Comparison of health conditions treated with traditional and biomedical health care in a Quechua community in rural Bolivia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The objective of the present study was to reveal patterns in the treatment of health conditions in a Quechua-speaking community in the Bolivian Andes based on plant use data from traditional healers and patient data from a primary health care (PHC) service, and to demonstrate similarities and differences between the type of illnesses treated with traditional and biomedical health care, respectively.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A secondary analysis of plant use data from semi-structured interviews with eight healers was conducted and diagnostic data was collected from 324 patients in the community PHC service. Health conditions were ranked according to: (A) the percentage of patients in the PHC service diagnosed with these conditions; and (B) the citation frequency of plant use reports to treat these conditions by healers. Healers were also queried about the payment modalities they offer to their patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Plant use reports from healers yielded 1166 responses about 181 medicinal plant species, which are used to treat 67 different health conditions, ranging from general symptoms (e.g. fever and body pain), to more specific ailments, such as arthritis, biliary colic and pneumonia. The results show that treatment offered by traditional medicine overlaps with biomedical health care in the case of respiratory infections, wounds and bruises, fever and biliary colic/cholecystitis. Furthermore, traditional health care appears to be complementary to biomedical health care for chronic illnesses, especially arthritis, and for folk illnesses that are particularly relevant within the local cultural context. Payment from patients to healers included flexible, outcome contingent and non-monetary options.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Traditional medicine in the study area is adaptive because it corresponds well with local patterns of morbidity, health care needs in relation to chronic illnesses, cultural perceptions of health conditions and socio-economic aspects of health care. The quantitative analysis of plant use reports and patient data represents a novel approach to compare the contribution of traditional and biomedical health care to treatment of particular health conditions.</p

Brain metastases from breast cancer: lessons from experimental magnetic resonance imaging studies and clinical implications.

Breast cancer that has metastasized to the brain presents difficult clinical challenges. This diagnosis comes with high mortality rates, largely due to complexities in early detection and ineffective therapies associated with both dormancy and impermeability of the blood-brain barrier (BBB). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the current gold standard for diagnosis and assessment of brain tumors. It has been used clinically to investigate metastatic development as well as monitor response to therapy. Here, we describe preclinical imaging strategies that we have used to study the development of brain metastases due to breast cancer. Using this approach, we have identified three subsets of metastatic disease: permeable metastases, nonpermeable metastases, and solitary, dormant cancer cells, which likely have very different biology and responses to therapy. The ability to simultaneously monitor the spatial and temporal distribution of dormant cancer cells, metastatic growth, and associated tumor permeability can provide great insight into factors that contribute to malignant proliferation. Our preclinical findings suggest that standard clinical detection strategies may underestimate the true metastatic burden of breast cancer that has metastasized to the brain. A better understanding of true metastatic burden in brains will be important to assist in the development of more effective chemotherapeutics-particularly those targeted to cross the BBB-as well as detection of small nonpermeable metastases

Gemcitabine plus capecitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research and the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: This phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (GemCap) versus single-agent Gem in advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral capecitabine 650 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1 to 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks). Patients were stratified according to center, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), presence of pain, and disease extent. RESULTS: A total of 319 patients were enrolled between June 2001 and June 2004. Median overall survival (OS) time, the primary end point, was 8.4 and 7.2 months in the GemCap and Gem arms, respectively (P = .234). Post hoc analysis in patients with good KPS (score of 90 to 100) showed a significant prolongation of median OS time in the GemCap arm compared with the Gem arm (10.1 v 7.4 months, respectively; P = .014). The overall frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar in each arm. Neutropenia was the most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse event in both arms. CONCLUSION: GemCap failed to improve OS at a statistically significant level compared with standard Gem treatment. The safety of GemCap and Gem was similar. In the subgroup of patients with good performance status, median OS was improved significantly. GemCap is a practical regimen that may be considered as an alternative to single-agent Gem for the treatment of advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer patients with a good performance status