Body mass index and circulating oestrone sulphate in women treated with adjuvant letrozole

Background: Obesity is an independent adverse prognostic factor in early breast cancer patients, but it is still controversial whether obesity may affect adjuvant endocrine therapy efficacy. The aim of our study (ancillary to the two clinical trials Gruppo Italiano Mammella (GIM)4 and GIM5) was to investigate whether the circulating oestrogen levels during treatment with the aromatase inhibitor letrozole are related to body mass index (BMI) in postmenopausal women with breast cancer. Methods: Plasma concentration of oestrone sulphate (ES) was evaluated by radioimmunoassay in 370 patients. Plasma samples were obtained after at least 6 weeks of letrozole therapy (steady-state time). Patients were divided into four groups according to BMI. Differences among the geometric means (by ANOVA and ANCOVA) and correlation (by Spearman's rho) between the ES levels and BMI were assessed. Results: Picomolar geometric mean values (95% confidence interval, n=patients) of circulating ES during letrozole were 58.6 (51.0-67.2, n=150) when BMI was <25.0 kg m-2; 65.6 (57.8-74.6, n=154) when 25.0-29.9 kg m-2; 59.3 (47.1-74.6, n=50) when 30.0-34.9 kg m -2; and 43.3 (23.0-81.7, n=16) when 6535.0 kg m-2. No statistically significant difference in terms of ES levels among groups and no correlation with BMI were observed. Conclusions: Body mass index does not seem to affect circulating oestrogen levels in letrozole-treated patient

What's in a Sign? Trademark Law and Economic Theory

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to summarise the extant theory as it relates to the economics of trademark, and to give some suggestions for further research with reference to distinct streams of literature. The proposed line of study inevitably looks at the complex relationship between signs and economics. Trademark is a sign introduced to remedy a market failure. It facilitates purchase decisions by indicating the provenance of the goods, so that consumers can identify specific quality attributes deriving from their own, or others&apos;, past experience. Trademark holders, on their part, have an incentive to invest in quality because they will be able to reap the benefits in terms of reputation. In other words, trademark law becomes an economic device which, opportunely designed, can produce incentives for maximising market efficiency. This role must, of course, be recognised, as a vast body of literature has done, with its many positive economic consequences. Nevertheless, trademark appears to have additional economic effects that should be properly recognized: it can determine the promotion of market power and the emergence of rent-seeking behaviours. It gives birth to an idiosyncratic economics of signs where very strong protection tends to be assured, even though the welfare effects are as yet poorly understood. In this domain much remains to be done and the challenge to researchers is open