Abstract:

Biomarkers, or biological markers, are defined in various ways. Some define it as ‘a biologic feature that can be used to measure the presence or progress of disease or the effects of treatment. One goal of biomarker usage in clinical research is to expedite the drug development process to produce drug therapies as efficiently as possible, while maintaining the safety profile. Biomarkers have been used for decades, from monitoring blood pressure to lipid levels. Tumor biomarkers represent an effective tool for tumor diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and therapeutic monitoring. Ideally, the use of biomarkers in early trials would help predict the likelihood of success or failure of a drug in efficacy trials. Biomarkers can predict drug efficacy more quickly than conventional clinical end points; they hold the potential to substantially accelerate product development in certain disease. This review is mainly focused on the role biomarkers in cancer drug development process and the literature was collected from articles published in PUBMED, Medline, and the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews.

References:

[1].     Chabner BA, Roberts TG Jr. Timeline: Chemotherapy and the war on cancer. Nature reviews 2005, 5(1):65-72.

[2].      Bernardo HL, Goulart, Clark JW, Pien HH, et al. Trends in the Use and Role of Biomarkers in Phase I Oncology Trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Nov 15; 13(22 Pt 1):6719-26.

[3].     Yeh CN, Chen TW, Wu TJ, et al. Treatment of patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor of small bowel: implications of imatinib mesylate. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2006; 12(23):3760-5.

[4]. Guo J, Li Y, Lam CWK. ZH-1 enhances the anticancer activity of gemcitabine via deoxyribonucleotide synthesis and apoptotic pathway against A549 cells. Food Chem Toxicol. 2018; 15(18) 30221-7.

[5].  Liu Y, Lu S, Zhao L, Dong X. Effects of glaucocalyxin an on human liver cancer cells as revealed by GC/MS- and LC/MS-based metabolic profiling. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2018; 410(14): 3325-3335.

[6]. Suraweera A, O'Byrne KJ, Richard DJ. Combination Therapy with Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors (HDACi) for the Treatment of Cancer: Achieving the Full Therapeutic Potential of HDACi. Front Oncol. 2018 Mar 29; 8:92.

[7]. Jain KK. Proteomics-based anticancer drug discovery and development. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2002 Aug; 1(4):231-6.

[8]. Wu ZZ, Ding GF, Huang FF, et al. Anticancer Activity of Anthopleuraanjunae Oligopeptides in Prostate Cancer DU-145 Cells. Mar Drugs. 2018 Apr 12; 16(4): 125.

[9]. Zhang WY, Yi QY, Wang YJ, et al. Photo induced anticancer activity studies of iridium (III) complexes targeting mitochondria and tubules. Eur J Med Chem. 2018 Apr 7; 151:568-584.

[10]. Jochems A, Leeneman B, Franken MG, et al. Real-world use, safety, and survival of ipilimumab in metastatic cutaneous melanoma in The Netherlands. Anticancer Drugs 2018; 29(6):572-578.

[11]. Loong MT. Emerging Trends in Oncology: Greater Role for Radiology. Journal of Medical Diagnostic Methods.2012; 10(4172):2168-9784.

[12]. Robert S. Negm, Mukesh Verma, Sudhir Srivastava. The promise of biomarkers in cancer screening and detection. TRENDS in Molecular Medicine 2002; 8 (6); 221- 256.

[13]. Duffy MJ. Role of tumor markers in patients with solid cancers: a critical review. Eur J Intern Med 2007; 18:175–184.

[14]. Xi Chen, Yi Ba, Chen-Yu Zhang “Characterization of microRNAs in serum: a novel class of biomarkers for diagnosis of cancer and other diseases” Cell Res. 2008 Oct; 18(10):997-1006.

[15]. Moertel C. G. Chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med., 1994; 330:1136-1142.

[16]. Qazi F., McGuire W. P. The treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer. CA Cancer J. Clin., 1995; 45:88-101.

[17]. Satoshi Nishizuka, Sing-Tsung Chen, Fuad G. Gwadry, Jes Alexander, Sylvia M. Major. Diagnostic Markers That Distinguish Colon and Ovarian Adenocarcinomas: Identification by Genomic, Proteomic, and Tissue Array Profiling. Molecular Biology, Pathobiology, and Genetics, 2003; 63 (1): 5243–5250.

