Docetaxel and gemcitabine combination in 133 advanced soft-tissue sarcomas: a retrospective analysis.

Advanced soft-tissue sarcomas are usually resistant to cytotoxic agents such as doxorubicin and ifosfamide. Antitumor activity has been observed for gemcitabine and docetaxel combination. We conducted a retrospective study on 133 patients (58 males/75 females) with unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. The median age at diagnosis was 51.7 (18-82), with 76 patients with leiomoyosarcoma and 57 patients with other histological subtypes. The initial localizations were limb (44), uterine (32), retroperitoneal (23) and organs or bone (34). Patients received 900 mg/m2 of gemcitabine (days 1 and 8) over 90 min plus 100 mg/m2 of docetaxel (day 8), intravenously every 21 days. Gemcitabine/docetaxel combination was well tolerated with an overall response of 18.4% and with no clear statistical difference between leiomyosarcomas and other histological subtypes (24.2% versus 10.4% (p=0.06)). No difference was found between uterine soft-tissue sarcomas versus others. The median overall survival was 12.1 months (1-28). Better overall survival was correlated with leiomyosarcoma (p=0.01) and with the quality of the response, even for patients with stable disease (p<10(-4)). No statistical difference was found for the initial localization. Response to treatment and overall survival were better for patients in World Health Organization (WHO) performance status classification (PS) 0 at baseline versus patients in WHO PS-1, 2 or 3 (p=0.023 and p<10(-4), respectively). Gemcitabine/docetaxel combination was tolerable and demonstrated better response and survival for leiomyosarcoma, especially for patients in WHO PS-0 at baseline. For the other histological subtypes, the response was not encouraging, but the survival for patients in response or stable suggests further investigation.

Diversity of the Quality Criteria in Qualitative Research in the Health Sciences: Lessons from a Lexicometric Analysis Composed of 133 Guidelines

A review of health sciences literature shows a substantial increase in qualitative publications. This work incorporates a certain number of research quality guidelines. We present the results of the Alceste® lexicometric analysis, which includes 133 quality grids for qualitative research covering five disciplinary fields of the health sciences: medicine and epidemiology, public health and health education, nursing, health sociology and anthropology, psychiatry and psychology. This analysis helped to cross-check the disciplinary fields with the various objectives assigned to the different criteria in the grids examined. The results obtained with Alceste® show the variability of the objectives sought by the authors of the guidelines. These discrepancies are not directly associated to disciplinary fields, and appear to be more closely linked to different qualitative research conceptualizations within the disciplines, and with essential qualitative research validation criteria. These conceptualizations must be clarified to help users better understand the objectives targeted by the grids, and promote more appreciation for qualitative research in the health sciences.