The effects of information type (features vs. configuration) and location (eyes vs. mouth) on the development of face perception.

The goal of the current study was to investigate the development of face processing strategies in a perceptual discrimination task. Children (7-12 years of age) and young adults were administered the Face Dimensions Task. In the Face Dimensions Task, participants were asked to judge whether two simultaneously presented faces were the "same" or "different". For the "same" trials, the two faces were identical. For the "different" trials, the faces differed in either the spacing between the eyes, the spacing between the nose and the mouth, the size of the eyes, or the size of the mouth. The main finding was that 7- to 10-year-old children showed no difference in their ability to discriminate differences in eye size and eye spacing but showed a poor ability to discriminate differences in nose and mouth spacing and, to a lesser extent, mouth size. The developmental lag between nose-mouth discriminations and the other featural and configural discriminations was reduced in older children and eliminated by young adulthood. These results indicate that the type of face information (i.e., configural vs. featural) and its location (i.e., eye vs. mouth) jointly contribute to the development of face perception abilities.

Phase I trial of MS-275, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, administered weekly in refractory solid tumors and lymphoid malignancies.

PURPOSE: MS-275 is a histone deacetylase inhibitor that has shown potent and unique anticancer activity in preclinical models. The aims of this phase I trial were to determine the dose-limiting toxicities and maximum tolerated dose of oral MS-275 in humans administered with food on a once weekly schedule and to study the pharmacokinetics of oral MS-275. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with refractory solid tumors and lymphoid malignancies were treated with oral MS-275 on a once weekly schedule for 4 weeks of a 6-week cycle. Samples for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses were collected during cycle 1. Protein acetylation in subpopulations of peripheral blood mononuclear cells was measured using a multivariable flow cytometry assay. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients were enrolled, and 19 were considered evaluable for toxicity. The maximum tolerated dose was 6 mg/m(2). No National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria grade 4 toxicities were observed. Dose-limiting grade 3 toxicities were reversible and consisted of hypophosphatemia, hyponatremia, and hypoalbuminemia. Non-dose-limiting grade 3 myelosuppression was also observed. The mean terminal half-life of MS-275 was 33.9 +/- 26.2 and the T(max) ranged from 0.5 to 24 h. Although there was considerable interpatient variability in pharmacokinetics, the area under the plasma concentration versus time curve increased linearly with dose. CONCLUSIONS: MS-275 is well tolerated at a dose of 6 mg/m(2) administered weekly with food for 4 weeks every 6 weeks. Drug exposure increases linearly with dose, and protein acetylation increased in all the subpopulations of peripheral blood mononuclear cells following MS-275 administration.

Patients' decision-making process regarding participation in phase I oncology research.

PURPOSE: This study assesses the decision-making process of patients enrolling in phase I oncology studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants were eligible if they had consented to participate in a phase I cancer study at one of five cancer centers, understood English, and were older than 18 years. Trained interviewers conducted structured in-person interviews. RESULTS: Of the 163 participants, 88% were white, 96% had health insurance, and 51% were college graduates or post graduates. Overall, 81% were aware of hospice, but only 6% had seriously considered hospice for themselves; 84% were aware of palliative care and 10% seriously considered it for themselves; and 7% considered getting no treatment at all. Overall, 75% reported moderate or a lot of pressure to participate in the phase I study because their cancer was growing, whereas 7% reported such pressure from the study investigators and 9% felt such pressure from their families. For 63% of patients, the most important information for decision making was that the phase I drug killed cancer cells; only 12% reported that the adverse effects of the drug(s) was the most useful information. More than 90% of patients said they would still participate in the study even if the experimental drug caused serious adverse effects, including a 10% chance of dying. CONCLUSION: Patients are aware of many alternatives to phase I studies, but do not seriously consider them. Very few experience pressure from family or researchers to participate in research. Their main goal is to fight their cancer, and almost no adverse effect, including death, would dissuade them from enrolling.