| 1. |
- Allison, J, et al.
(author)
-
Geant4 developments and applications
- 2006
-
In: IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE. - 0018-9499. ; 53:1, s. 270-278
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Pfeiffer, P, et al.
(author)
-
Short-time infusion of oxaliplatin in combination with capecitabine (XELOX30) as second-line therapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer after failure to irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil
- 2006
-
In: Annals of Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0923-7534 .- 1569-8041. ; 17:2, s. 252-258
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: The efficacy of oxaliplatin combined with capecitabine (XELOX) as second-line therapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC) resistant to irinotecan is not well established. Oxaliplatin induces acute, cold-induced neuropathy in most patients. The incidence is claimed to be infusion rate-dependent and therefore a 2-h infusion is recommended. Patients and methods: For practical and economic reasons, but also for patient's convenience, we performed a phase II study to examine XELOX30 (capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 as a 30 min infusion on day 1) in patients with ACRC resistant to irinotecan. In addition the pharmacokinetics of oxaliplatin was studied. Results: From November 2002 to September 2003, 70 patients with ACRC were treated with XELOX30. Median age was 62 (range 33-74 years) years and median performance status was 1 (range 0-2). The median number of courses was four (range 1-12) and median cumulative dose of oxaliplatin was 530 (range 125-1560) mg/m2. The response rate was 17% (95% CI 10-23), median time to progression (TTP) was 5.4 months (95% CI 4.6-6.4) and median survival 9.5 months (95% CI 8.5-11.2). White blood cell count (WBC) and performance status were significantly correlated to TTP. Neurotoxicity was moderate: grade 1 56%, grade 2 17% and grade 3 6%. Other grade 3 toxicities were nausea/ vomiting 9%, diarrhoea 14% and PPE 8%. The maximum blood concentration and total body clearance of oxaliplatin was higher than previously reported in studies examining 2-h infusions, but the volume of distribution and terminal half-life was in close agreement with previous results. Conclusion: XELOX30 is a very convenient second-line regimen in ACRC with an activity and safety profile similar to other oxaliplatin schedules. © 2005 European Society for Medical Oncology.
|
|
| 5. |
- Qvortrup, C., et al.
(author)
-
Chronomodulated capecitabine in combination with short-time oxaliplatin : A Nordic phase II study of second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after failure to irinotecan and 5-flourouracil
- 2008
-
In: Annals of Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0923-7534 .- 1569-8041. ; 19:6, s. 1154-1159
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Oxaliplatin in combination with capecitabine prolongs survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Chronomodulation might reduce toxicity and improve efficacy. Patients and methods: A phase II study examining chronomodulated XELOX30 (XELOX30chron): oxaliplatin: 130 mg/m2 on day 1, as a 30-min infusion between 1 and 3 p.m. Capecitabine: total daily dose of 2000 mg/m2, 20% of the dose between 7 and 9 a.m. and 80% of the dose between 6 and 8 p.m. in patients with mCRC resistant to irinotecan. Seventy-one patients were enrolled. Response rate was 18%, median progression-free survival 5.1 months and median overall survival (OS) 10.2 months. Platelet count and performance status were significantly correlated to OS in multivariate analyses. Neurotoxicity grade 2 and 3 was seen in 25% and 2% of patients, respectively, other grade 3 toxic effects were as follows: nausea 6%, vomiting 3%, diarrhoea 12% (3% experienced grade 4) and palmoplantart erytem 9%. Conclusion: XELOX30chron is a convenient second-line regimen with efficacy and safety profile similar to other oxaliplatin schedules. To further investigate chronomodulated XELOX, we have started a Nordic randomised phase II study comparing XELOX30 and XELOX30chron as first-line therapy in patients with mCRC. © The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 6. |
- Wolever, Thomas M S, et al.
(author)
-
Measuring the glycemic index of foods: interlaboratory study.
- 2008
-
In: The American journal of clinical nutrition. - 0002-9165 .- 1938-3207. ; 87:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Many laboratories offer glycemic index (GI) services. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the performance of the method used to measure GI. DESIGN: The GI of cheese-puffs and fruit-leather (centrally provided) was measured in 28 laboratories (n=311 subjects) by using the FAO/WHO method. The laboratories reported the results of their calculations and sent the raw data for recalculation centrally. RESULTS: Values for the incremental area under the curve (AUC) reported by 54% of the laboratories differed from central calculations. Because of this and other differences in data analysis, 19% of reported food GI values differed by >5 units from those calculated centrally. GI values in individual subjects were unrelated to age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index, or AUC but were negatively related to within-individual variation (P=0.033) expressed as the CV of the AUC for repeated reference food tests (refCV). The between-laboratory GI values (mean+/-SD) for cheese-puffs and fruit-leather were 74.3+/-10.5 and 33.2+/-7.2, respectively. The mean laboratory GI was related to refCV (P=0.003) and the type of restrictions on alcohol consumption before the test (P=0.006, r2=0.509 for model). The within-laboratory SD of GI was related to refCV (P<0.001), the glucose analysis method (P=0.010), whether glucose measures were duplicated (P=0.008), and restrictions on dinner the night before (P=0.013, r2=0.810 for model). CONCLUSIONS: The between-laboratory SD of the GI values is approximately 9. Standardized data analysis and low within-subject variation (refCV<30%) are required for accuracy. The results suggest that common misconceptions exist about which factors do and do not need to be controlled to improve precision. Controlled studies and cost-benefit analyses are needed to optimize GI methodology. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00260858.
|
|
