Gemcitabine alone versus combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin for the treatment of patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic carcinoma: a retrospective analysis of multicenter study

The majority of patients with pancreatic cancer is of advanced disease. Several randomized Phase II and III trials suggest that the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GemCis) response rates were higher than Gemcitabine (Gem) alone, however the trials were not enough powered to indicate a statistically significant prolongation of survival in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The aim of this retrospective multicenter study is to evaluated the efficiency of Gem alone versus GemCis in patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma .A total of 406 patients, from fourteen centers were evaluated retrospectively. All patients received Gem or GemCis as first-line treatment between September 2005 to March 2011. Primary end of this study were to evaluate the toxicity, clinical response rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between the arms. There were 156 patients (M: 98, F: 58) in Gem arm and 250 patients (M: 175, F: 75) in the combination arm. Gemcitabin arm patients older than the combination arm ( median 63 vs 57.5, p=0.001). In patients with the combination arm had a higher dose reduction (25.2% vs 11.3%, p=0.001) and dose delay (34% vs 16.8%, p=0.001). Among patients with the combination and Gemcitabin arm gender, diabetes mellitus, performance status, cholestasis, grade, stage did not have a statistically difference (p>0.05). Clinical response rate to the combination arm was higher than the Gem arm (69.0% vs 49.7%, p=0.001). PFS was more favorable in the GemCis arm than Gem alone, but the difference did not attain statistical significance (8.9 vs 6.0, p=0.08). OS was not significantly superior in the GemCis arm (12.0 vs 10.2, p>0.05). Grade III-IV hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity were higher in the combination arm. PFS was more favorable in the GemCis arm than Gem alone, but the difference did not attain statistical significance. OS was not significantly superior in the GemCis arm.     

An unresolved discussion: presence of premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction in lumbar disc hernia

Purpose

Premature ejaculation (PE) and erectile dysfunction (ED) are both frequent diseases with several questions about the aetiological factors for these disorders. Lumbar disc herniation (LDH), which can cause both neurological and physiological impairments, may be a causative reason. We prospectively tried to evaluate the presence of PE and ED in patients with LDH and identify the effect of both surgical and physical therapy treatments for LDH on PE and ED.

Methods

A total of 50 patients with LDH and a corresponding control group without LDH at an age of 18–50 years were included in the study. Both PE and ED were evaluated with premature ejaculation diagnostic tool (PEDT) and International Index of Erectile Function. Mean intravaginal ejaculatory latency time (IELT) was calculated at their 5 consecutive intercourse. Physical therapy or microdiscectomy was performed according to indication. After 6 months of follow-up, patients in treatment group were re-evaluated for PE and ED.

Results

Mean age of study and control group was 34.1 ± 3.3 and 34.2 ± 4.0 years, respectively (p = 0.979). In LDH group, IELT was <1 min in 12 (24 %), 1–2 (16 %) min in 8, 2–3 min in 7 (14 %), 3–4 min in 7 (14 %) and 4 or more minutes in 16 (32 %) patients. These numbers were 11 (22 %), 8 (16 %), 5 (10 %), 9 (18 %) and 17 (34 %) in control group, respectively. Mean PEDT score of patients who had IELT < 1 min was 11.9 ± 2.1 and 10.7 ± 2.1 in study and control group, whereas it decreased to 1.0 ± 2.8 and 0.5 ± 1.8 as IELT increased over 4 min, respectively. There were 11 (22 %) patients with ED in LDH group, whereas there were only 2 (4 %) in control group (p = 0.017). Twenty patients with LDH underwent surgery while 30 had been taken into physical therapy. After 6 months, patients with PE significantly decreased in both surgery and physical therapy group (p = 0.025 and p = 0.046). Patients with ED also decreased after treatment, but the numbers were so limited for statistical evaluation.

Conclusion

Although ED was more frequent in patients with LDH, PE was similar in both study and control groups, but the treatment of LDH had positive effects on PE and ED.     

