Response Rate Is Associated with Prolonged Survival in Patients with Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Gefitinib or Erlotinib

Introduction:Gaining a higher response rate (RR) has usually been determined as a primary end point in phase II trials evaluating the efficacy of new molecular targeted drugs. However, a relationship between clinical response and survival benefit has not been well studied in the patients treated with molecular targeted agents.Methods:Prospective trials of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) monotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer were extracted from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the annual meetings in 2007 of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Cancer Conference, and World Conference on Lung Cancer.Correlation between clinical response and survival was examined using linear regression analysis. We also tried to compare the significance of RR as surrogate markers for survival with that of disease control rate (DCR) by calculating the area under their receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.Results:We identified 24 phase II trials and 4 phase III trials with a total of 6171 patients and 30 treatment arms, including 22 arms for the gefitinib group and 8 arms for the erlotinib group. Both RR and DCR strongly correlated with median survival time (MST; p < 0.0001 and p = 0.003, respectively). In an ROC analysis, the area under the ROC curve predicting MST prolongation by RR was 0.918, which was higher than the area under the ROC curve by DCR.Conclusions:We found a significant relationship between RR and MST in clinical trials with EGFR-TKIs. RR could be an independent surrogate marker for MST in the current response criteria in the clinical trials of EGFR-TKIs

Re-biopsy status among non-small cell lung cancer patients in Japan: A retrospective study

AbstractObjectiveDisease progression because of acquired resistance is common in advanced or metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutation positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), despite initial response to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). In Japan, transbronchial tissue biopsy is the most common sampling method used for re-biopsy to identify patients eligible for treatment. We aimed to investigate the success rate of re-biopsy and re-biopsy status of patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC completing first-line EGFR-TKI therapy.Patients and methodsThis was a retrospective, multi-center, Japanese study. The target patients in the study were EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC patients. The primary endpoint was the success rate (number of cases in which tumor cells were detected/total number of re-biopsies performed×100). Secondary endpoints included differences between the status of the first biopsy and that of the re-biopsy in the same patient population, and the details of cases in which re-biopsy could not be carried out. Re-biopsy-associated complications were also assessed.ResultsOverall, 395 patients were evaluated (median age 63 years), with adenocarcinoma being the most common tumor type. Re-biopsy was successful in 314 patients (79.5%). Compared with the sampling method at first biopsy, at re-biopsy, the surgical resection rate increased from 1.8% to 7.8%, and percutaneous tissue biopsy increased from 7.6% to 29.1%, suggesting the difficulty of performing re-biopsy. Approximately half of the patients had T790M mutations, which involved a Del19 mutation in 55.6% of patients and an L858R mutation in 43.0%. Twenty-three patients (5.8%) had re-biopsy- associated complications, most commonly pneumothorax.ConclusionsSuccess rate for re-biopsy in this study was approximately 80%. Our study sheds light on the re-biopsy status after disease progression in patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC. This information is important to improve the selection of patients who may benefit from third-generation TKIs

読書会

写真あり第1回読書会 : 匿名(音楽芸術学科)第2回読書会 : 森園 佳子(図書館)第3回読書会 : 藏田 香織(国際交流学科

The Design of Learning Support Environment for Nurturing Academic Writing Skills in Higher Education

本研究ではライティングセンターによる個別チュータリング、eラーニング教材の開発、オンラインチュータリングを実施することで、アカデミック・ライティング力を育むための教育システムの開発とそのデザイン原則の導出を目指した。個別チュータリングに関しては授業連携による利用が約65％を占め、なかでも初年次教育の利用が多く、教員による利用指示の背景にはライティングセンター教職員との意見交換の機会が影響していることを示した。eラーニング教材に関しては、アカデミック・ライティング力を育むための一定の効果が見受けられた。またオンラインチュータリングに関しては、対面と同様であると感じている学生がいる一方で、構成を考える際に図式化することで理解が深まると考える学生もおり、相談内容に応じて対面が望ましい傾向が指摘された。加えて、学生のコミュニケーションスタイルにより対面とオンラインチュータリングに対する心理的距離が異なるため、両方の環境を整備する必要性が示された。平成28年度関西大学教育研究高度化促進費「アカデミック・ライティング力を育むための教育システム開発とデザイン原則の導出」の一部である

2015年度読書運動プロジェクト活動報告書

活動資料 p.(1)～p.(5)はじめに : 藤本 朝巳 p.1新入生勧誘イベント : 中藤 祥子 p.2読書会 : 匿名、森園 佳子、藏田 香織 p.3-p.5コンテスト・コンクール : 森園 佳子 p.6-p.7展示 : 秋葉 祐子 p.8-p.10コラボランチ : 秋葉 祐子 p.11選書ツアーとPOP講座 : 匿名 p.12文学散歩 : 吉満 みなみ p.13大学祭 : 小根山 桃子、今井 舞菜 p.14-p.16高校訪問 : 森園 佳子 p.17読み聞かせレッスン : 森園 佳子 p.18サマースクールプログラム朗読発表 : 鈴木 珠友 p.19小学校朗読会 : 森園 佳子 p.20朗読会 : 森園 佳子、阿部 果鈴 p.21-p.22朗読チームの活動を振り返って : 高橋 里奈、匿名 p.23-p.24プロフィール p.25-p.31おわりに : 森園 佳子 p.32写真あり表あ

