(C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.”
“Comparative genomic analyses of primates offer

considerable potential to define and understand the processes that mold, shape, and transform the human genome. However, primate taxonomy is both complex and controversial, with marginal unifying consensus of the evolutionary hierarchy of extant primate species. Here we provide new genomic sequence (similar to 8 Mb) from 186 primates representing 61 (similar to 90%) of the described genera, and we include outgroup species from Dermoptera, Scandentia, and Lagomorpha. The resultant phylogeny is exceptionally robust and illuminates events in primate evolution from ancient to recent, clarifying numerous taxonomic controversies and providing new data on human evolution. Ongoing speciation, reticulate evolution, ancient relic

GSK1210151A lineages, unequal rates of evolution, and disparate distributions of insertions/deletions among the reconstructed primate lineages are uncovered. Our resolution of the primate phylogeny provides an essential evolutionary framework with far-reaching applications including: human selection and adaptation, global emergence of zoonotic diseases, mammalian comparative genomics, primate taxonomy, and conservation of endangered species.”
“Introduction: Despite recent therapeutic advances, lung cancer is a difficult disease to manage. This study assessed clinicians’ perceptions of care difficulty, quality of life (QOL), and symptom reports for their lung cancer patients compared with their patients with breast, prostate, and colon cancer.\n\nMethods: find more This report focused on secondary analyses from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Symptom Outcomes and Practice Patterns (SOAPP) study (E2Z02); outcome measures LY294002 cost included clinician ratings of 3106 solid tumor patients. Univariate analyses focused on patterns of disease-specific perceptions; multivariable analyses examined

whether disease-specific differences persisted after covariate inclusion.\n\nResults: In univariate comparisons, clinicians rated lung cancer patients as more difficult to treat than other solid tumor patients, with poorer QOL and higher symptom reports. After covariates were adjusted, the odds of clinicians perceiving lower QOL for their lung cancer patients were 3.6 times larger than for patients with other solid tumors (odds ratio = 3.6 [95% confidence interval, 2.0-6.6]; p < 0.0001). In addition, the odds of clinicians perceiving weight difficulties for their lung cancer patients were 3.2 times larger (odds ratio = 3.2 [95% confidence interval, 1.7-6.0]; p = 0.0004). No other outcome showed significant differences between lung versus other cancers in multivariable models.\n\nConclusion: Clinicians were more pessimistic about the well-being of their lung cancer patients compared with patients with other solid tumors.