1994, POULTRY SCI, V73, P99; *IUCN COMM UN, 2001, TURTLE TORTOISE NEW, V3, P10; Lagarde FR, 2003, ECOGRAPHY, V26, P236, DOI 10.1034-j.1600-0587.2003.03365.x; Lawrence D, 2002, LANCET, V359, P1410, DOI 10.1016-S0140-6736(02)08394-0; MALCOLM P, 1989, ANIMAL ADAPTATIONS; MCCOMBIE WR, 1983, J BACTERIOL, V155, P40; MEAD GC, 1990, LETT APPL MICROBIOL, V10, P221, DOI 10.1111-j.1472-765X.1990.tb00113.x; National Research Council, 1984, NUTR REQ POULTR, P11; Shahid M, 2003, FEMS MICROBIOL LETT, V228, P181, DOI 10.1016-S0378-1097(03)00756-0; SWAYNE JR, 1998, LAB MANUAL ISOLATION; *WHO, 1997, MED IMPA US ANT FOOD21
Using Metaphors to Explain Molecular Testing to Cancer Patients
No full textAbstract
Background
Molecular testing to identify targetable molecular alterations is routine practice for several types of cancer. Explaining the underlying molecular concepts can be difficult, and metaphors historically have been used in medicine to provide a common language between physicians and patients. Although previous studies have highlighted the use and effectiveness of metaphors to help explain germline genetic concepts to the general public, this study is the first to describe the use of metaphors to explain molecular testing to cancer patients in the clinical setting.
Methods
Oncologist-patient conversations about molecular testing were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded. If a metaphor was used, patients were asked to explain it and assess its helpfulness.
Results
Sixty-six patients participated. Nine oncologists used metaphors to describe molecular testing; 25 of 66 (38%) participants heard a metaphor, 13 of 25 (52%) were questioned, 11 of 13 (85%) demonstrated understanding and reported the metaphor as being useful. Seventeen metaphors (bus driver, boss, switch, battery, circuit, broken light switch, gas pedal, key turning off an engine, key opening a lock, food for growth, satellite and antenna, interstate, alternate circuit, traffic jam, blueprint, room names, Florida citrus) were used to explain eight molecular testing terms (driver mutations, targeted therapy, hormones, receptors, resistance, exon specificity, genes, and cancer signatures).
Conclusion
Because metaphors have proven to be a useful communication tool in other settings, these 17 metaphors may be useful for oncologists to adapt to their own setting to explain molecular testing terms.
</jats:sec
Inhibition of HSP90 overcomes resistance to chemotherapy and radiotherapy in pancreatic cancer
No full text
