Search

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC) provide recommended management for patients with SCLC, including diagnosis, primary treatment, surveillance for relapse, and subsequent treatment. This selection for the journal focuses on metastatic (known as extensive-stage) SCLC, which is more common than limited-stage SCLC. Systemic therapy alone can palliate symptoms and prolong survival in most patients with extensive-stage disease. Smoking cessation counseling and intervention should be strongly promoted in patients with SCLC and other high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas. The “Summary of the Guidelines Updates” section in the SCLC algorithm outlines the most recent revisions for the 2022 update, which are described in greater detail in this revised Discussion text.

Free to read on publisher website To complement the existing treatment guidelines for all tumour types, ESMO organises consensus conferences to focus on specific issues in each type of tumour. The Second ESMO Consensus Conference on Lung Cancer was held on 11-12 May 2013 in Lugano. A total of 35 experts met to address several questions on management of patients with nonsmall- cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in each of four areas: pathology and molecular biomarkers, early stage disease, locally advanced disease and advanced (metastatic) disease. For each question, recommendations were made including reference to the grade of recommendation and level of evidence. This consensus paper focuses on recommendations for pathology and molecular biomarkers in relation to the diagnosis of lung cancer, primarily non-small-cell carcinomas.

Until recently, there was general agreement that Israel was one of the few nations in the contemporary world without a formal written, integrated constitution. That was the situation despite the fact that the Knesset (parliament) had enacted 11 Basic Laws. For the Basic Laws were not seen as superior, fundamental laws restricting the authority of the sovereign Knesset. At most, the Basic Laws were seen as self-restricting Knesset enactments. Then in 1995, the Israeli Supreme Court held that it would henceforth consider the Basic Laws as Israel's constitution, and that the justices would utilize a judicial review power akin to the United States Supreme Court.Israel appears to be the only country with a written constitution promulgated by its judiciary. But not all Israelis have accepted this judicially promulgated constitution. In August 2000, for example, then Prime Minister Ehud Barak made the enactment of a written constitution a prominent part of his plan for a "civic revolution." Thus the status of Israel's constitution remains problematic.This article will assess the uniqueness of the Israeli situation. It will first discuss the functions of written constitutions and why such documents have become part of what it means to be an independent nation in the contemporary world. It will then discuss the special role of written constitutions in democracies and the various ways democracies have adopted constitutions. Against that background, the paper will discuss the status of the Israeli constitution at the present time.I.Modern constitutionalism was born in the United States. A written constitution, the Founders of the American Republic believed, would be their lasting contribution to the science of politics.(1) Time has proved them right. Since 1787, with few exceptions, the establishment of new political regimes all around the world has been accompanied by the promulgation of a written constitution. The United Nations now has 190 member states.(2) Thirty-two have entered since 1991.(3) Virtually all of the new regimes -- democratic and non-democratic -- have drafted new constitutions,(4) since such documents have become part of what it means to be an independent nation in the contemporary world. Only eight member states of the United Nations have never promulgated a formal, integrated, written constitution.(5)The appeal of written constitutions is not simply a trendy convention. It is grounded on historical experience. We have come to accept the basic logic of Hobbes' analysis.(6) If human beings are by nature both self-serving and social animals, there is a need for an umpire, the State, to guarantee the essentials of human existence -- the respect for life, the respect for mutual obligations, etc. Every society needs stable, ordered behavioral patterns that only a State can uphold. We have also come to recognize the need to protect against the State itself becoming the chief violator of the vital human concerns for which it was created. In the classic formulation by James Madison:[W]hat is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.(7)Constitutions are, in Madison's language, a principal auxiliary precaution. A constitution is the most expedient way to regulate the State. It addresses a number of issues. How are the people in a country to inform the rulers of the State about their interests? How are the rulers to regulate the organs of the State so that policies are implemented? …

To complement the existing treatment guidelines for all tumour types, ESMO organises consensus conferences to focus on specific issues in each type of tumour. The 2nd ESMO Consensus Conference on Lung Cancer was held on 11-12 May 2013 in Lugano. A total of 35 experts met to address several questions on non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in each of four areas: pathology and molecular biomarkers, first-line/second and further lines in advanced disease, early-stage disease and locally advanced disease. For each question, recommendations were made including reference to the grade of recommendation and level of evidence. This consensus paper focuses on early-stage disease.

