Search

Background: When treating potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, therapeutic decisions are left to the sensibility of treating clinicians who, faced with a decision that post hoc can be proven wrong, may feel a sense of regret that they want to avoid. A regret-based decision model was applied to evaluate attitudes to-ward neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery for potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Methods: Three clinical scenarios describing high-, intermediate-, and low-risk disease-specific mortality after upfront surgery were presented to 60 respondents (20 oncologists, 20 gastroenterologists, and 20 surgeons). Respondents were asked to report their regret of omission and commission regarding neo-adjuvant chemotherapy on a scale between 0 (no regret) and 100 (maximum regret). The threshold model and a multilevel mixed regression were applied to analyze respondents' attitudes toward neo-adjuvant therapy.Results: The lowest regret of omission was elicited in the low-risk scenario, and the highest regret in the high-risk scenario (P < .001). The regret of the commission was diametrically opposite to the regret of omission (P < .001). The disease-specific threshold mortality at which upfront surgery is favored over the neoadjuvant therapy progressively decreased from the low-risk to the high-risk scenarios (P <=.001). The nonsurgeons working in or with lower surgical volume centers (P = .010) and surgeons (P = .018) accepted higher disease-specific mortality after upfront surgery, which resulted in the lower likelihood of adopting neoadjuvant therapy.Conclusion: Regret drives decision making in the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Being a surgeon or a specialist working in surgical centers with lower patient volumes reduces the likelihood of recommending neoadjuvant therapy.(c) 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The current treatment approach in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) follows a stepwise management, starting from early introduction of conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), moving to biological (b) DMARDs and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs. In the last few years, new drugs with different mechanisms of action have demonstrated their efficacy in treating such a disabling condition, and their approval, along with other more "experienced" treatments, has established their effectiveness on disease activity, damage accrual prevention, patients' quality of life improvement, confirming their safety profile. Moreover, new molecular pathways are under investigation as potential targets of new advanced therapies. Clinicians' capability of stratifying treatment strategies and decisions has improved, with several new tools for the optimisation of long-term management of RA; however, a high proportion of patients are refractory to the available drugs. Finally, as RA is a systemic disease, the knowledge in multi-systemic complications of the disease has grown, as well as the possibility in improving extra-articular manifestations of the disease, although certain drugs have potentially relevant non-articular effects, which need to be monitored. This narrative review summarises the most relevant studies published over the last year in the field of treatment of RA, with the major aim to let clinicians and researchers reflect on "what is new", "what is effective" and "what is safe".

This paper investigates the accuracy of internal rating based (IRB) models in measuring credit risk. We contribute to the growing debate on the current prudential regulatory framework by investigating the use of validated IRB models in promoting efficient risk management practices. Our empirical analysis is based on a novel panel data set of 177 Western European banks observed from 2008 to 2015, in the aftermath of the financial and economic crisis. We find that IRB banks were able to curb the increase in credit risk driven by the macroeconomic slowdown better than banks under the standardized approach. This suggests that the introduction of the internal ratings based approach by Basel II has promoted the adoption of stronger risk management practices among banks, as meant by the regulators.