Critical Perspective: Named Reactions Discovered and Developed by Women

Named organic reactions. As chemists, we’re all familiar with them: who can forget the Diels−Alder reaction? But how much do we know about the people behind the names? For example, can you identify a reaction named for a woman? How about a reaction discovered or developed by a woman but named for her male adviser? Our attempts to answer these simple questions started us on the journey that led to this Account. We introduce you to four reactions named for women and nine reactions discovered or developed by women. Using information obtained from the literature and, whenever possible, through interviews with the chemists themselves, their associates, and their advisers, we paint a more detailed picture of these remarkable women and their outstanding accomplishments. Some of the women you meet in this Account include Irma Goldberg, the only woman unambiguously recognized with her own named reaction. Gertrude Maud Robinson, the wife of Robert Robinson, who collaborated with him on several projects including the Piloty−Robinson pyrrole synthesis. Elizabeth Hardy, the Bryn Mawr graduate student who discovered the Cope rearrangement. Dorothee Felix, a critical member of Albert Eschenmoser’s research lab for over forty years who helped develop both the Eschenmoser−Claisen rearrangement and the Eschenmoser−Tanabe fragmentation. Jennifer Loebach, the University of Illinois undergraduate who was part of the team in Eric Jacobsen’s lab that discovered the Jacobsen−Katsuki epoxidation. Keiko Noda, a graduate student in Tsutomu Katsuki’s lab who also played a key role in the development of the Jacobsen−Katsuki epoxidation. Lydia McKinstry, a postdoc in Andrew Myers’s lab who helped develop the Myers asymmetric alkylation. Rosa Lockwood, a graduate student at Boston College whose sole publication is the discovery of the Nicholas reaction. Kaori Ando, a successful professor in Japan who helped develop the Roush asymmetric alkylation as a postdoc at MIT. Bianka Tchoubar, a critically important member of the organic chemistry community in France who developed the Tiffeneau−Demjanov rearrangement. The accomplishments of the women in this Account illustrate the key roles women have played in the discovery and development of reactions used daily by organic chemists around the world. These pioneering chemists represent the vanguard of women in the field, and we are confident that many more of the growing number of current and future female organic chemists will be recognized with their own named reactions

Outcomes of Patients with Clinical Stage I-IIIA Large-Cell Neuroendocrine Lung Cancer Treated with Resection

Large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is a rare malignancy with poor prognosis. The rationale of the study was to determine the survival of LCNEC patients in I–IIIA clinical stages who underwent resection. A total of 53 LCNEC (89%) and combined LCNEC (11%) patients in stages I–IIIA who underwent surgery with radical intent between 2002–2018 were included in the current study. Overall survival (OS) and time to recurrence (TTR) were estimated. Uni- and multivariable analyses were conducted using Cox-regression model. Patients were treated with surgery alone (51%), surgery with radiochemotherapy (4%), with radiotherapy (2%), with adjuvant chemotherapy (41%), or with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (2%). The median (95% Confidence Interval (CI)) OS and TTR was 52 months (20.1–102.1 months) and 20 months (7.0–75.6 months), respectively. Patients treated in clinical stage I showed better OS than patients in stages II–IIIA (p = 0.008). Patients with R0 resection margin (negative margin, no tumor at the margin) and without lymph node metastasis had significantly better TTR. In the multivariate analysis, age was an independent factor influencing OS. Recurrence within 1 year was noted in more than half cases of LCNEC. R0 resection margin and N0 status (no lymph node metastasis) were factors improving TTR. Age &gt;64 years was observed as a main independent factor influencing OS.</jats:p

Outcomes of Patients with Pulmonary Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma in I–IV Stage

Background and Objectives: Large cell neuroendocrine cancer is characterised by poor prognosis. The standard of treatment is still not established. The aim of this study was to assess the predictive factors of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) and combined LCNEC. Materials and Methods: All patients had confirmed pathology stage I-IV disease recorded between period 2002&ndash;2018. Survival curves were estimated by Kaplan&ndash;Meier method. Uni- and multivariable analysis was conducted using Cox-regression analysis. Results: A total of 132 patients with LCNEC and combined LCNEC were included. Half of them had clinical stage IIIB/C-IV. Patients were treated with radical (n = 67, including surgery alone; resection with neo-adjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, radiochemotherapy, or adjuvant radiotherapy; patients treated with radiochemotherapy alone), palliative (n = 41) or symptomatic (n = 24) intention. Seventeen patients were treated with resection margin R1 or R2. Non-small cell carcinoma (NSCLC) chemotherapy (platinum-vinorelbine; PN schedule) and small-cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) chemotherapy approaches (platinum/carboplatinum-etoposide; PE/KE schedule) were administered in 20 and in 55 patients, respectively. The median (95% Confidence Interval (CI)) OS and PFS were 17 months (9.0&ndash;36.2 months) and 7 months (3.0&ndash;15.0 months), respectively. Patients treated with negative resection margin, with lower clinical stage, without lymph node metastasis, and with size of primary tumour &le;4 cm showed significantly better OS and PFS. The main risk factors with an adverse effect on survival were advanced CS and positive resection margin. Conclusions: Patients with LCNEC characterized poor prognosis. Independent prognostic factors influencing PFS were initial clinical stage and resection margin R0 vs. R1-2