Background After patients have undergone colonoscopic polypectomy, it is uncertain whether colonoscopic examination or a barium enema is the better method of surveillance. Methods As part of the National Polyp Study, we offered colonoscopic examination and double-contrast barium enema for surveillance to patients with newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. Although barium enema was performed first, the endoscopist did not know the results. Results A total of 973 patients underwent one or more colonoscopic examinations for surveillance. In the case of 580 of these patients, we performed 862 paired colonoscopic examinations and barium-enema examinations that met the requirements of the protocol. The findings on barium enema were positive in 222 (26 percent) of the paired examinations, including 94 of the 242 colonoscopic examinations in which one or more adenomas were detected (rate of detection of adenomas, 39 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 33 to 45 percent). The proportion of examinations in which ...

Largely unnoticed in the midst of the turmoil surrounding the Oslo peace process, Israel has undergone a constitutional revolution. Israel is no longer among the tiny minority of the 185 UN member states (as of 1998, only nine)' functioning without a formal, integrated, written constitution. In 1995 the Israeli Supreme Court held that the 11 periodically enacted Basic Laws would function as the nation's constitution, and that the Court would exercise an American-style power of judicial review. The Supreme Court's action was the capstone of a process of major institutional changes. The original Israeli republic was dominated by its highly disciplined and centralized political parties. Beginning in 1992 internal primaries within Israel's larger parties fragmented power and reduced the parties' ability to function as the pivotal agents of policy formulation. Until 1996 Israel's government had functioned as a classic Westminster parliamentary system. With the national elections of that year, a directly elected Prime Minister was added to a Knesset (parliament) elected, as in the past, by a nationwide system of proportional representation. This created a hybrid presidentialparliamentary system with a novel configuration of powers. Fifty years after its establishment in 1948, the State of Israel is sufficiently different so as to warrant social scientists like Asher Arian talking about the emergence of a 'second republic'.2 The time is now ripe for assessing the functional viability of these constitutional changes for Israel.3

thodox Judaism as the sole, official, state-recognized and supported religion for the nation's Jewish citizens. In the 5I years since independence, the original dominant collectivist ethos that supported that arrangement has been replaced by an increasingly pervasive individualism. The emergent political culture has fueled a major culture clash, bordering on a kulturkampf, over the role of Orthodox Judaism in the polity. Israel's Orthodox communities seek to preserve the status quo, while its non-Orthodox Jewish citizens increasingly seek to promote religious pluralism. At the heart of this conflictthis shesa b'am, as the Israelis call itare the civil courts led by the Supreme Court. The High Court has become the premier institution articulating and attempting to implement the values of individualism and pluralism associated with the new, Americanized, political culture. This article will explore how the Americanization of Israel's political culture led to this situation.

Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002. 262 pp. $21.95. This is an important book. Professor David Kretzmer provides a wealth of information about Israeli policies in the territories it has occupied since the 1967 war. More important, perhaps, he demonstrates the limited ability of any judicial authority to restrain military actions in a war-like situation. The Occupation of Justice is a "must read" for anyone interested in either subject. The Supreme Court is an active policymaker within the Israeli political system. Relatively early in Israeli history, the civil courts won their independence from direct political intrusions. Since Israeli democracy is based upon a wide-open, robust competition among a multitude of political parties, Israelis came to value decisions based on non-partisan considerations. Over the years, the Court became increasingly activist, especially in the matters relating to individual rights. The Supreme Court took the lead in institutionalizing liberal, democratic values in Israeli society. This judicial approach, and the public's response to it -- the Supreme Court enjoys public support that is second only to that of the Israel Defense Forces -- has resulted in a situation in which the net of judicial review extends over all arms of government and over almost all types of activities. It is not surprising, therefore, that Palestinians in the occupied areas brought cases to the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice. (In that capacity, the Supreme Court, sitting as a court of first instance, has the jurisdiction and is authorized to grant relief against government actions "in the interests of justice.") What is surprising is that Palestinians in the occupied areas were granted access to the Israeli High Court by a decision of the Government not to oppose such applications. Allowing residents of an occupied area access to the courts of the occupying nation is unprecedented in international law and was not authorized by Israeli statutes. With the passage of time, however, Supreme Court decisions treated it as accepted practice. Thus the High Court of Justice deals with Palestinian claims that the Israeli occupying authorities have exceeded or misapplied their powers in the same way that it hears petitions by Israeli citizens against their own government's decisions. In clear, concise language that is easily understandable by the non-lawyer, Professor Kretzmer addresses the policies that have resulted from the unprecedented review by the Supreme Court over the Israeli government's actions in the occupied territories. Part I examines the basis for the Court's jurisdiction, the substantive norms applied by the Court, and its attitude to the application and interpretation of international law. Part II discusses the High Court's decisions relating to two major political issues: the establishment of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the status of the Palestinian residents of those areas. Part III focuses on how the High Court has handled petitions challenging security measures against Palestinians in the occupied territories. This framework enables Professor Kretzmer to conclude with a well-documented and insightful set of conclusions. …

