Palmar erythema: A diagnostic clue of juvenile dermatomyositis

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (7) ◽  
pp. 1161-1161
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Dermatomyositis ◽  
Palmar Erythema ◽  
Diagnostic Clue

Palmar erythema: A diagnostic clue of juvenile dermatomyositis

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (7) ◽  
pp. 1159-1159
Author(s):  
Stefano Amoroso ◽  
Serena Pastore ◽  
Alberto Tommasini ◽  
Andrea Taddio
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Dermatomyositis ◽  
Palmar Erythema ◽  
Diagnostic Clue

Juvenile Dermatomyositis

1997 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 354-357
Author(s):  
Yumiko KUBOTA ◽  
Tetsuya KOGA ◽  
Shoji TOSHITANI
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Dermatomyositis

A Case of Juvenile Dermatomyositis which Changed into Psoriasiform Eruption

2003 ◽  
Vol 65 (5) ◽  
pp. 433-437
Author(s):  
Yumiko KUBOTA ◽  
Juichiro NAKAYAMA
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Dermatomyositis

Two Cases of Juvenile Dermatomyositis: Case Series and Review of the Literature

2019 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-17
Author(s):  
Yuka KUNIMI ◽  
Yasunori OHGA ◽  
Kotaro ITO ◽  
Shinichi HIROSE ◽  
Shinichi IMAFUKU
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Dermatomyositis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Review Of The Literature

81 Identifying and predicting novel classes of long-term disease trajectories for patients with juvenile dermatomyositis using growth mixture models

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Deakin ◽  
Charalampia Papadopoulou ◽  
Muthana Al Obaidi ◽  
Clarissa Pilkington ◽  
Lucy Wedderburn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixture Models ◽  
Juvenile Dermatomyositis ◽  
Growth Mixture Models ◽  
Growth Mixture

Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Mitomycin, Cisplatin, and Protracted Venous-Infusion Fluorouracil (PVI 5-FU) With Epirubicin, Cisplatin, and PVI 5-FU in Advanced Esophagogastric Cancer

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 1996-2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Ross ◽  
M. Nicolson ◽  
D. Cunningham ◽  
J. Valle ◽  
M. Seymour ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Study ◽  
Squamous Carcinoma ◽  
Undifferentiated Carcinoma ◽  
Palmar Erythema ◽  
Esophagogastric Cancer ◽  
Equivalent Efficacy ◽  
Venous Infusion ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

PURPOSE: We report the results of a prospectively randomized study that compared the combination of epirubicin, cisplatin, and protracted venous-infusion fluorouracil (PVI 5-FU) (ECF) with the combination of mitomycin, cisplatin, and PVI 5-FU (MCF) in previously untreated patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Five hundred eighty patients with adenocarcinoma, squamous carcinoma, or undifferentiated carcinoma were randomized to receive either ECF (epirubicin 50 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, cisplatin 60 mg/m2 every 3 weeks and PVI 5-FU 200 mg/m2/d) or MCF (mitomycin 7 mg/m2 every 6 weeks, cisplatin 60 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, and PVI 5-FU 300 mg/m2/d) and analyzed for survival, response, toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 42.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37% to 48%) with ECF and 44.1% (95% CI, 38% to 50%) with MCF (P = .692). Toxicity was tolerable, and there were only two toxic deaths. ECF resulted in more grade 3/4 neutropenia and grade 2 alopecia, but MCF caused more thrombocytopenia and plantar-palmar erythema. Median survival was 9.4 months with ECF and 8.7 months with MCF (P = .315); at 1 year, 40.2% (95% CI, 34% to 46%) of ECF and 32.7% (95% CI, 27% to 38%) of MCF patients were alive. Median failure-free survival was 7 months with both regimens. Global QOL scores were better with ECF at 3 and 6 months. CONCLUSION: This study confirms response, survival, and QOL benefits of ECF observed in a previous randomized study. The equivalent efficacy of MCF was demonstrated, but QOL was superior with ECF. ECF remains one of the reference treatments for advanced esophagogastric cancer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document