Search

In this prospective, multicenter, non-randomized study for patients with stage I--II Hodgkin lymphoma, group 1 (without risk-factors [[RF]]) had three cycles of ABVD chemotherapy (adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) and group 2 (any of bulk, extranodal site, >3 regions, raised erythrocyte sedimentation rate [[ESR]]) and group 3 (B-symptoms) received four cycles. Involved field radiotherapy (IFRT) 30 Gy was given after adequate chemotherapy response. Five-year overall survival and freedom from progression (FFP) were 96%% (95%% confidence interval [[CI]] 91--98%%) and 90%% (84--94%%), respectively. Five-year FFP was 97%% (90--99%%), 89%% (75--95%%), and 73%% (52--86%%) for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In patients with RF, chemotherapy responses of complete response unconfirmed (CRu), partial response (PR), and stable disease (SD) were associated with FFP of 90%%, 86%%, and 62%% ( p==0.17), and CR/no CR on functional imaging with FFP of 90%%/67%%, respectively ( p==0.05). The 97%% FFP in group 1 compares favorably with previously reported results from cooperative trial groups. Intensification of therapy warrants study in patients with RF and a poor chemotherapy response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous surveys have addressed the use and perceived utility of diagnostic systems but not psychiatrists' preferences and expectations about them. This paper attempts to close that gap with data from surveys of psychiatrists in three culturally, socio-economically, and geographically diverse countries. The views of psychiatrists from Brazil, Japan, and New Zealand were sought on global aspects of diagnostic systems and their preferred classificatory systems. Methods: Although the same questionnaire was used in all three countries, the sampling techniques and procedures varied across them. In Brazil and New Zealand, a postal survey was carried out, whereas in Japan a Web-based approach was adopted. The total number of responses obtained was 529 (New Zealand, n = 245; Brazil, n = 160, and Japan, n = 124). Results: Different views on the use of International Classification of Diseases (10th edition) and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition, revised text) axes were found across the countries. Reliable inter-clinician communication is considered the main purpose of a classificatory system. The lack of axes to help treatment planning is pointed out. Perceived cross-cultural utility of current classifications varies across the countries. Psychiatrists seem to prefer classifications with less than 100 diagnostic options. Conclusions: We note two caveats about the study's limitations: No claim of representativeness of the samples is made here; this is a survey based on the opinion of psychiatrists, and, thus, it may not reflect actual use of diagnostic systems. Although psychiatrists are split with respect to taxonomic expectations, in general, they appear to be seeking, for the future, a somewhat simpler classificatory system, with comparable reliability and perhaps increased clinical usefulness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]