SCIRP Mobile Website
Paper Submission

Why Us? >>

  • - Open Access
  • - Peer-reviewed
  • - Rapid publication
  • - Lifetime hosting
  • - Free indexing service
  • - Free promotion service
  • - More citations
  • - Search engine friendly

Free SCIRP Newsletters>>

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from SCIRP.


Contact Us >>

WhatsApp  +86 18163351462(WhatsApp)
Paper Publishing WeChat
Book Publishing WeChat

Article citations


Utilization, G. and Unit, R. (2010) Clinical Practice Guidelines Mesotheliomna.

has been cited by the following article:

  • TITLE: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma in Young People

    AUTHORS: Ahmed El Bastawisy, Maha Yahia, Mohammed Rahouma, Omnia Aboelazm, Jaylan Ahmed

    KEYWORDS: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma-Young

    JOURNAL NAME: Journal of Cancer Therapy, Vol.8 No.5, May 26, 2017

    ABSTRACT: Background: malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is characterized by long latency period between exposure to asbestos and development of the disease so we hypothesize that MPM in the young has different characteristics. Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective study including all eligible patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma presenting to National Cancer Institute, Cairo University during the period from 2008 to 2013. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1: patients aged ≤45 years. Group 2: Patients aged >45 years. Both groups were assessed regarding different clinicpathological features. Primary Objectives: comparison of different epidemiological features of both groups. Secondary Objectives: assessment of clinical response (CR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in both groups. Results: 102 Patients were included with median follow up of 14.4 months. Group (1) included 35 patients with mean age 40 ± 3.65 years (31 to 45 years). Group (2) included 67 patients with mean age of 58.6 ± 8.5 years (46 to 87 years). 68% of group (1) came from endemic areas which is significantly higher than group (2): (35.8%), p = 0.02. History of Asbestos exposure was highly significantly different between the 2 groups, 77.1% in group (1) versus 38.8% in group (2), p