The current status of Open Access in biomedical field: the comparison of countries relating to the impact of national policies

The purpose of the article is to show the current status of Open Access (OA) in biomedical field, and compare some countries such as the U.S., the U.K. and Japan in terms of the OA situation. There are controversies about the definition of OA. After examining the requirements about OA, we recognized OA as the situation in which researchers could read the full text of articles in unrestricted way. In order to investigate the current situation of OA, 4,756 articles were sampled randomly from articles published between January and September in 2005 and indexed in PubMed. The main results are as follows: 1) The rate of OA articles was 25%, and 75% of all the articles were available online including electronic subscription journal articles. 2) The means of OA was classified into five types. Among them, the rate of OA articles by “OA and Hybrid OA journals” was overwhelming (more than 70%), and that of PMC was 26.2%. The rates of OA articles by “institutional repositories” and “authors’ personal sites” were considerably low (6.0% and 4.9% respectively). 3) When comparing the rates of OA articles by countries, Belgium ranked the first with 41.7%. The five countries indicated more than 30% in OA articles: Canada and India (38.7%), Brazil (36.4%), Australia (30.8%), and the U.S. (30.7%). Each country was different in the means of OA. 4) We explored the rates of OA for two groups; one group consists of articles published in journals with an impact factor (IF), and the other consists of articles published in journals without IF. The rate of OA for the group of articles in journals with IF is 20.6%, and that of articles in journals without IF is 30.8%

Current status of open access in biomedical field-the comparison of countries related to the impact of national policies

The purpose of the article is to show the current status of Open Access (OA) in biomedical field, and compare some countries such as the U.S., the U.K. and Japan in terms of the OA situation. There are controversies about the definition of OA. After examining the requirements about OA, we recognized OA as the situation in which researchers could read the full text of articles in unrestricted way. In order to investigate the current situation of OA, 4,756 articles were sampled randomly from articles published between January and September in 2005 and indexed in PubMed. The main results are as follows: 1) The rate of OA articles was 25%, and 75% of all the articles were available online including electronic subscription journal articles. 2) The means of OA was classified into five types. Among them, the rate of OA articles by “OA and Hybrid OA journals” was overwhelming (more than 70%), and that of PMC was 26.2%. The rates of OA articles by “institutional repositories” and “authors’ personal sites” were considerably low (6.0% and 4.9% respectively). 3) When comparing the rates of OA articles by countries, Belgium ranked the first with 41.7%. The five countries indicated more than 30% in OA articles: Canada and India (38.7%), Brazil (36.4%), Australia (30.8%), and the U.S. (30.7%). Each country was different in the means of OA. 4) We explored the rates of OA for two groups; one group consists of articles published in journals with IF, and the other consists of articles published in journals without IF. The rate of OA for the group of articles in journals with IF is 20.6%, and that of articles in journals without IF is 30.8%

Remarkable growth of open access in the biomedical field: analysis of PubMed articles from 2006 to 2010.

INTRODUCTION: This study clarifies the trends observed in open access (OA) in the biomedical field between 2006 and 2010, and explores the possible explanations for the differences in OA rates revealed in recent surveys. METHODS: The study consists of a main survey and two supplementary surveys. In the main survey, a manual Google search was performed to investigate whether full-text versions of articles from PubMed were freely available. Target samples were articles published in 2005, 2007, and 2009; the searches were performed a year after publication in 2006, 2008, and 2010, respectively. Using the search results, we classified the OA provision methods into seven categories. The supplementary surveys calculated the OA rate using two search functions on PubMed: "LinkOut" and "Limits." RESULTS: The main survey concluded that the OA rate increased significantly between 2006 and 2010: the OA rate in 2010 (50.2%) was twice that in 2006 (26.3%). Furthermore, majority of OA articles were available from OA journal (OAJ) websites, indicating that OAJs have consistently been a significant contributor to OA throughout the period. OA availability through the PubMed Central (PMC) repository also increased significantly. OA rates obtained from two supplementary surveys were lower than those found in the main survey. "LinkOut" could find only 40% of OA articles in the main survey. DISCUSSION: OA articles in the biomedical field have more than a 50% share. OA has been achieved through OAJs. The reason why the OA rates in our surveys are different from those in recent surveys seems to be the difference in sampling methods and verification procedures

Comparison of OA rates obtained by supplementary surveys and the main survey.

<p>PRF: Pls confirm that vertically merged cells and diagonal lines are correctly formatted.</p