No abstract

BackgroundInpatient palliative care is important for patients with terminal pancreatic cancer. However, the differences between inpatient palliative care and acute hospital care for inpatients with pancreatic cancer have not been explored in a population-based study.MethodsThis population-based nationwide study was conducted using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance database to analyze the differences between inpatient palliative care and acute hospital care for inpatients with pancreatic cancer. We identified 854 patients with terminal pancreatic cancer, who had received in-hospital end-of-life care between January 2003 and December 2006. These patients were then sub-divided and matched 1:1 (using propensity score matching) according to whether they received inpatient palliative care (n = 276) or acute hospital care (n = 276). These groups were subsequently compared to evaluate any differences in the use of aggressive procedures, prescribed medications, and medical costs.ResultsInpatient palliative care was typically provided by family physicians (39 %) and oncologists (25 %), while acute hospital care was typically provided by oncologists (29 %) and gastroenterologists (24 %). The inpatient palliative care group used natural opium alkaloids significantly more frequently than the acute hospital care group (84.4 % vs. 56.5 %, respectively; P < 0.001). The inpatient palliative care group also had shorter hospital stays (10.6 ± 11.1 days vs. 20.6 ± 16.3 days, respectively; P < 0.001), fewer aggressive procedures, and lower medical costs (both, P < 0.005).ConclusionsCompared to patients in acute hospital wards, patients with pancreatic cancer in inpatient palliative care units received more frequent pain control treatments, underwent fewer aggressive procedures, and incurred lower medical costs. Therefore, inpatient palliative care should be considered a viable option for patients with terminal pancreatic cancer.

A post-treatment using N2O-plasma is applied to enhance the electrical characteristics of amorphous indium gallium zinc oxide thin film transistors. Improvements in the field-effect mobility and the subthreshold swing demonstrate that interface states were passivated after N2O-plasma treatment, and a better stability under positive gate-bias stress was obtained in addition. The degradation of mobility, resulted from bias stress, reduces from 6.1% (untreated devices) to 2.6% (N2O-plasma treated devices). Nevertheless, a strange hump characteristic occurs in transfer curve during bias stress, inferring that a parasitic transistor had been caused by the gate-induced electrical field.

ObjectiveTo analyze the efficacy of gemcitabine with or without erlotinib for pancreatic cancer, and to determine the predictive role of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and KRAS mutations in these patients.MethodsThis was a single-center, randomized, open-label, prospective trial. Eighty-eight chemotherapy-naïve metastatic pancreatic cancer patients were randomized for treatment with gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus erlotinib. EGFR and KRAS mutations were analyzed, respectively. The primary endpoint was the disease control rate.ResultsDisease control rate (64% vs. 25%; P < 0.001), progression-free survival (median 3.8 vs. 2.4 months; P < 0.001), and overall survival (median 7.2 vs. 4.4 months; P < 0.001) were better in the gemcitabine plus erlotinib group than in the gemcitabine alone group. In the gemcitabine plus erlotinib group, disease control (85% vs. 33%; P = 0.001), progression-free survival (median 5.9 vs. 2.4 months; P = 0.004), and overall survival (median 8.7 vs. 6.0 months; P = 0.044) were better in patients with EGFR mutations than in those without EGFR mutations. KRAS mutation was not associated with treatment response or survival.ConclusionsGemcitabine plus erlotinib is more effective than gemcitabine alone for treating metastatic pancreatic cancer patients, especially those with EGFR mutations. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01608841.