Combination treatment in M1 prostate cancer

Ferrari, P.; Castagnetti, G.; Ferrari, G.; Pollastri, C. A.; Tavoni, F.; Dotti, A.

doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19931215)72:12+<3880::aid-cncr2820721724>3.0.co;2-4

Cited by 24 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Only 4 of the 12 trials that used an LHRH agonist for monotherapy also used an initial brief treatment with an antiandrogen to control the tumor flare reaction. [25][26][27][28] Therefore the other eight trials may be biased against the monotherapy arm because they did not use an antiandrogen to control flare. The flare reaction is not reported to occur when orchiectomy is used as monotherapy.…”

Section: Overview Of the Evidence Basementioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review and meta‐analysis of monotherapy compared with combined androgen blockade for patients with advanced prostate carcinoma

Samson

Seidenfeld

Schmitt³

et al. 2002

Cancer

227

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Allosteric interactions: Metal(II) cyclens inhibit Ras–effector interactions by stabilizing a weak effector‐binding state of Ras, state 1(T), and binding directly in the active site. The novel state (1T) inhibitor Zn2+–BPA (BPA=bis(2‐picolyl)amine) binds outside the nucleotide binding pocket but nevertheless allosterically stabilizes state 1(T) and thus inhibits the Ras–Raf interaction.

show abstract

Section: Overview Of the Evidence Basementioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review and meta‐analysis of monotherapy compared with combined androgen blockade for patients with advanced prostate carcinoma

Samson

Seidenfeld

Schmitt³

et al. 2002

Cancer

227

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only 4 of the 12 trials that used an LHRH agonist for monotherapy also used an initial brief treatment with an antiandrogen to control the tumor flare reaction 25–28. Therefore the other eight trials may be biased against the monotherapy arm because they did not use an antiandrogen to control flare.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The discharge

Hodgson

2003

Cathet Cardio Intervent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We all do it every day. We stop by at 7 a.m. and send another sleep-deprived, anxious, tentative patient back into their forever-changed world. Yesterday he was hanging kitchen cabinets when he felt an oppressive chest pain and fell to the dusty floor. We greeted him during his first encounter with the health care system using the dreaded words "you've had a small heart attack." Only the big "C" word could have done more damage to his already deflating self image.By noon we had exposed him (in every sense) to our efficient staff, invaded his groin and left him with a tiny bit of stainless steel as a memento. Still groggy, he struggled to keep his composure for his family and the gaggle of well wishers who arrived after dinner. A few unopened booklets lay on the bedside table, testimony to the attempts of the nurses to educate him about his new condition. Then, first thing in the morning, having been beta-blocked, Plavix-loaded and vaso-dilated off he goes with his bag of scripts, the still unopened booklets, and the fully executed discharge papers. What is he to expect? What will life be like now that he is a "heart patient"? How well will his doctors do in assisting his recovery? Unfortunately, not very well.A recently published article has again confirmed that we do poorly at following widely accepted standards of care [1]. Overall, 68% of the patients surveyed in this study received the recommended care for coronary artery disease. Among the acute infarction patients only 45% received beta-blockers and only 61% received aspirin. Hyperlipidemia care was appropriately delivered only 48.6% of the time. More apropos to the patient we just discharged, follow-up care was appropriate only 58.5% of the time and counseling/education care was appropriate for only a dismal 18.3% of indicators. This is most newsworthy because we have made little progress over the past ten years despite active study in this area. In the 1992 time frame, 78% of patients post-infarction were discharged on aspirin and 12% on beta-blockers. After institution of a concerted training effort these discharge rates were increased two years later to 92% and 61%

show abstract

“…For example, the heterogeneity of tumor biology is reflected in the variable clinical or PSA response to androgen deprivation. 66 This being the case, patients must be scrutinized for variances in their tumor biology. Molecular pathology should be emphasized in future clinical trials that focus on targeted therapies and integrated into entry criteria.…”

Section: Future Clinical Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%