Data analysis with artificial immune systems, cluster analysis and kohonen networks: some comparisons.

Neal M J Timmis J and Hunt J. Data analysis with artificial immune systems, cluster analysis and kohonen networks: some comparisons. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference of systems, man and cybernetics, pages 922-927, Tokyo, 1999. IEEE.

Efficacy of Pharmacokinetics-Directed Busulfan, Cyclophosphamide, and Etoposide Conditioning and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Lymphoma: Comparison of a Multicenter Phase II Study and CIBMTR Outcomes.

Busulfan, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (BuCyE) is a commonly used conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). This multicenter, phase II study examined the safety and efficacy of BuCyE with individually adjusted busulfan based on preconditioning pharmacokinetics. The study initially enrolled Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients ages 18 to 80 years but was amended due to high early treatment-related mortality (TRM) in patients > 65 years. BuCyE outcomes were compared with contemporaneous recipients of carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan (BEAM) from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Two hundred seven subjects with HL (n = 66) or NHL (n = 141) were enrolled from 32 centers in North America, and 203 underwent ASCT. Day 100 TRM for all subjects (n = 203), patients > 65 years (n = 17), and patients ≤ 65 years (n = 186) were 4.5%, 23.5%, and 2.7%, respectively. The estimated rates of 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) were 33% for HL and 58%, 77%, and 43% for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL; n = 63), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; n = 29), and follicular lymphoma (FL; n = 23), respectively. The estimated rates of 2-year overall survival (OS) were 76% for HL and 65%, 89%, and 89% for DLBCL, MCL, and FL, respectively. In the matched analysis rates of 2-year TRM were 3.3% for BuCyE and 3.9% for BEAM, and there were no differences in outcomes for NHL. Patients with HL had lower rates of 2-year PFS with BuCyE, 33% (95% CI, 21% to 46%), than with BEAM, 59% (95% CI, 52% to 66%), with no differences in TRM or OS. BuCyE provided adequate disease control and safety in B cell NHL patients ≤ 65 years but produced worse PFS in HL patients when compared with BEAM.

Human Papillomavirus and Oral Cancer: the International Agency for Research on Cancer Multicenter Study

Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV), the causal agent of cervical cancer, appears to be involved in the etiology of cancer of the oral cavity and oropharynx. To investigate these associations, we conducted a multicenter case-control study of cancer of the oral cavity and oropharynx in nine countries. Methods: We recruited 1670 case patients (1415 with cancer of the oral cavity and 255 with cancer of the oropharynx) and 1732 control subjects and obtained an interview, oral exfoliated cells, and blood from all participants and fresh biopsy specimens from case patients. HPV DNA was detected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Antibodies against HPV16 L1, E6, and E7 proteins in plasma were detected with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Multivariable models were used for case-control and case-case comparisons. Results: HPV DNA was detected in biopsy specimens of 3.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]=2.5% to 5.3%) of 766 cancers of the oral cavity with valid PCR results and 18.3% (95% CI=12.0% to 24.7%) of 142 cancers of the oropharynx (oropharynx and tonsil combined) with valid PCR results. HPV DNA in cancer biopsy specimens was detected less frequently among tobacco smokers and paan chewers and more frequently among subjects who reported more than one sexual partner or who practiced oral sex. HPV16 DNA was found in 94.7% of HPV DNA-positive case patients. HPV DNA in exfoliated cells was not associated with cancer risk or with HPV DNA detection in biopsy specimens. Antibodies against HPV16 L1 were associated with risk for cancers of the oral cavity (odds ratio [OR]=1.5, 95% CI=1.1 to 2.1) and the oropharynx (OR=3.5, 95% CI=2.1 to 5.9). Antibodies against HPV16 E6 or E7 were also associated with risk for cancers of the oral cavity (OR=2.9, 95% CI=1.7 to 4.8) and the oropharynx (OR=9.2, 95% CI=4.8 to 17.7). Conclusions: HPV appears to play an etiologic role in many cancers of the oropharynx and possibly a small subgroup of cancers of the oral cavity. The most common HPV type in genital cancers (HPV16) was also the most common in these tumors. The mechanism of transmission of HPV to the oral cavity warrants further investigation.

