| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Haller, Daniel G, et al.
(författare)
-
Potential regional differences for the tolerability profiles of fluoropyrimidines.
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. - 1527-7755. ; 26:13, s. 2118-23
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: We conducted a retrospective analysis of safety data from randomized, single-agent fluoropyrimidine clinical trials (bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin [FU/LV] and capecitabine) to test the hypothesis that there are regional differences in fluoropyrimidine tolerability. METHODS: Treatment-related safety data from three phase III clinical studies were analyzed by multivariate analysis: two comparing capecitabine with bolus FU/LV in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) and one comparing capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) with bolus FU/LV as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. The United States (US) was compared with non-US countries (all three studies) and with the rest of the world and East Asia (adjuvant study). RESULTS: In the MCRC studies (n = 1,189), more grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs; relative risk [RR], 1.77), dose reductions (RR, 1.72), and discontinuations (RR, 1.83) were reported in US versus non-US patients. Likewise, in the adjuvant colon cancer study (n = 1,864), more grade 3/4 AEs (RR, 1.47) and discontinuations (RR, 2.09) were reported in US versus non-US patients. After further dividing non-US patients into those in East Asia and the rest of the world, differential RRs for related grade 3/4 AEs, grade 4 AEs, and serious AEs were again observed, with East Asian patients having the lowest and US patients the highest RR. CONCLUSION: Regional differences exist in the tolerability profiles of fluoropyrimidines. More treatment-related toxicity was reported in the US compared with the rest of the world for bolus FU/LV and capecitabine in first-line MCRC and adjuvant colon cancer. In the adjuvant setting, a range of fluoropyrimidine tolerability was observed, with East Asian patients having the lowest, and US patients the highest, RR.
|
|
| 3. |
- Solomon, A., et al.
(författare)
-
Freshwater in the Arctic Ocean 2010-2019
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Ocean Science. - : Copernicus GmbH. - 1812-0784 .- 1812-0792. ; 17:4, s. 1081-1102
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- U The Arctic climate system is rapidly transitioning into a new regime with a reduction in the extent of sea ice, enhanced mixing in the ocean and atmosphere, and thus enhanced coupling within the ocean-ice-atmosphere system; these physical changes are leading to ecosystem changes in the Arctic Ocean. In this review paper, we assess one of the critically important aspects of this new regime, the variability of Arctic freshwater, which plays a fundamental role in the Arctic climate system by impacting ocean stratification and sea ice formation or melt. Liquid and solid freshwater exports also affect the global climate system, notably by impacting the global ocean overturning circulation. We assess how freshwater budgets have changed relative to the 2000-2010 period. We include discussions of processes such as poleward atmospheric moisture transport, runoff from the Greenland Ice Sheet and Arctic glaciers, the role of snow on sea ice, and vertical redistribution. Notably, sea ice cover has become more seasonal and more mobile; the mass loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet increased in the 2010s (particularly in the western, northern, and southern regions) and imported warm, salty Atlantic waters have shoaled. During 2000-2010, the Arctic Oscillation and moisture transport into the Arctic are in-phase and have a positive trend. This cyclonic atmospheric circulation pattern forces reduced freshwater content on the Atlantic-Eurasian side of the Arctic Ocean and freshwater gains in the Beaufort Gyre. We show that the trend in Arctic freshwater content in the 2010s has stabilized relative to the 2000s, potentially due to an increased compensation between a freshening of the Beaufort Gyre and a reduction in freshwater in the rest of the Arctic Ocean. However, large intermodel spread across the ocean reanalyses and uncertainty in the observations used in this study prevent a definitive conclusion about the degree of this compensation.
|
|