The judicialization of politics has probably proceeded further in Israel than in any other democratic country. In the strong sense of the definition propounded by Torbjörn Vallinder (1992: 1), the civil judiciary in Israel, particularly the Supreme Court justices sitting as members of the High Court of Justice, are exercising power at the expense of politi cians and administrators. The justices now claim the authority even to review the internal workings of the theoretically sovereign Knesset (parlia ment). This situation represents a marked change from the norms of 46 years ago when the state came into existence. Then, power and authority were concentrated in the elected agencies, the Knesset and, particularly, the Government. Rampant partisanship, arbitrary and self-interested policies, and, worst of all, an inability to deal with crucial problems beset ting Israeli society, corroded that authority and, ultimately, the power of the elected leadership. The default of Israel's democratically elected leadership has led to the judicialization of politics.

Martin Edelman is a Professor (and chair) of the Political Science Department at the Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy of the University at Albany. He is the author of Democratic Theories and tbe Constitution and of many articles dealing with American constitutional law and Israel's court systems. In 1987, while at Peking University, Professor Edelman taught the first course on Israeli politics in the People's Republic of China. He has also been a visiting professor at the University of liverpool and Tel Aviv University. Professor Edelman is currently the President/Convenor of the Research Committee on Comparative Judicial Studies of the International Political Science Association.

This study utilizes the recruitment of Israeli Supreme Court justices to explore that country's legal culture. The data indicate that professional legal criteria are the primary variable for the selection of Israeli judges, and that the political/legal culture supports a civil court system which operates independently of partisan politics. Thus, Israeli legal culture can be encompassed within a Weberian framework: it values adherence to settled rules. Paradoxically, precisely because the Supreme Court is seen as the guardian of fundamental values embedded in an objective legal order, authority—and increasing political power—has flowed toward Israel's premier non-partisan institution.

Virtually from the beginning, controversy has surrounded the role of the Supreme Court within the American political system. Once the Court asserted its authority to declare the acts of other governmental agencies null and void for violating the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison 1803), the Court could not conceal its policy-making functions. That, in turn, provoked the continuing debate about the legitimacy of the Court’s role. More recently, however, scholars have begun systematically to explore the Court’s capabilities to influence public policy formulation. Given the inevitable policy effects of judicial decisions, scholars have sought the conditions under which judicial decisions produce political and social change. The aim here is to suggest the factors which support or limit the Supreme Court’s ability to promote change through its constitutional decisions.

A venerable question has once again become a dominant issue confronting public law scholars. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, ostensibly democratic states have emerged throughout the areas formerly designated as the Second and Third Worlds. The establishment of these new regimes has invariably been accompanied by the promulgation of written constitutions. For public law scholars, this sequence has posed the question of the utility of written constitutions: What, if anything, do these documents add to nation, state, and society?

