Eligible studies were those that referred to synergy in preclinic

Eligible studies were those that referred to synergy in preclinical studies to justify a drug combination evaluated in a clinical trial.\n\nEighty-six clinical articles met eligibility criteria and 132 preclinical articles were cited in them. Most of the clinical studies were phase I (43%) or phase II trials (56%).

Appropriate methods to evaluate synergy in preclinical studies included isobologram analysis in 18 studies (13.6%) and median effect in 10 studies (7.6%). Only 26 studies using animal models (39%) attempted to evaluate therapeutic index. There was no association between the result of the clinical trial and the use of an appropriate method to evaluate synergy (P = 0.25, chi-squared test).\n\nSynergy is cited frequently in phase I and phase II studies to justify the Rigosertib solubility dmso evaluation of a specific

drug combination. Inappropriate methods for evaluation of synergy and poor assessment of therapeutic index have been used in most preclinical MK-4827 solubility dmso articles.”
“Background: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is increasingly used to treat localized prostate cancer. Although allowing for the delivery of higher doses of radiation to the prostate, its effectiveness compared with the prior standard three-dimensional conformal therapy (3D-CRT) is uncertain.\n\nObjective: To examine the comparative effectiveness of IMRT relative to 3D-CRT.\n\nDesign, setting, and participants: We performed a population-based cohort study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data to identify men check details diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2001 and 2007 who underwent either 3D-CRT (n = 6976) or IMRT (n = 11 039).\n\nOutcome measurements and statistical analysis: We assessed our main outcomes (ie, the adjusted use of salvage therapy with androgen-deprivation therapy [ADT] and risk of a complication requiring an intervention) using Cox proportional hazards models.\n\nResults and limitations: The percentage of men receiving IMRT increased from 9% in 2001 to 93% in 2007. Compared with those treated with 3D-CRT, low-risk

patients treated with IMRT had similar likelihoods of using salvage therapy with ADT and similar risks of having a complication requiring an intervention (all p > 0.05). Conversely, a subset of higher risk patients treated with IMRT who did not receive concurrent ADT were less likely to use salvage therapy (p = 0.02) while maintaining similar complication rates. Because our cohort includes Medicare beneficiaries, our findings may not be generalizable to younger patients.\n\nConclusions: For a subset of higher risk patients, IMRT appears to show a benefit in terms of reduced salvage therapy without an increase in complications. For other patients, the risks of salvage therapy and complications are comparable between the two modalities. (C) 2012 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

Comments are closed.