Explore the vast range of titles available.

The paper contributes to contemporary understandings of vulnerability by expanding their scope with an understanding of vulnerability as generated through institutionalised practices. The argument draws on experiential accounts of navigating the practices of diagnosis by people living with multiple conditions of ill-health and disability. Vulnerability as a concept is used widely across different domains and conveys a multitude of meanings. Contemporary biomedicine, and its associated health systems and services, understands vulnerability mostly as inherent to particular physical and mental bodily conditions that put people at risk of ill-health or emotionally fragility. This may combine with a more epidemiological understanding of vulnerability as the experience of certain population groups subject to entrenched structural inequalities. Philosophers and feminists have argued that vulnerability is a universal experience of being human while political commentators have explored its potential as a resource for resistance and action. Diagnosis within medicine and psychiatry has been the subject of extensive social analysis, critique and activism. The paper draws on first-hand experiential accounts collected through face-to-face interviews with people living with multiple conditions about their experiences of diagnosis, mostly at the primary care level. We identify five aspects to diagnostic practice that are harmful and exacerbate the experience of vulnerability: temporal sequencing; diagnostic authority; medical specialisation; strategic symptom selection; medical isolation. However, these diagnostic practices are not best understood only in terms of the power asymmetries inherent to the medical consultation, but are embedded into the very institution of diagnosis. The paper thus proposes a combined approach to vulnerability that recognises it as a universal condition of humanity but one that becomes animated or amplified for some bodies, through their own inherent incapacities or the external structures of inequality, and through the practices of medicine as situated in particular times and places.

Ovidian Bibliofictions and the Tudor Book examines the historical and the fictionalized reception of Ovid's poetry in the literature and books of Tudor England. It does so through the study of a particular set of Ovidian narratives-namely, those concerning the protean heroines of the Heroides and Metamorphoses. In the late medieval and Renaissance eras, Ovid's poetry stimulated the vernacular imaginations of authors ranging from Geoffrey Chaucer and John Gower to Isabella Whitney, William Shakespeare, and Michael Drayton. Ovid's English protégés replicated and expanded upon the Roman poet's distinctive and frequently remarked 'bookishness' in their own adaptations of his works. Focusing on the postclassical discourses that Ovid's poetry stimulated, Ovidian Bibliofictions and the Tudor Book engages with vibrant current debates about the book as material object as it explores the Ovidian-inspired mythologies and bibliographical aetiologies that informed the sixteenth-century creation, reproduction, and representation of books. Further, author Lindsay Ann Reid's discussions of Ovidianism provide alternative models for thinking about the dynamics of reception, adaptation, and imitatio. While there is a sizeable body of published work on Ovid and Chaucer as well as on the ubiquitous Ovidianism of the 1590s, there has been comparatively little scholarship on Ovid's reception between these two eras. Ovidian Bibliofictions and the Tudor Book begins to fill this gap between the ages of Chaucer and Shakespeare by dedicating attention to the literature of the early Tudor era. In so doing, this book also contributes to current discussions surrounding medieval/Renaissance periodization.