Outcomes of Patients with Clinical Stage I-IIIA Large-Cell Neuroendocrine Lung Cancer Treated with Resection

Large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is a rare malignancy with poor prognosis. The rationale of the study was to determine the survival of LCNEC patients in I&ndash;IIIA clinical stages who underwent resection. A total of 53 LCNEC (89%) and combined LCNEC (11%) patients in stages I&ndash;IIIA who underwent surgery with radical intent between 2002&ndash;2018 were included in the current study. Overall survival (OS) and time to recurrence (TTR) were estimated. Uni- and multivariable analyses were conducted using Cox-regression model. Patients were treated with surgery alone (51%), surgery with radiochemotherapy (4%), with radiotherapy (2%), with adjuvant chemotherapy (41%), or with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (2%). The median (95% Confidence Interval (CI)) OS and TTR was 52 months (20.1&ndash;102.1 months) and 20 months (7.0&ndash;75.6 months), respectively. Patients treated in clinical stage I showed better OS than patients in stages II&ndash;IIIA (p = 0.008). Patients with R0 resection margin (negative margin, no tumor at the margin) and without lymph node metastasis had significantly better TTR. In the multivariate analysis, age was an independent factor influencing OS. Recurrence within 1 year was noted in more than half cases of LCNEC. R0 resection margin and N0 status (no lymph node metastasis) were factors improving TTR. Age &gt;64 years was observed as a main independent factor influencing OS

Outcomes of Patients with Pulmonary Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma in I–IV Stage

Background and Objectives: Large cell neuroendocrine cancer is characterised by poor prognosis. The standard of treatment is still not established. The aim of this study was to assess the predictive factors of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) and combined LCNEC. Materials and Methods: All patients had confirmed pathology stage I-IV disease recorded between period 2002–2018. Survival curves were estimated by Kaplan–Meier method. Uni- and multivariable analysis was conducted using Cox-regression analysis. Results: A total of 132 patients with LCNEC and combined LCNEC were included. Half of them had clinical stage IIIB/C-IV. Patients were treated with radical (n = 67, including surgery alone; resection with neo-adjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, radiochemotherapy, or adjuvant radiotherapy; patients treated with radiochemotherapy alone), palliative (n = 41) or symptomatic (n = 24) intention. Seventeen patients were treated with resection margin R1 or R2. Non-small cell carcinoma (NSCLC) chemotherapy (platinum-vinorelbine; PN schedule) and small-cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) chemotherapy approaches (platinum/carboplatinum-etoposide; PE/KE schedule) were administered in 20 and in 55 patients, respectively. The median (95% Confidence Interval (CI)) OS and PFS were 17 months (9.0–36.2 months) and 7 months (3.0–15.0 months), respectively. Patients treated with negative resection margin, with lower clinical stage, without lymph node metastasis, and with size of primary tumour ≤4 cm showed significantly better OS and PFS. The main risk factors with an adverse effect on survival were advanced CS and positive resection margin. Conclusions: Patients with LCNEC characterized poor prognosis. Independent prognostic factors influencing PFS were initial clinical stage and resection margin R0 vs. R1-2.</jats:p

Outcomes of Patients with Pulmonary Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma in I–IV Stage

Background and Objectives: Large cell neuroendocrine cancer is characterised by poor prognosis. The standard of treatment is still not established. The aim of this study was to assess the predictive factors of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) and combined LCNEC. Materials and Methods: All patients had confirmed pathology stage I-IV disease recorded between period 2002–2018. Survival curves were estimated by Kaplan–Meier method. Uni- and multivariable analysis was conducted using Cox-regression analysis. Results: A total of 132 patients with LCNEC and combined LCNEC were included. Half of them had clinical stage IIIB/C-IV. Patients were treated with radical (n = 67, including surgery alone; resection with neo-adjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, radiochemotherapy, or adjuvant radiotherapy; patients treated with radiochemotherapy alone), palliative (n = 41) or symptomatic (n = 24) intention. Seventeen patients were treated with resection margin R1 or R2. Non-small cell carcinoma (NSCLC) chemotherapy (platinum-vinorelbine; PN schedule) and small-cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) chemotherapy approaches (platinum/carboplatinum-etoposide; PE/KE schedule) were administered in 20 and in 55 patients, respectively. The median (95% Confidence Interval (CI)) OS and PFS were 17 months (9.0–36.2 months) and 7 months (3.0–15.0 months), respectively. Patients treated with negative resection margin, with lower clinical stage, without lymph node metastasis, and with size of primary tumour ≤4 cm showed significantly better OS and PFS. The main risk factors with an adverse effect on survival were advanced CS and positive resection margin. Conclusions: Patients with LCNEC characterized poor prognosis. Independent prognostic factors influencing PFS were initial clinical stage and resection margin R0 vs. R1-2