[18]. Jakobsen NA, Hamdy FC, Bryant RJ. Novel biomarkers for the detection of prostate cancer. J Clin Urol. 2016; 9(2 Suppl):3-10.

[19]. Pritchard CC, Kroh E, Wood B, et al. Blood cell origin of circulating microRNAs: a cautionary note for cancer biomarker studies. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011;5(3):492-497.

[20]. Shimomura A, Shiino S, Kawauchi J, et al. Novel combination of serum microRNAs for detecting breast cancer in the early stage. Cancer Sci. 2016; 107(3):326-34.

[21]. Xuemei Zhao, Vijay Modur, Leonidas N. Carayannopoulos, Omar F. Laterza Clinical Chemistry Nov 2015, 61 (11) 1343-1353;

[22]. Smith AD, Roda D, Yap TA. Strategies for modern biomarker and drug development in oncology. J Hematol Oncol. 2014; 7:70. Published 2014 Oct 3. doi:10.1186/s13045-014-0070-8.

Abstract:

This article is designed to measure the library service quality on library usage and user satisfaction. The LibQUAL+^TM was used in this study, which is a valid tool and implemented across the world to measure the users’ satisfaction in academic, special and public libraries. The data was collected from the students through online questionnaire was uploaded to Learning Management System (LMS) portal of Texila American University in the month of January and November, 2018. The data was analyzed through SPSS. The findings indicate that library service quality has a significant positive effect on library usage and direct significant effect on user satisfaction services.

Keywords: LibQUAL^+TM, library service quality, library usage, user’s perception and user’s satisfaction.

References:

[1].     Parasuraman, Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, L.L. 1988. SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring customer perceptions of quality, Journal of Retailing. 64(1):12-40.

[2].     Peterson, Richard. 2003

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241746268_The_LibQUAL_Challenge

[3]. Association of Research Libraries. 2001. ARL LibQUAL^+TM Activities Report, September.

[4].  Gronroos, C. 1984. A service quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal of marketing. 18(4):36-44.

[5]. Bolton, Ruth N. & Drew, James H. 1991.A multistage model of customers’ assessment of service quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research. 17:375-384.

[6]. Matthews, Joseph R. 2015. Library assessment in higher education. 2^nd ed. Westport Libraries Unlimited: 41-63.

[7]. Swan, M. Ruth (2004) (http://www.famu.edu/acad/coleman/libqual2004.html).

[8]. Cullen, R. 2001.Perspectives on user satisfaction surveys. Library Trends, 49(4): 662-686.

[9]. Nitecki, D. A. 1996. Changing the concept and measure of service quality in academic libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 22: 181-190.

[10]. Hunter, B. & Perret, R. 2011. Can money buy happiness? A statistical analysis of predictors of user satisfaction. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(5): 402-408.

Abstract:

This report is centered around a 20 years old patient with uterus didelphys who has successfully conceived, carried her pregnancy to term and delivered her twins by lower segment caesarean section as requested, without any significant complications. The best diagnostic modality will also be discussed and its importance in the next management step or surgical intervention.

Keywords: Mullerian duct defect; Congenital anomaly; Uterus Didelphys.

References:

[1].Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of mullerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. Bermejo C, Martinez Ten P, Cantarero R, Diaz D, Perez Pedregosa J, Barron E, Labrador E, Ruiz Lopez L.

[2].http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/273534-overview#a2 (incidence and prevalence).

·  Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, Bontis J, Devroey P.

·  Incidence of mullerian defects in fertile and infertile women. Acien P.

·  Mullerian duct anomalies diagnosed by saline contrast sonohysterography: prevalence in a general population. Dreisler E, Stampe Sorenson S.

·  Reproductive outcomes in women with uterine anomalies. J Women’s Health (Larchmt). Lin PC.

[3].Uterine anomalies. How common are they, and what is their distribution among subtypes? Nahum GG.

[4].The obstetric consequences of uterovaginal anomalies. Rock JA, Sclaff WD.

[5].Endometroid adenocarcinoma arising in uteri with incomplete fusion of mullerian ducts. Reports of three cases. Kondi- Pafiti A, Spanidou- Carvouni H, Dimopoulou C, Kontogianni CI.

[6].Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography and hysterosalpingography. Pellerito JS, McCarthy SM, Doyle MB, Glickman MG, DeCherney AH:1992.

[7].Congenital anomalies of the mullerian system. Golan A, Langer R, Bukovsky I, Caspi E.