Avaliação de entesopatia em pacientes com fibromialgia por meio do novo índice ultrassonográfico de entesite

ObjectiveThe aim of the present study is to determine the frequency of enthesopathy in fibromyalgia (FM) by using a newly developed ultrasonography (US) method, the Madrid Sonography Enthesitis Index (MASEI).MethodsThis study was conducted on 38 consecutive patients with FM and 48 healthy sex- and age-matched controls. Six entheseal sites (olecranon tuberosity, superior and inferior poles of patella, tibial tuberosity, superior and inferior poles of calcaneus) on both lower limbs were evaluated. All US findings were identified according to MASEI. Scores of patients and controls were compared by Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test. Validity was analysed by receiver operating characteristic curve. Values of P < 0.05 were considered significant.ResultsTotal enthesitis score was 7.39 ± 4.99 (mean ± SD) among FM patients and 3.7 ± 3.22 among healthy controls (P < 0.001). The receiver operating characteristic curve established an ultrasound score of > 3.5 in the FM group as the best cut-off point to differentiate between cases and controls. No statistically significant correlation was found between the MASEI score and the FM disease duration, and the location of the tender points.ConclusionsMisdiagnoses of FM are harmful to patients and the community, and the presence of enthesopathy among FM patients increases. Its detection with the MASEI score may help to discriminate FM patients presenting with ill-defined symptoms and signs, in order to prevent mistreatment.     

Is there a relationship between attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and Osgood–Schlatter disease?

Purpose

The purpose of this prospective study is to investigate the relationship between Osgood–Schlatter disease (OSD) and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Methods

Seventy-four children with a diagnosis of OSD were referred to child and adolescent psychiatry department for the evaluation of ADHD. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was used for diagnostic criteria.

Results

Diagnosis of ADHD was made in 56 (75.6 %) out of 74 children.

Conclusions

Results of this study suggest that ADHD is a significant risk factor for OSD. During the evaluation of a patient with OSD, a thorough history should be obtained about the behavioral symptoms that indicate underlying ADHD. In case of suspicion, these patients should be referred for an additional evaluation by a child psychiatrist.

Level of evidence

II.     

Medicaid and privately financed orthodontic patients have similar occlusal and psychosocial outcomes

Objective: This study compares occlusal and psychosocial outcomes from comprehensive orthodontic treatment in Medicaid (MC) and privately financed (private pay, PP) patients. Methods: Two cohorts received comprehensive orthodontics: MC (n = 66); PP (n = 60). A calibrated, blinded examiner scored dental casts at baseline (pretreatment, T1) and after completing 2 years of treatment (posttreatment, T2) using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) and the Index of Complexity, Outcome, and Need (ICON). The prevalence of patients in the validated ICON categories for treatment need, complexity, and improvement were calculated. Questionnaires to assess body image (BI) and expectations/experiences were administered. Occlusal measures at T2 were compared after adjustment for baseline characteristics. Psychosocial measures were compared between and within groups. Occlusal and psychosocial associations were evaluated. Results: MC was 1.3 years younger (P < 0.001) and had worse malocclusions at baseline (PAR 32 versus 25; P < 0.001); (ICON 64 versus 56; P = 0.06). After adjustment for age and initial severity, estimated average differences between groups at T2 (MC‐PP) were slight: 1.5 [95 percent confidence interval (CI) ?2.9, 5.9] and 2.4 (95 percent CI ?4.4, 8.9) for PAR and ICON, respectively. More PP completed treatment under 2 years (85 percent versus 62 percent; P = 0.03). At baseline, both groups needed treatment, but MC malocclusions were more complex (P = 0.05). At T2, both groups were acceptable and there were no differences in ICON improvement categories. Group differences in psychosocial measures and associations between psychosocial and occlusal measures were evident in the “teeth” domain but weak or lacking elsewhere. Conclusions: Occlusal and psychosocial outcomes from orthodontics in MC and PP were comparable, despite worse MC malocclusions at baseline.