How to select a chiropractor for the management of athletic conditions

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chiropractors are an integral part of the management of musculoskeletal injuries. A considerable communication gap between the chiropractic and medical professions exists. Subsequently referring allopathic practitioners lack confidence in picking a chiropractic practitioner with appropriate management strategies to adequately resolve sporting injuries. Subsequently, the question is often raised: "how do you find a good chiropractor?".</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Best practice guidelines are increasingly suggesting that musculoskeletal injuries should be managed with multimodal active and passive care strategies. Broadly speaking chiropractors may be subdivided into "modern multimodal" or "classical" (unimodal) in nature. The modern multimodal practitioner is better suited to managing sporting injuries by incorporating passive and active care management strategies to address three important phases of care in the continuum of injury from the acute inflammation/pain phase to the chronic/rehabilitation phase to the injury prevention phase. In contrast, the unimodal, manipulation only and typically spine only approach of the classical practitioner seems less suited to the challenges of the injured athlete. Identifying what part of the philosophical management spectrum a chiropractor falls is important as it is clearly not easily evident in most published material such as Yellow Pages advertisements.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Identifying a chiropractic practitioner who uses multimodal treatment of adequate duration, who incorporates active and passive components of therapy including exercise prescription whilst using medical terminology and diagnosis without mandatory x-rays or predetermined treatment schedules or prepaid contracts of care will likely result in selection of a chiropractor with the approach and philosophy suited to appropriately managing athletic conditions. Sporting organizations and associations should consider using similar criteria as a minimum standard to allow participation in health care team selections.</p

Intensified dose of cyclophosphamide with G-CSF support versus standard dose combined with platinum in first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer a randomised study from the GINECO group

ICON3 trial results have suggested that CAP and carboplatin–taxol regimens as first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) yield similar survival. We explored the impact of increased dose of cyclophosphamide in a modified CAP regimen on the disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of AOC patients. From February 1994 to June 1997, 164 patients were randomised to receive six cycles every 3 weeks of either standard CEP (S) combining cyclophosphamide (C), 500 mg m−2, epirubicin (E) 50 mg m−2, and cisplatin (P) 75 mg m−2 or intensive CEP (I) with E and P at the same doses, but with (C) 1800 mg m−2 and filgrastim 5 μg kg−1 per day × 10 days. Response was evaluated at second-look surgery. Patient characteristics were well balanced. Except for grade 3–4 neutropaenia (S: 54%, I: 38% of cycles), Arm1 presented a significantly more important toxicity: infection requiring antibiotics, grade 3–4 thrombocytopaenia, anaemia, nausea-vomiting, diarrhoea, mucositis. Median follow-up was 84 months. DFS (15.9 vs 14.8 months) and OS (33 vs 30 months) were not significantly different between S and I (P>0.05). Increasing cyclophosphamide dose by more than 3 times with filgrastim support in the modified CAP regimen CEP induces more toxicity but not better efficacy in AOC

Explorative visual analytics on interval-based genomic data and their metadata

Background: With the wide-spreading of public repositories of NGS processed data, the availability of user-friendly and effective tools for data exploration, analysis and visualization is becoming very relevant. These tools enable interactive analytics, an exploratory approach for the seamless "sense-making" of data through on-the-fly integration of analysis and visualization phases, suggested not only for evaluating processing results, but also for designing and adapting NGS data analysis pipelines. Results: This paper presents abstractions for supporting the early analysis of NGS processed data and their implementation in an associated tool, named GenoMetric Space Explorer (GeMSE). This tool serves the needs of the GenoMetric Query Language, an innovative cloud-based system for computing complex queries over heterogeneous processed data. It can also be used starting from any text files in standard BED, BroadPeak, NarrowPeak, GTF, or general tab-delimited format, containing numerical features of genomic regions; metadata can be provided as text files in tab-delimited attribute-value format. GeMSE allows interactive analytics, consisting of on-the-fly cycling among steps of data exploration, analysis and visualization that help biologists and bioinformaticians in making sense of heterogeneous genomic datasets. By means of an explorative interaction support, users can trace past activities and quickly recover their results, seamlessly going backward and forward in the analysis steps and comparative visualizations of heatmaps. Conclusions: GeMSE effective application and practical usefulness is demonstrated through significant use cases of biological interest. GeMSE is available at http://www.bioinformatics.deib.polimi.it/GeMSE/ , and its source code is available at https://github.com/Genometric/GeMSEunder GPLv3 open-source license

UGT1A and TYMS genetic variants predict toxicity and response of colorectal cancer patients treated with first-line irinotecan and fluorouracil combination therapy

BACKGROUND: The impact of thymidylate synthase (TYMS) and UDP-glucoronosyltransferase 1A (UGT1A) germline polymorphisms on the outcome of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients treated with irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil (irinotecan/5FU) is still controversial. Our objective was to define a genetic-based algorithm to select patients to be treated with irinotecan/5FU. METHODS: Genotyping of TYMS (5'TRP and 3'UTR), UGT1A1*28, UGT1A9*22 and UGT1A7*3 was performed in 149 metastatic CRC patients treated with irinotecan/5FU as first-line chemotherapy enrolled in a randomised phase 3 study. Their association with response, toxicity and survival was investigated by univariate and multivariate statistical analysis. RESULTS: TYMS 3TRP/3TRP genotype was the only independent predictor of tumour response (OR=5.87, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.68-20.45; P=0.005). UGT1A1*28/*28 was predictive for haematologic toxicity (OR=6.27, 95% CI=1.09-36.12; P=0.04), specifically for neutropenia alone (OR=6.40, 95% CI=1.11-37.03; P=0.038) or together with diarrhoea (OR=18.87, 95% CI=2.14-166.67; P=0.008). UGT1A9*1/*1 was associated with non-haematologic toxicity (OR=2.70, 95% CI=1.07-6.82; P=0.035). Haplotype VII (all non-favourable alleles) was associated with non-haematologic toxicity (OR=2.11, 95% CI-1.12-3.98; P-0.02). CONCLUSION: TYMS and UGT1A polymorphisms influence on tumour response and toxicities derived from irinotecan/5FU treatment in CRC patients. A genetic-based algorithm to optimise treatment individualisation is proposed. British Journal of Cancer (2010) 103, 581-589. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605776 www.bjcancer.com Published online 13 July 2010 (C) 2010 Cancer Research U

