BackgroundData from patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy before resection were reviewed and evaluated to see whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy influences the predictive outcome of R1 resections (margin is 0 mm) in patients with CRLM.MethodsBetween January 2000 and December 2008, all consecutive patients undergoing liver resection for CRLM were analyzed. Patients were divided into those who did and did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The outcome after R0 (tumor-free margin >0 mm) and R1 (tumor-free margin 0 mm) resection was compared.ResultsA total of 264 were eligible for analysis. Median follow-up was 34 months. Patients without chemotherapy showed a significant difference in median disease-free survival (DFS) after R0 or R1 resection: 17 [95% confidence interval (CI) 10–24] months versus 8 (95% CI 4–12) months (P < 0.001), whereas in patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy the difference in DFS between R0 and R1 resection was not significant: 18 (95% CI 10–26) months versus 9 (95% CI 0–20) months (P = 0.303). Patients without chemotherapy showed a significant difference in median overall survival (OS) after R0 or R1 resection: 53 (95% CI 40–66) months versus 30 (95% CI 13–47) months (P < 0.001). In patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the median OS showed no significant difference: 65 (95% CI 39–92) months for the R0 group versus the R1 group, in whom the median OS was not reached (P = 0.645).ConclusionsIn patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, R1 resection was of no predictive value for DFS and OS.

Our study of professional services firms clearly revealed that firms change over the course of their life cycles. During the first three stages, diversification in sales, the differentiation in labor force, and the level of labor productivity increase. In the last stage, diversification in sales, the differentiation in labor force, and the level of labor productivity decrease. Development effects can be treated as interdependent. Our findings show that the effects of growth can be predicted to a certain extent. In efforts towards development, these predictions are important to business strategy, as well as to consultation with and education of SME entrepreneurs.

BackgroundSeveral clinical risk scores (CRSs) for the outcome of patients with colorectal liver metastases have been validated, but not in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Therefore, this study evaluates the predictive value of these CRSs in this specific group.MethodsBetween January 2000 and December 2008, all patients undergoing a metastasectomy were analyzed and divided into two groups: 193 patients did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (group A), and 159 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (group B). In group B, the CRSs were calculated before and after administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Results were evaluated by using the CRSs proposed by Nordlinger et al., Fong et al., Nagashima et al., and Konopke et al.ResultsIn groups A and B, the overall median survival was 43 and 47 months, respectively (P = 0.648). In group A, all CRSs used were of statistically significant predictive value. Before administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, only the Nordlinger score was of predictive value. After administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, all CRSs were of predictive value again, except for the Konopke score.ConclusionsTraditional CRSs are not a reliable prognostic tool when used in patients before treatment with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, CRSs assessed after the administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy are useful to predict prognosis.

An urgent need for new treatment modalities is emerging in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We hypothesized that targeting VEGF might furnish an effective treatment modality in this population. Elderly patients with AML were randomly assigned in this phase 2 study (n ‫؍‬ 171) to receive standard chemotherapy (3 ؉ 7) with or without bevacizumab at a dose of 10 mg/kg intravenously at days 1 and 15. In the second cycle, patients received cytarabine 1000 mg/m 2 twice daily on days 1-6 with or without bevacizumab. The complete remission rates in the 2 arms were not different (65%). Event-free survival at 12 months was 33% for the standard arm versus 30% for the bevacizumab arm; at 24 months, it was 22% and 16%, respectively (P ‫؍‬ .42). The frequencies of severe adverse events (SAEs) were higher in the bevacizumab arm (n ‫؍‬ 63) compared with the control arm (n ‫؍‬ 28; P ‫؍‬ .

Background: There is an observable, growing trend toward tailoring support programsin addition to medical treatmentmore closely to individuals to help improve patients' health status. The segmentation model developed by Bloem & Stalpers [Nyenrode Research Papers Series 12:1-22, 2012] may serve as a solid basis for such an approach. The model is focused on individuals' 'health experience' and is therefore a 'cross-disease' model. The model is based on the main psychological determinants of subjective health: acceptance and perceived control. The model identifies four segments of health-care consumers, based on high or low values on these determinants. The goal of the present study is twofold: the identification of criteria for differentiating between segments, and profiling of the segments in terms of socio-demographic and socioeconomic variables. Methods: The data (acceptance, perceived control, socioeconomic , and socio-demographic variables) for this study were obtained by using an online survey (a questionnaire design), that was given (random sample N = 2500) to a large panel of Dutch citizens. The final sample consisted of 2465 participantsage distribution and education level distribution in the sample were similar to those in the Dutch population; there was an overrepresentation of females. To analyze the data factor analyses, reliability tests, descriptive statistics and t-tests were used. Results: Cutoff scores, criteria to differentiate between the segments, were defined as the medians of the distributions of control and acceptance. Based on the outcomes, unique profiles have been formed for the four segments: 1. 'Importance of self-management'relatively young, high social class, support programs: high-quality information. 2. 'Importance of personal control'relatively old, living in rural areas, high in homeownership; supportive programs: developing personal control skills. 3. 'Importance of acceptance'relatively young male; supportive programs: help by physicians and nurses. 4. 'Importance of perspective and direction'female, low social class, receiving informal care; support programs: counseling and personal care. Conclusions: The profiles describe four segments of individuals/patients that are clearly distinct from each other, each with its own description. The enriched descriptions provide a better basis for the allocation and developing of supportive programs and interventions across individuals.