| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Abe, O, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials
- 2005
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - 1474-547X. ; 365:9472, s. 1687-1717
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Quinquennial overviews (1985-2000) of the randomised trials in early breast cancer have assessed the 5-year and 10-year effects of various systemic adjuvant therapies on breast cancer recurrence and survival. Here, we report the 10-year and 15-year effects. Methods Collaborative meta-analyses were undertaken of 194 unconfounded randomised trials of adjuvant chemotherapy or hormonal therapy that began by 1995. Many trials involved CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil), anthracycline-based combinations such as FAC (fluorouracil, doxombicin, cyclophosphamide) or FEC (fluorouracil, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide), tamoxifen, or ovarian suppression: none involved taxanes, trastuzumab, raloxifene, or modem aromatase inhibitors. Findings Allocation to about 6 months of anthracycline-based polychemotherapy (eg, with FAC or FEC) reduces the annual breast cancer death rate by about 38% (SE 5) for women younger than 50 years of age when diagnosed and by about 20% (SE 4) for those of age 50-69 years when diagnosed, largely irrespective of the use of tamoxifen and of oestrogen receptor (ER) status, nodal status, or other tumour characteristics. Such regimens are significantly (2p=0 . 0001 for recurrence, 2p<0 . 00001 for breast cancer mortality) more effective than CMF chemotherapy. Few women of age 70 years or older entered these chemotherapy trials. For ER-positive disease only, allocation to about 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen reduces the annual breast cancer death rate by 31% (SE 3), largely irrespective of the use of chemotherapy and of age (<50, 50-69, &GE; 70 years), progesterone receptor status, or other tumour characteristics. 5 years is significantly (2p<0 . 00001 for recurrence, 2p=0 . 01 for breast cancer mortality) more effective than just 1-2 years of tamoxifen. For ER-positive tumours, the annual breast cancer mortality rates are similar during years 0-4 and 5-14, as are the proportional reductions in them by 5 years of tamoxifen, so the cumulative reduction in mortality is more than twice as big at 15 years as at 5 years after diagnosis. These results combine six meta-analyses: anthracycline-based versus no chemotherapy (8000 women); CMF-based versus no chemotherapy (14 000); anthracycline-based versus CMF-based chemotherapy (14 000); about 5 years of tamoxifen versus none (15 000); about 1-2 years of tamoxifen versus none (33 000); and about 5 years versus 1-2 years of tamoxifen (18 000). Finally, allocation to ovarian ablation or suppression (8000 women) also significantly reduces breast cancer mortality, but appears to do so only in the absence of other systemic treatments. For middle-aged women with ER-positive disease (the commonest type of breast cancer), the breast cancer mortality rate throughout the next 15 years would be approximately halved by 6 months of anthracycline-based chemotherapy (with a combination such as FAC or FEC) followed by 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen. For, if mortality reductions of 38% (age <50 years) and 20% (age 50-69 years) from such chemotherapy were followed by a further reduction of 31% from tamoxifen in the risks that remain, the final mortality reductions would be 57% and 45%, respectively (and, the trial results could well have been somewhat stronger if there had been full compliance with the allocated treatments). Overall survival would be comparably improved, since these treatments have relatively small effects on mortality from the aggregate of all other causes. Interpretation Some of the widely practicable adjuvant drug treatments that were being tested in the 1980s, which substantially reduced 5-year recurrence rates (but had somewhat less effect on 5-year mortality rates), also substantially reduce 15-year mortality rates. Further improvements in long-term survival could well be available from newer drugs, or better use of older drugs.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Iqbal, Naveed, et al.
(författare)
-
Inflation adjusted LCCA of a comparative study of an Integral abutment bridge and a Concrete bridge with expansion joints
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Sustainable construction - a life cycle approach in engineering. - 9789993209171 ; , s. 151-161
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Gervasio H. et al [1]in there comparative life cycle analysis of an integral abutment composite bridge and concrete bridge have established the advantages of integral bridge due to its limited initial construction cost and maintenance and repair costs during its life cycle. This paper is based on the same data with a modification to the life cycle cost analysis of the bridge by using an inflation adjusted discount rate. In standard bridge structures, expansion joints are one of the most expensive components to maintain. In this regard, joint less bridge have major advantages. Integral bridges are built without joints, they span from one abutment to the other abutment, possibly over intermediate piers, without any joints in the deck. The absence of joints and bearings results in savings in initial costs and reduce maintenance efforts. Apart from economic benefits, the reduction of maintenance leads to less disturbance of the traffic over the bridge and thus to smaller environmental and social impacts. In this paper a case study is presented with the purpose of making a comparative life cycle analysis between an integral composite bridge and a concrete bridge with expansion joints. The result of this life cycle analysis will enhance the advantages of the former solution in regards to the economic and environmental aspects.
|
|
| 8. |
- Rose, Carsten, et al.
(författare)
-
An open randomised trial of second-line endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer: comparison of the aromatase inhibitors letrozole and anastrozole
- 2003
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Cancer. - 1879-0852. ; 39:16, s. 2318-2327
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- It was previously shown that letrozole (Femara(R)) was significantly more potent than anastrozole (Arimidex(R)) in inhibiting aromatase activity in vitro and in inhibiting total body aromatisation in patients with breast cancer. The objective of this study was to compare letrozole (2.5 mg per day) and anastrozole (1 mg per day) as endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer previously treated with an anti-oestrogen. This randomised, multicentre and multinational open-label phase IIIb/IV study enrolled 713 patients. Treatment was for advanced breast cancer that had progressed either during anti-oestrogen therapy or within 12 months of completing that therapy. Patients had tumours that were either positive for oestrogen and/or progesterone receptors (48%) or of unknown receptor status (52%). The primary efficacy endpoint was time to progression (TTP). Secondary endpoints included objective response, duration of response, rate and duration of overall clinical benefit (responses and long-term stable disease), time to treatment failure, and overall survival, as well as general safety. There was no difference between the treatment arms in TTP; median times were the same for both treatments. Letrozole was significantly superior to anastrozole in the overall response rate (ORR) (19.1% versus 12.3%, P=0.013), including in predefined subgroups (receptor status-unknown, and soft-tissue- and viscera-dominant site of disease). There were no significant differences between the treatment arms in the rate of clinical benefit, median duration of response, duration of clinical benefit, time to treatment failure or overall survival. Both agents were well tolerated and there were no significant differences in safety. These results support previous data documenting the greater aromatase-inhibiting activity of letrozole and indicate that advanced breast cancer is more responsive to letrozole than to anastrozole as second-line endocrine therapy. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