Indirect comparisons of treatments based on systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials

Randomised controlled trials are the most effective way to differentiate between the effects of competing interventions. However, head-to-head studies are unlikely to have been conducted for all competing interventions.

Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials

Background Moderate di?erences in e?cacy between adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for breast cancer are plausible, and could a? ect treatment choices. We sought any such di?erences.

Methods We undertook individual-patient-data meta-analyses of the randomised trials comparing: any taxane-plusanthracycline-based regimen versus the same, or more, non-taxane chemotherapy (n=44 000); one anthracyclinebased regimen versus another (n=7000) or versus cyclo phosphamide, methotrexate, and ?uorouracil (CMF; n=18 000); and polychemotherapy versus no chemotherapy (n=32 000). The scheduled dosages of these three drugs and of the anthracyclines doxorubicin (A) and epirubicin (E) were used to de? ne standard CMF, standard 4AC, and CAF and CEF. Log-rank breast cancer mortality rate ratios (RRs) are reported.

Findings In trials adding four separate cycles of a taxane to a ?xed anthracycline-based control regimen, extending treatment duration, breast cancer mortality was reduced (RR 0·86, SE 0·04, two-sided signi?cance [2p]=0·0005). In trials with four such extra cycles of a taxane counterbalanced in controls by extra cycles of other cytotoxic drugs, roughly doubling non-taxane dosage, there was no signi?cant di?erence (RR 0·94, SE 0·06, 2p=0·33). Trials with CMF-treated controls showed that standard 4AC and standard CMF were equivalent (RR 0·98, SE 0·05, 2p=0·67), but that anthracycline-based regimens with substantially higher cumulative dosage than standard 4AC (eg, CAF or CEF) were superior to standard CMF (RR 0·78, SE 0·06, 2p=0·0004). Trials versus no chemotherapy also suggested greater mortality reductions with CAF (RR 0·64, SE 0·09, 2p<0·0001) than with standard 4AC (RR 0·78, SE 0·09, 2p=0·01) or
standard CMF (RR 0·76, SE 0·05, 2p<0·0001). In all meta-analyses involving taxane-based or anthracycline-based regimens, proportional risk reductions were little a? ected by age, nodal status, tumour diameter or di?erentiation (moderate or poor; few were well di?erentiated), oestrogen receptor status, or tamoxifen use. Hence, largely independently of age (up to at least 70 years) or the tumour characteristics currently available to us for the patients selected to be in these trials, some taxane-plus-anthracycline-based or higher-cumulative-dosage anthracycline-based regimens (not requiring stem cells) reduced breast cancer mortality by, on average, about one-third. 10-year overall mortality di?erences paralleled breast cancer mortality di?erences, despite taxane, anthracycline, and other toxicities.

Interpretation 10-year gains from a one-third breast cancer mortality reduction depend on absolute risks without chemotherapy (which, for oestrogen-receptor-positive disease, are the risks remaining with appropriate endocrine therapy). Low absolute risk implies low absolute bene?t, but information was lacking about tumour gene expression markers or quantitative immunohistochemistry that might help to predict risk, chemosensitivity, or both.

Alcohol and the Risk of Barrett's Esophagus: A Pooled Analysis from the International BEACON Consortium