Long before the establishment of the State of Israel, Jews living in that piece of the world's territory were subject to the jurisdiction of rabbinical courts. From ancient times the prevailing pattern of government in the Middle East was to grant each religious community a considerable amount of internal autonomy. Under the law of the Ottoman Empire, Jewish religious courts had complete authority within their community to resolve questions of personal status as well as matters of a purely religious nature. This practice was carried over by the British Mandate and later by the Israeli legal system, so that today many matters of personal status involving Israeli Jews are within the jurisdiction of the rabbinical courts. This tradition and history, however, have not made those courts an accepted part of the Israeli political-legal system. Rather, the rabbinical court system is one of the most problematic parts of the evolving political culture of Israel. This paper aims at exploring that relationship and commenting on it. A fuller understanding of the situation requires a brief discussion of: (a) the role of Judaism in the Zionist movement which created the State of Israel; (b) the place of the Jewish religion within the state and (c) the institutional setting of the rabbinical courts within the Israeli system. A. Like other new states, Israel is the result of a nationalist movement which however had many unique characteristics. Not the least of these was the 2,000-year-old national-religious tradition of the return to Zion. While the dominant forces and leading actors in the zionist movement were clearly secularists, it was the historical tradition which provided the affective ties of unity needed by the modern nation-builders. The origins of the Jewish people are rooted in their religion which sustained a sense of peoplehood through the long exile. Until the nineteenth century all Jews, wherever they happened to reside, lived according to the norms of the tradition. Not only did those norms specify the relation of man to God, but in specifying the relation of man to man, particularly within the Jewish community, those norms also defined the Jewish people. Traditional Judaism makes no distinction between religious belief and national identity: it entails both a religious and a national commitment. A secularist could certainly point to other factors which sustained Jewish national identity-persecution, obstacles to assimilation, etc.-but the centrality of religion in the history of the Jewish people cannot be ignored. Without it * A slightly different version of this paper was presented at the Tenth World Congress of the

The Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) Genitourinary Committee has developed a broad range of clinical trials across most stages of bladder cancer. Recurrence rates of superficial bladder cancer after transurethral resection range from 50-70%. Although adjuvant bacillus Calmette-Guerin reduces the risk of disease recurrence or progression, only 30% of patients have long-term disease-free survival. Because the development of novel secondline agents is needed, the CALGB is evaluating the utility of intravesicle gemcitabine as well as an oral proapoptotic agent (CP-461). In patients with locally advanced disease with an increased risk of disease recurrence after cystectomy, a randomized trial of conventional chemotherapy versus sequential dose-dense therapy is under development. The gemcitabine/cisplatin combination has become a commonly used regimen for the treatment of advanced transitional cell carcinoma (TCC). The CALGB is undertaking a Phase II study that incorporates a fixed dose rate gemcitabine infusion in this regimen, together with a selective epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, Iressa (Astra Zeneca, Wilmington, DE). In patients with renal insufficiency, a regimen of carboplatin, gemcitabine, and Iressa is planned. Novel agents, including arsenic trioxide and trastuzumab (Herceptin; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA), are being evaluated as secondline therapy in patients with advanced TCC who have disease progression after frontline therapy.

Two contextualized degree of bilingualism measures, one designed to assess the extent to which each language is used, the other to assess relative proficiency in the two languages, were administered to 34 bilingual children of Puerto Rican background who attended a parochial school in Jersey City. The children reported that they used more Spanish, when talking to other bilingual Puerto Ricans, in the contexts of family and neighbourhood, than they did in those of education and religion. Their relative proficiency scores were in general agreement with their usage scores: the greatest difference between English and Spanish proficiency scores being observed for the domain of education and the smallest difference for the domain of family. In recent years there has been increasing recognition of the need to view bilingualism, not as a global capacity, but as one which could be described in terms of various components (3, 4). This view has led to the considera tion that bilingual proficiency might vary over a range of social settings. For example, a bilingual individual might be more proficient in one language when discussing matters of an academic nature and more pro ficient in another language when talking about household matters. Drawing upon this assumption, Cooper and Greenfield (1, 2 developed a series of instruments designed to measure degree of bilingualism in various domains or institutional contexts in which language behaviour occurs, e.g., family, education, religion. In the work reported in the present paper, two contextualized measures of degree of bilingualism were adapted for use with children. One measure was designed to tap bilingual