mTOR inhibition reverses trastuzumab resistance via the hyperactivated PIK/AKT/mTOR pathway due to PTEN loss, by sensitising PTEN-deficient tumours to trastuzumab. The BOLERO-1 study assessed the efficacy and safety of adding everolimus to trastuzumab and paclitaxel as first-line treatment for patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind trial, patients were enrolled across 141 sites in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with locally assessed HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–1, who had not received previous trastuzumab or chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer within 12 months of randomisation, had measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) or bone lesions in the absence of measurable disease, without previous systemic treatment for advanced disease except endocrine therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) with an interactive voice and web response system to receive either 10 mg everolimus once a day orally or placebo plus weekly trastuzumab intravenously at 4 mg/kg loading dose on day 1 with subsequent weekly doses of 2 mg/kg of each 4 week cycle plus paclitaxel intravenously at a dose of 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 4 week cycle. Randomisation was stratified according to previous use of trastuzumab and visceral metastasis. Patients and investigators were masked to the assigned treatments. Identity of experimental treatments was concealed by use of everolimus and placebo that were identical in packaging, labelling, appearance, and administration schedule. The two primary objectives were investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the full study population and in the subset of patients with hormone receptor-negative breast cancer at baseline; the latter was added during the course of the study, before unmasking based on new clinical and biological findings from other studies. All efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population. Enrolment for this trial is closed and results of the final progression-free survival analyses are presented here. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00876395. Between Sept 10, 2009, and Dec 16, 2012, 719 patients were randomly assigned to receive everolimus (n=480) or placebo (n=239). Median follow-up was 41·3 months (IQR 35·4–46·6). In the full population, median progression-free survival was 14·95 months (95% CI 14·55–17·91) with everolimus versus 14·49 months (12·29–17·08) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·73–1·08; p=0·1166). In the HR-negative subpopulation (n=311), median progression-free survival with everolimus was 20·27 months (95% CI 14·95–24·08) versus 13·08 months (10·05–16·56) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·48–0·91; p=0·0049); however, the protocol-specified significance threshold (p=0·0044) was not crossed. The most common adverse events with everolimus were stomatitis (314 [67%] of 472 patients in the everolimus group vs 77 [32%] of 238 patients in the placebo group), diarrhoea (267 [57%] vs 111 [47%] patients), and alopecia (221 [47%] vs 125 [53%]). The most frequently reported grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the everolimus group versus the placebo group were neutropenia (117 [25%] vs 35 [15%]), stomatitis (59 [13%] vs three [1%]), anaemia (46 [10%] vs six [3%]) and diarrhoea (43 [9%] vs 10 [4%]) On-treatment adverse event-related deaths were reported in 17 (4%) patients in the everolimus group and none in the placebo group. Although progression-free survival was not significantly different between groups in the full analysis population, the 7·2 months prolongation we noted with the addition of everolimus in the HR-negative, HER2-positive population warrants further investigation, even if it did not meet prespecified criteria for significance. The safety profile was generally consistent with what was previously reported in BOLERO-3. Proactive monitoring and early management of adverse events in patients given everolimus and chemotherapy is crucial. Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

We compared standard adjuvant anthracycline chemotherapy with anthracycline–taxane combination chemotherapy in women with operable node-positive breast cancer. Here we report the final, 10-year follow-up analysis of disease-free survival, overall survival, and long-term safety. BCIRG 001 was an open label, phase 3, multicentre trial in which 1491 patients aged 18–70 years with node-positive, early breast cancer and a Karnofsky score of 80% or more were randomly assigned to adjuvant treatment with docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) or fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) every 3 weeks for six cycles. Randomisation was stratified according to institution and number of involved axillary lymph nodes per patient (one to three vs four or more). Disease-free survival was the primary endpoint and was defined as the interval between randomisation and breast cancer relapse, second primary cancer, or death, whichever occurred first. Efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. BCIRG 001 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00688740. Enrolement took place between June 11, 1997 and June 3, 1999; 745 patients were assigned to receive TAC and 746 patients were assigned to receive FAC. After a median follow-up of 124 months (IQR 90–126), disease-free survival was 62% (95% CI 58–65) for patients in the TAC group and 55% (51–59) for patients in the FAC group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·68–0·93; log-rank p=0·0043). 10-year overall survival was 76% (95% CI 72–79) for patients in the TAC group and 69% (65–72) for patients in the FAC group (HR 0·74, 0·61–0·90; log-rank p=0·0020). TAC improved disease-free survival relative to FAC irrespective of nodal, hormone receptor, and HER2 status, although not all differences were significant in these subgroup analyses. Grade 3–4 heart failure occurred in 26 (3%) patients in the TAC group and 17 (2%) patients in the FAC group, and caused death in two patients in the TAC group and four patients in the FAC group. A substantial decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (defined as a relative decrease from baseline of 20% or more) was seen in 58 (17%) patients who received TAC and 41 (15%) patients who received FAC. Six patients who received TAC developed leukaemia or myelodysplasia, as did three patients who received FAC. Our results provide evidence that the initial therapeutic outcomes seen at the 5-year follow-up with a docetaxel-containing adjuvant regimen are maintained at 10 years. However, a substantial percentage of patients had a decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction, probably caused by anthracycline therapy, which warrants further investigation. Sanofi.

A collaboration between AFP and the Lown Institute promotes a vision of delivering health care that is based on the evidence, balanced in its approach, and focused on the patient.