Immune checkpoint inhibition represents a major recent breakthrough in the treatment of malignant diseases including breast cancer. Blocking the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) and its ligand, PD-L1, has shown impressive antitumor activity and may lead to durable long-term disease control, especially in the triple-negative subtypes of breast cancer (TNBC). Although immune checkpoint blockade is generally well tolerated, specific immune-related adverse events (irAEs) may occur. This review summarizes the clinical efficacy, perspectives, and future challenges of using PD-1/PD-L1-directed antibodies in the treatment of breast cancer.

/pdf/pd-1-and-pd-l1-immune-checkpoint-blockade-to-treat-breast-2u575m0pog.pdf

PD-1 and PD-L1 Immune Checkpoint Blockade to Treat Breast Cancer

WHO CLASSIFICATION OF TUMOURS OF HAEMATOPOIETIC AND LYMPHOID TISSUES , WHO CLASSIFICATION OF TUMOURS OF HAEMATOPOIETIC AND LYMPHOID TISSUES , کتابخانه مرکزی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی تهران

WHO Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues

Background: Breast cancer is associated with a relatively good prognosis. Prognostic factors examined to date are related to early recurrence while those related

/pdf/evaluation-of-factors-related-to-late-recurrence-later-than-2qw6e6e5o5.pdf

Evaluation of Factors Related to Late Recurrence - Later than 10 Years after the Initial Treatment - in Primary Breast Cancer

Background
Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

Objectives
To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

Search methods
For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

Selection criteria
We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:

A) 'choice made' attributes;

B) 'decision-making process' attributes.

Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

Main results
This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.

Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).

A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:

Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).

B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:

Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:

a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);

b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and

c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).

Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.

C) Secondary outcomes

Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.

The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

Authors' conclusions
There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.

New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

/pdf/decision-aids-for-people-facing-health-treatment-or-1j1706q17l.pdf

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1] 





![Figure][1

/pdf/acc-aha-2005-guideline-update-for-the-diagnosis-and-4hik65ngbe.pdf

ACC/AHA 2005 Guideline Update for the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Heart Failure in the Adult

I-related non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a highly active regimen immunodeficiency virus- and human T-cell leukemia virus type Infusional cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide in human

The interferons are a family of glycoproteins which possess potent antiviral, immunomodulatory, and antiproliferative effects in vivo 1. The interferons also additively or synergistically enhance the efficacy of many cytotoxic agents against a number of cultured human adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and lymphoid tumor cell lines in vivo 1. In particular, interferon-α synergistically augments the antineoplastic effect of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in cultured human colonic adenocarcinoma cell lines in vivo.2 At the cellular level, the interferons act in a variety of ways to augment the antineoplastic effect of 5-FU by: (1) increasing the activity of thymidine Phosphorylase 3, thereby augmenting the anabolism of 5-FU to its active metabolite, fluorodeoxyuridylate monophosphate, (2) enhancing inhibition of thymidylate synthase, the target enzyme of 5-FU, at the post-transcriptional level 4, (3) inhibiting thymidine salvage pathways 3, and (4) by enhancing 5-FU induced DNA damage 5.

Increasing the efficacy of 5-fluorouracil with interferons: preclinical, clinical, and pharmacokinetic studies.

Introduction to bone marrow transplant symposium held at the Albert Einstein Cancer Center at Bronx, NY, USA, March 23 to 25, 1994.

Gene expression signatures for tailoring adjuvant chemotherapy of luminal breast cancer: stronger evidence, greater trust

Background Hyperinsulinemia, Diabetes type 2, and obesity have been identified as increased risk factors for a variety of cancers [1]. Conversely, insulin inhibition (INSINH) can plausibly limit cancer growth by demonstrated mechanisms including ketosis [2] and regulation of downstream signaling proteins such as mTOR (inhibition) and AMPK (amplification), already in development as drug targets [3,4]. Increased F-2-fluoro, 2-deoxyglucose (FDG) uptake on positron emission tomography (PET) scan is characteristic of many aggressive malignancies. We examined safety and feasibility of a four week INSINH diet in patients with advanced PET positive cancers, and compared exit vs. baseline PET scan changes as surrogate measures for tumor response.

/pdf/a-pilot-safety-feasibility-dietary-trial-targeting-insulin-seivi5st1g.pdf

A pilot safety-feasibility dietary trial targeting insulin inhibition in ten patients with advanced cancer

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Joseph A. Sparano

Author Tools

Chat about Author