XiX and XX Centuries matrix Accounting developments in Asia. a Japanese – European approach. РОЗВИТОК МАТРИЧНОї СИСТЕМИ ОбЛІКУ В АЗІї В XiX–XX СТОЛІТТЯх. ЯПОНСьКО-єВРОПЕЙСьКИЙ ПІДхІД.

This article describes the development of the matrix accounting method in XIX–XX centuries in Japan and the fundamental relationship with European, namely the Italian school of accounting. Using an interdisciplinary approach, which includes mathematics, computer science and accounting, international study examines the historical factors that allowed the matrix accounting to develop in Asia and other countries. The study deals with the works of scientists in Italy, Japan, Russia, the United States and other countries. Particular attention is given to the modern use of matrix methods in accounting

Results of the CONFIRM phase III trial comparing fulvestrant 250 mg with fulvestrant 500 mg in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: We compared fulvestrant 500 mg regimen with the approved dose of fulvestrant 250 mg per month for treatment of postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer who experienced progression after prior endocrine therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Comparison of Faslodex in Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer (CONFIRM) is a double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter, phase III study. Patients were randomly assigned to fulvestrant 500 mg (500 mg intramuscularly [IM] on day 0, then 500 mg IM on days 14 and 28 and every 28 days thereafter) or 250 mg every 28 days. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included objective response rate, clinical benefit rate (CBR), duration of clinical benefit (DoCB), overall survival (OS), and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: PFS was significantly longer for fulvestrant 500 mg (n = 362) than 250 mg (n = 374) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.94; P = .006), corresponding to a 20% reduction in risk of progression. Objective response rate was similar for fulvestrant 500 mg and 250 mg (9.1% v 10.2%, respectively). CBR was 45.6% for fulvestrant 500 mg and 39.6% for fulvestrant 250 mg. DoCB and OS were 16.6 and 25.1 months, respectively, for the 500-mg group, whereas DoCB and OS were 13.9 and 22.8 months, respectively, in the 250-mg group. Fulvestrant 500 mg was well tolerated with no dose-dependent adverse events. QOL was similar for both arms. CONCLUSION: Fulvestrant 500 mg was associated with a statistically significant increase in PFS and not associated with increased toxicity, corresponding to a clinically meaningful improvement in benefit versus risk compared with fulvestrant 250 mg