A craniometric study of population dynamics and social organisation in the European upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic

The purpose of this study is to explore aspects of social organisation during the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods using craniometric data. Different hypotheses were tested using geometric morphometrics, alongside traditional craniometric data. The clustering of individuals from the same site, as well as a correspondence to an isolation-by-distance model—particular in the Mesolithic samples—points to population structure within these groups. Moreover, discontinuities in cranial traits between the early Upper Palaeolithic and later periods could suggest that the Last Glacial Maximum had a disruptive effect on populations in Europe. Differences in social organisation can often result from cultural norms regarding post-marital residence. Such differences can be tested by comparing cranial data to that of geographic information. Greater variation in male cranial traits relative to females, after controlling for location, suggests that the overall pattern of residence during the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic was one of matrilocality. It has been suggested that coastal occupation was density dependent and these populations show a greater degree of sedentism than their inland counterparts. Moreover, it has been proposed that coastal areas were not continuously occupied until the Late Pleistocene due to spatial restrictions that would adversely affect reproductive opportunities. This study corroborates the pattern seen in cranial traits corresponded with that of a more sedentary population. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that coastal populations are more sedentary than inland populations during these periods. This study adds new information regarding the social dynamics of prehistoric populations in Europe and sheds light on some of the conditions that may have paved the way for the transition to agriculture

Doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10961 Multicenter Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) with a standard doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) regimen as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were anthracycline-naive and had bidimensionally measurable metastatic breast cancer. Two hundred seventy-five patients were randomly assigned to be treated with AT (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) as an intravenous bolus plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion) or AC (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. A paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m(2)) dose escalation was planned at cycle 2 if no grade >or= 3 neutropenia occurred in cycle 1. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were response rate (RR), safety, overall survival (OS), and quality of life. RESULTS: A median number of six cycles were delivered in the two treatment arms. The relative dose-intensity and delivered cumulative dose of doxorubicin were lower in the AT arm. Dose escalation was only possible in 17% and 20% of the AT and AC patients, respectively. Median PFS was 6 months in the two treatments arms. RR was 58% versus 54%, and median OS was 20.6 versus 20.5 months in the AT and AC arms, respectively. The AT regimen was characterized by a higher incidence of febrile neutropenia, 32% versus 9% in the AC arm. CONCLUSION: No differences in the efficacy study end points were observed between the two treatment arms. Treatment-related toxicity compromised doxorubicin-delivered dose-intensity in the paclitaxel-based regimen

Clinical staging versus laparotomy and combined modality with MOPP versus ABVD in early-stage hodgkin's disease: the H6 twin randomized trials from the european organization for research and treatment of cancer lymphoma cooperative group

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the predictive performance and potential clinical usefulness of risk calculators of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC RC) with and without information on prostate volume. METHODS: We studied 6 cohorts (5 European and 1 US) with a total of 15,300 men, all biopsied and with pre-biopsy TRUS measurements of prostate volume. Volume was categorized into 3 categories (25, 40, and 60 cc), to reflect use of digital rectal examination (DRE) for volume assessment. Risks of prostate cancer were calculated according to a ERSPC DRE-based RC (including PSA, DRE, prior biopsy, and prostate volume) and a PSA + DRE model (including PSA, DRE, and prior biopsy). Missing data on prostate volume were completed by single imputation. Risk predictions were evaluated with respect to calibration (graphically), discrimination (AUC curve), and clinical usefulness (net benefit, graphically assessed in decision curves). RESULTS: The AUCs of the ERSPC DRE-based RC ranged from 0.61 to 0.77 and were substantially larger than the AUCs of a model based on only PSA + DRE (ranging from 0.56 to 0.72) in each of the 6 cohorts. The ERSPC DRE-based RC provided net benefit over performing a prostate biopsy on the basis of PSA and DRE outcome in five of the six cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying men at increased risk for having a biopsy detectable prostate cancer should consider multiple factors, including an estimate of prostate volume.

[Reviews] Turkey and the European Union: prospects for a difficult encounter

Book review of 'Turkey and the European Union: Prospects for a Difficult Encounter', edited by Esra Lagro and Knud Erik Jorgensen, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007 Pp. xii þ 240; 1 table; 1 figure; index; ISBN 9780230019553; £47.00 (hb).