OBJECTIVES: Results from studies examining the association between alcohol consumption and the risk of Barrett's esophagus have been inconsistent. We assessed the risk of Barrett's esophagus associated with total and beverage-specific alcohol consumption by pooling individual participant data from five case–control studies participating in the international Barrett's and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium.
METHODS: For analysis, there were 1,282 population-based controls, 1,418 controls with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and 1,169 patients with Barrett's esophagus (cases). We estimated study-specific odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), education, smoking status, and GERD symptoms. Summary risk estimates were obtained by random-effects models. We also examined potential effect modification by sex, BMI, GERD symptoms, and cigarette smoking.
RESULTS: For comparisons with population-based controls, although there was a borderline statistically significant inverse association between any alcohol consumption and the risk of Barrett's esophagus (any vs. none, summary OR=0.77, 95% CI=0.60–1.00), risk did not decrease in a dose-response manner (Ptrend=0.72). Among alcohol types, wine was associated with a moderately reduced risk of Barrett's esophagus (any vs. none, OR=0.71, 95% CI=0.52–0.98); however, there was no consistent dose–response relationship (Ptrend=0.21). We found no association with alcohol consumption when cases were compared with GERD controls. Similar associations were observed across all strata of BMI, GERD symptoms, and cigarette smoking.
CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with findings for esophageal adenocarcinoma, we found no evidence that alcohol consumption increases the risk of Barrett's esophagus.

Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Non-Discrimination Law

This casebook, the result of the collaborative efforts of a panel of experts from various EU Member States, is the latest in the Ius Commune Casebook series developed at the Universities of Maastricht and Leuven. The book provides a comprehensive and skilfully designed resource for students, practitioners, researchers, public officials, NGOs, consumer organisations and the judiciary. In common with earlier books in the series, this casebook presents cases and other materials (legislative materials, international and European materials, excerpts from books or articles). As non-discrimination law is a comparatively new subject, the chapters search for and develop the concepts of discrimination law on the basis of a wide variety of young and often still emerging case law and legislation. The result is a comprehensive textbook with materials from a wide variety of EU Member States. The book is entirely in English (i.e. materials are translated where not available in English). At the end of each chapter a comparative overview ties the material together, with emphasis, where appropriate, on existing or emerging general principles in the legal systems within Europe.
The book illustrates the distinct relationship between international, European and national legislation in the field of non-discrimination law. It covers the grounds of discrimination addressed in the Racial Equality and Employment Equality Directives, as well as non-discrimination law relating to gender. In so doing, it covers the law of a large number of EU Member States, alongside some international comparisons.
The Ius Commune Casebook on Non-Discrimination Law
- provides practitioners with ready access to primary and secondary legal material needed to assist them in crafting test case strategies.
- provides the judiciary with the tools needed to respond sensitively to such cases.
- provides material for teaching non-discrimination law to law and other students.
- provides a basis for ongoing research on non-discrimination law.
- provides an up-to-date overview of the implementation of the Directives and of the state of the law.
This Casebook is the result of a project which has been supported by a grant from the European Commission's Anti-Discrimination Programme.

An international comparison of legal frameworks for supported and substitute decision-making in mental health services

There have been important recent developments in law, research, policy and practice relating to supporting people with decision-making impairments, in particular when a person’s wishes and preferences are unclear or inaccessible. A driver in this respect is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD); the implications of the CRPD for policy and professional practices are currently debated. This article reviews and compares four legal frameworks for supported and substitute decision-making for people whose decision-making ability is impaired. In particular, it explores how these frameworks may apply to people with mental health problems. The four jurisdictions are: Ontario, Canada; Victoria, Australia; England and Wales, United Kingdom (UK); and Northern Ireland, UK. Comparisons and contrasts are made in the key areas of: the legal framework for supported and substitute decision-making; the criteria for intervention; the assessment process; the safeguards; and issues in practice. Thus Ontario has developed a relatively comprehensive, progressive and influential legal framework over the past thirty years but there remain concerns about the standardisation of decision-making ability assessments and how the laws work together. In Australia, the Victorian Law Reform Commission (2012) has recommended that the six different types of substitute decision-making under the three laws in that jurisdiction, need to be simplified, and integrated into a spectrum that includes supported decision-making. In England and Wales the Mental Capacity Act 2005 has a complex interface with mental health law. In Northern Ireland it is proposed to introduce a new Mental Capacity (Health, Welfare and Finance) Bill that will provide a unified structure for all substitute decision-making. The discussion will consider the key strengths and limitations of the approaches in each jurisdiction and identify possible ways that further progress can be made in law, policy and practice.