Inclusion of MUC1 (Ma695) in a panel of immunohistochemical markers is useful for distinguishing between endocervical and endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma*

BACKGROUND: Distinguishing endocervical adenocarcinoma (ECA) from endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma (EMMA) is clinically significant in view of the differences in their management and prognosis. In this study, we used a panel of tumor markers to determine their ability to distinguish between primary endocervical adenocarcinoma and primary endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Immunohistochemistry using monoclonal antibodies to MUC1 (Ma695), p16, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and vimentin, was performed to examine 32 cases, including 18 EMMAs and 14 ECAs. For MUC1, cases were scored based on the percentage of staining pattern, apical, apical and cytoplasmic (A/C), or negative. For p16, cases were scored based on the percentage of cells stained. For the rest of the antibodies, semiquantitative scoring system was carried out. RESULTS: For MUC1, majority of EMMA (14 of 18 cases, 78%) showed A/C staining, whereas only few ECA (2 of 14, 14%) were positive. The difference of MUC1 expression in the two groups of malignancy was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Staining for p16 was positive in 10 of 14 (71%) ECA and 4 of 18 (22%) EMMA. Estrogen receptor was positive in 3 of 14 (21%) ECA and 17 of 18 (94%) EMMA. Progesterone receptor was positive in 3 of 14 (21%) ECA and 16 of 18 (89%) EMMA. Vimentin was positive in 1 of 14 (7%) ECA, and 9 of 18 (50%) EMA, with median and range of 0 (0–6), and 1.5 (0–9) respectively. CONCLUSION: A panel of immunohistochemical markers including MUC1, p16, ER, PR, and vimentin is recommended, when there is morphological and clinical doubt as to the primary site of endocervical or endometrial origin

Survivin expression in ovarian cancer and its correlation with clinico-pathological, surgical and apoptosis-related parameters

We investigated the association of survivin expression with prognosis and other apoptosis-related biological factors in 110 primary ovarian cancer patients admitted to the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Catholic University of Rome. Immunohistochemistry was performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded sections by using polyclonal antibody ab469 for survivin, and mouse monoclonal antibodies (clone 124 and DO-7), for bcl-2 and p53, respectively. Cytoplasmic survivin immunoreaction was observed in 84.5% cases, while nuclear survivin immunostaining was observed in 29.1% cases. We failed to find any relationship between cytoplasmic survivin positivity rate and any of the parameters examined. Serous tumours showed a lower percentage of nuclear survivin positivity with respect to other histotypes (20.5 vs 48.6%, respectively; P-value=0.004). The percentage of nuclear survivin positivity was higher in cases subjected to primary tumour cytoreduction (43.5%), with respect to patients subjected to exploratory laparotomy (20%) (P=0.024). Bcl-2 and p53 were, respectively, expressed in 27.3 and 60.0% of the cases and their expression was not correlated with survivin status. During the follow-up period, progression and death of disease were observed in 68 (61.8%) and 53 (48.2%) cases, respectively. There was no difference in time to progression and overall survival according to survivin status in ovarian cancer patients. In conclusion, in our experience, the immunohistochemical assessment of survivin status does not seem to be helpful in the prognostic characterisation of ovarian cancer. A more in depth investigation of the complex physiology of divergent survivin variants is needed in order to clarify the biological and the clinical role of differentially located survivin isoforms

Preoperative predictors for residual tumor after surgery in patients with ovarian carcinoma

Objectives: Suboptimal debulking (>1 cm residual tumor) results in poor survival rates for patients with an advanced stage of ovarian cancer. The purpose of this study was to develop a prediction model, based on simple preoperative parameters, for patients with an advanced stage of ovarian cancer who are at risk of suboptimal cytoreduction despite maximal surgical effort. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 187 consecutive patients with a suspected clinical diagnosis of advanced-stage ovarian cancer undergoing upfront debulking between January 1998 and December 2003. Preoperative parameters were Karnofsky performance status, ascites and serum concentrations of CA 125, hemoglobin, albumin, LDH and blood platelets. The main outcome parameter was residual tumor >1 cm. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was employed for testing possible prediction models. A clinically applicable graphic model (nomogram) for this prediction was to be developed. Results: Serum concentrations of CA 125 and blood platelets in the group with residual tumor >1 cm were higher in comparison to the optimally cytoreduced group (p 1 cm based on serum levels of CA 125 and albumin was established. Conclusion: Postoperative residual tumor despite maximal surgical effort can be predicted by preoperative CA 125 and serum albumin levels. With a nomogram based on these two parameters, probability of postoperative residual tumor in each individual patient can be predicted. This proposed nomogram may be valuable in daily routine practice for counseling and to select treatment modality. Copyrigh