Phase I study of dose-escalated paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (PIC) combination chemotherapy in advanced solid tumours

Based on the already known in vitro synergy between paclitaxel (taxol), cisplatin and oxazophosphorine cytostatics and the broad spectrum of activity of the above drugs we sought to evaluate the paclitaxel (taxol)-ifosfamide-cisplatin (PIC) combination in the outpatient setting in individuals with a variety of advanced solid tumours. Cohorts of patients were entered into six successive dose levels (DLs) with drug doses ranging as follows: paclitaxel 135–215 mg m−2day 1 – (1 h infusion), ifosfamide 4.5–6.0 g m−2(total dose) – divided over days 1 and 2, and cisplatin 80–100 mg m−2(total) – divided over days 1 and 2. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given from day 5 to 14. Forty-two patients were entered. Eighteen patients had 2–8 cycles of prior chemotherapy with no taxanes or ifosfamide (cisplatin was allowed). The regimen was tolerated with outpatient administration in 36/42 patients. Toxicities included: grade 4 neutropenia for ≤ 5 days in 27% of cycles; 5 episodes of febrile neutropenia in three patients at DL-III, -V and -VI. Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and cumulative grade 3 anaemia were seen in 7% and 13% of cycles respectively. Three cases of severe grade 3 neuromotor/sensory neuropathy were recorded at DL-II, -III, and -V, all after cycle 3. The maximum tolerated dose was not formally reached at DL-V, but because of progressive anaemia and asthenia/fatigue, it was decided to test a new DL-VI with doses of paclitaxel 200 mg m−2, ifosfamide 5.0 g m−2and cisplatin 100 mg m−2; this appeared to be tolerable and is recommended for further phase II testing. The response rate was 47.5% (complete response + partial response: 20/42). The PIC regimen appears to be feasible and safe in the outpatient setting. Care should be paid to neurotoxicity. Phase II studies are starting in non-small-cell lung cancer, ovarian cancer and head and neck cancer at DL-VI. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaig

The pivotal role of effort beliefs in mediating implicit theories of intelligence and achievement goals & academic motivations

Empirical studies into meaning systems surrounding implicit theories of intelligence typically entail two stringent assumptions: that different implicit theories and different effort beliefs represent opposite poles on a single scale, and that implicit theories directly impact the constructs as achievement goals and academic motivations. Through an empirical study based on a large sample of university students, we aim to demonstrate that relaxing these stringent assumptions, and thereby using the meaning system framework to its full potential, will provide strong benefits: effort beliefs are crucial mediators of relationships between implicit theories and achievement goals and academic motivations, and the different poles of implicit theories and effort beliefs do expose different relationships with goal setting behaviour and academic motivations. A structural equation model, cross-validated by demonstrating gender-invariance of path coefficients, demonstrates that incremental and entity theory views have less predictive power than positive and negative effort beliefs in explaining achievement goals and motivations

Fluid Intelligence and Psychosocial Outcome: From Logical Problem Solving to Social Adaptation

While fluid intelligence has proved to be central to executive functioning, logical reasoning and other frontal functions, the role of this ability in psychosocial adaptation has not been well characterized.Lower fluid intelligence scores were associated with physical violence, both in the role of victim and victimizer. Drug intake, especially cannabis, cocaine and inhalants and lower self-esteem were also associated with lower fluid intelligence. Finally, scores on the perceived mental health assessment were better when fluid intelligence scores were higher.Our results show evidence of a strong association between psychosocial adaptation and fluid intelligence, suggesting that the latter is not only central to executive functioning but also forms part of a more general capacity for adaptation to social contexts

Within-trait heterogeneity in age group differences in personality domains and facets:implications for the development and coherence of personality traits

The study investigated differences in the Five-Factor Model (FFM) domains and facets across adulthood. The main questions were whether personality scales reflected coherent units of trait development and thereby coherent personality traits more generally. These questions were addressed by testing if the components of the trait scales (items for facet scales and facets for domain scales) showed consistent age group differences. For this, measurement invariance (MI) framework was used. In a sample of 2,711 Estonians who had completed the NEO Personality Inventory 3 (NEO PI-3), more than half of the facet scales and one domain scale did not meet the criterion for weak MI (factor loading equality) across 12 age groups spanning ages from 18 to 91 years. Furthermore, none of the facet and domain scales met the criterion for strong MI (intercept equality), suggesting that items of the same facets and facets of the same domains varied in age group differences. When items were residualized for their respective facets, 46% of them had significant (p < 0.0002) residual age-correlations. When facets were residualized for their domain scores, a majority had significant (p < 0.002) residual age-correlations. For each domain, a series of latent factors were specified using random quarters of their items: scores of such latent factors varied notably (within domains) in correlations with age. We argue that manifestations of aetiologically coherent traits should show similar age group differences. Given this, the FFM domains and facets as embodied in the NEO PI-3 do not reflect aetiologically coherent traits