Clinical benefit and quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine versus gemcitabine alone: a randomized multicenter phase III clinical trial--SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral Cap 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks or until progression. CBR criteria and QOL indicators were assessed over this period. CBR was defined as improvement from baseline for >or= 4 consecutive weeks in pain (pain intensity or analgesic consumption) and Karnofsky performance status, stability in one but improvement in the other, or stability in pain and performance status but improvement in weight. RESULTS: Of 319 patients, 19% treated with GemCap and 20% treated with Gem experienced a CBR, with a median duration of 9.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively (P < .02); 54% of patients treated with GemCap and 60% treated with Gem had no CBR (remaining patients were not assessable). There was no treatment difference in QOL (n = 311). QOL indicators were improving under chemotherapy (P < .05). These changes differed by the time to failure, with a worsening 1 to 2 months before treatment failure (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: There is no indication of a difference in CBR or QOL between GemCap and Gem. Regardless of their initial condition, some patients experience an improvement in QOL on chemotherapy, followed by a worsening before treatment failure.

Life Times, Winter 2004

The IPERB newsletter is published by the Public Employment Relations Board. The opinions expressed should not be considered official opinions of the Iowa PERB.

Life Times, Winter 2005-2006

The IPERB newsletter is published by the Public Employment Relations Board. The opinions expressed should not be considered official opinions of the Iowa PERB.

Life Times, Winter 2008-2009

The IPERB newsletter is published by the Public Employment Relations Board. The opinions expressed should not be considered official opinions of the Iowa PERB.

Life Times, Winter 2007-2008

The IPERB newsletter is published by the Public Employment Relations Board. The opinions expressed should not be considered official opinions of the Iowa PERB.

Life Times, Summer 2007

The IPERB newsletter is published by the Public Employment Relations Board. The opinions expressed should not be considered official opinions of the Iowa PERB.

Life Times, Winter 2006-2007

The IPERB newsletter is published by the Public Employment Relations Board. The opinions expressed should not be considered official opinions of the Iowa PERB.

Life Times, Summer 2006

The IPERB newsletter is published by the Public Employment Relations Board. The opinions expressed should not be considered official opinions of the Iowa PERB.

Assessment of parental discipline in daily life.

The use of ecological momentary assessment (EMA) for studying parenting has been rare. We examined the psychometric properties and structural validity of an EMA Parenting Scale based on 32 mothers' reports of their parenting over a period of 10 consecutive days, and explored the acceptance of the scale and compliance with the procedure. The results suggested that the EMA Parenting Scale was well accepted for the assessment of daily parenting, and that it consistently captured the overreactive and lax dimensions of parenting across different episodes of child misbehavior. Moreover, multilevel analyses suggested that the scale was sensitive to change across different parenting episodes, and that it reliably assessed the dimensions at both the personal and situational levels. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).

Schizotypy and hemispheric asymmetry: results from two Chapman scales, the O-LIFE questionnaire, and two laterality measures

Schizotypy is a multidimensional personality construct representing the extension of psychosis-like traits into the general population. Schizotypy has been associated with attenuated expressions of many of the same neuropsychological abnormalities as schizophrenia, including atypical pattern of functional hemispheric asymmetry. Unfortunately, the previous literature on links between schizotypy and hemispheric asymmetry is inconsistent with some research indicating that elevated schizotypy is associated with relative right over left hemisphere shifts, left over right hemisphere shifts, bilateral impairments, or with no hemispheric differences at all. This inconsistency may result from different methodologies, scales, and / or sex proportions between studies. In a within-participant design, we tested for the four possible links between laterality and schizotypy by comparing the relationship between two common self-report measures of multidimensional schizotypy (the O-LIFE questionnaire, and two Chapman scales, magical ideation and physical anhedonia) and performance in two computerized lateralised hemifield paradigms (lexical decision, chimeric face processing) in 80 men and 79 women. Results for the two scales and two tasks did not unequivocally support any of the four possible links. We discuss the possibilities that a link between schizotypy and laterality 1) exists, but is subtle, probably fluctuating, unable to be assessed by traditional methodologies used here; 2) does not exist, or 3) is indirect, mediated by other factors (e.g. stress-responsiveness, handedness, drug use) whose influences need further exploration.