ABSTRACT
During the last decade neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) has moved from being reserved for elderly and frail non-chemotherapy candidates to a primary systemic modality in selected patients with hormone sensitive breast cancer. Neoadjuvant hormonal treatment in patients with hormone receptor positive, HER-2 negative early breast cancer is proven to be an effective and safe option; it is associated with a higher rate of breast conserving surgery (BCS), may reduce the need for adjuvant chemotherapy and enables a delay of surgery for medical or practical reasons. Clinical responses range from 13% to 100% with at least 3 months of NET. Methods of assessing response should include MRI of the breast, particularly in lobular tumours. In studies comparing tamoxifen with aromatase inhibitors (AI), AI proved to be superior in terms of tumour response and rates of BCS. Change in Ki67 is accepted as a validated endpoint for comparing endocrine neoadjuvant agents. Levels of Ki67 during treatment are more closely related to long-term prognosis than pretreatment Ki67. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy provides a unique opportunity for studies of endocrine responsiveness and the development of new experimental drugs combined with systemic hormonal treatment.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal/administration & dosage , Aromatase Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Neoadjuvant Therapy/methods , Receptor, ErbB-2/drug effects , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Early Detection of Cancer , Female , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Mastectomy, Segmental/methods , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Invasiveness/pathology , Neoplasm Staging , Prognosis , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Risk Factors , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: In September 2007, the Department of Health published Uniforms and Workwear: an Evidence Base for Guiding Local Policy. Following this, most National Health Service trusts imposed a 'bare below the elbow' dress code policy, with clinical staff asked to remove ties, wristwatches and hand jewellery and to wear short-sleeved tops. There is currently no evidence linking dress code to the transmission of hospital-acquired infection. We designed the current survey to assess patients' perceptions of doctors' appearance, with specific reference to the 'bare below the elbow' policy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire showing photographs of a doctor in three different types of attire ('scrubs', formal attire and 'bare below the elbow') were used to gather responses from 80 in-patients and 80 out-patients in the ENT department. Patients were asked which outfit they felt was the most hygienic, the most professional and the easiest identification of the person as a doctor. They were also asked to indicate their overall preference. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS: Formal attire was considered most professional and the easiest identification that the person was a doctor. Scrubs were considered most hygienic. Respondents' overall preference was divided between scrubs and formal clothes. 'Bare below the elbow' attire received the lowest votes in all categories. DISCUSSION: This finding raises significant questions about the Department of Health policy in question. The authors suggest that an alternative policy should be considered, with scrubs worn for in-patient situations and formal attire during out-patient encounters.
