Author's reply to letter by Andersen et al.

Reply to letter by winrow et al

✍ John S. Sullivan; Andrew F. Geczy; John K. Prendergast 📂 Article 📅 1988 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 242 KB

Reply to letter by winrow et al

✍ A. Toubert; B. Amor 📂 Article 📅 1988 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 130 KB 👁 1 views

Reply to the letter by MacLeod et al.

✍ Hisashi Kubota; Takafumi Nishizaki; Kohsuke Sasaki 📂 Article 📅 2001 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 28 KB

We are grateful to Dr. MacLeod and his colleagues for raising this important suggestion. As they commented, in several cases it is not possible to rule out accidental inclusion of syngeneic subclones in the analysis due to cell line cross-contamination. Therefore, such cell line cross-contamination

Letter: Reply to Salander et al.

✍ Michael A. Weitzner; Christina A. Meyers 📂 Article 📅 1998 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 34 KB

Author's reply to preceding letter

✍ J. Gregor 📂 Article 📅 1983 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 79 KB 👁 1 views

In reply to the letter by Gevaert et al.

✍ Jozien Helleman; Maurice P.H.M. Jansen; Maria E.L. van der Burg; Els M.J.J. Bern 📂 Article 📅 2006 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 French ⚖ 40 KB

raised an important issue about the implementation in clinical practice of the 9-gene set for platinum resistance of ovarian cancer patients. They also stated that nonplatinum containing regimens are suboptimal in the treatment of ovarian cancer. In our study 1 we have included specimens of 96 prim