Media Coverage

The guidelines “highlight many, many important similarities much more than it highlights some small differences,” said Dr. Don Lloyd-Jones, a spokesperson for the AHA and a professor of preventive medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. “Both guidelines start with the same concepts,” he said. “The difference is how they look at the evidence.” “We’ve seen a number of groups in which (the risk calculator) performs extremely well,” said the Heart Association’s Lloyd-Jones. Lloyd-Jones said that the current risk estimator was “a huge step forward” in that it accounts for women and African Americans, who have often been overlooked in large-scale health surveys. The 7.5% threshold used by the AHA is based heavily on clinical trial data, he said. “These risk scores were never intended to be perfect,” Lloyd-Jones said. “They’re there to start a conversation, not to write a prescription.” “The purpose of the ACC/AHA, the purpose of USPSTF is not to create a healthy pharmaceutical industry. It’s to create better care for our patients,” Lloyd-Jones said.

Kathleen Doheny”There is still not enough evidence to suggest this should be routine treatment for knee early osteoarthritis,” says Wellington Hsu, MD, the Clifford C. Raisbeck professor of orthopedic surgery at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. Even so, he says, ”there is very little damage you are going to do with an injection to the knee. I think stem cells appear to be safe in orthopedic applications. “There is, of course, the risk that an investment of a couple thousand dollars will do nothing. But Hsu says that ”you are not going to find the catastrophic cases that will shut down a clinic [as may occur for other body parts].’ For people who have knee arthritis, the most invasive treatment is total knee replacement, Hsu says. The FDA requires donor cells and tissues to be tested for communicable diseases. There is no consensus on which source is best, but most doctors use stem cells from fat, Hsu says.

But in the study, more than twice as many patients were alive five years after getting it, plus the usual chemotherapy, than those given just the chemo — 13 percent versus 5 percent. “It’s out of the box” in terms of how cancer is usually treated, and many doctors don’t understand it or think it can help, said Dr. Roger Stupp, a brain tumor expert at Northwestern University in Chicago. He led the company-sponsored study while previously at University Hospital Zurich in Switzerland, and gave results Sunday at an American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Washington.

But in the study, more than twice as many patients were alive five years after getting it, plus the usual chemotherapy, than those given just the chemo — 13 percent versus 5 percent. “It’s out of the box” in terms of how cancer is usually treated, and many doctors don’t understand it or think it can help, said Dr. Roger Stupp, a brain tumor expert at Northwestern University in Chicago. He led the company-sponsored study while previously at University Hospital Zurich in Switzerland, and gave results Sunday at an American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Washington.

But in the study, more than twice as many patients were alive five years after getting it, plus the usual chemotherapy, than those given just the chemo — 13 percent versus 5 percent. “It’s out of the box” in terms of how cancer is usually treated, and many doctors don’t understand it or think it can help, said Dr. Roger Stupp, a brain tumor expert at Northwestern University in Chicago. He led the company-sponsored study while previously at University Hospital Zurich in Switzerland, and gave results Sunday at an American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Washington.

But in the study, more than twice as many patients were alive five years after getting it, plus the usual chemotherapy, than those given just the chemo — 13 percent versus 5 percent. “It’s out of the box” in terms of how cancer is usually treated, and many doctors don’t understand it or think it can help, said Dr. Roger Stupp, a brain tumor expert at Northwestern University in Chicago. He led the company-sponsored study while previously at University Hospital Zurich in Switzerland, and gave results Sunday at an American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Washington.

But in the study, more than twice as many patients were alive five years after getting it, plus the usual chemotherapy, than those given just the chemo — 13 percent versus 5 percent. “It’s out of the box” in terms of how cancer is usually treated, and many doctors don’t understand it or think it can help, said Dr. Roger Stupp, a brain tumor expert at Northwestern University in Chicago. He led the company-sponsored study while previously at University Hospital Zurich in Switzerland, and gave results Sunday at an American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Washington.

But in the study, more than twice as many patients were alive five years after getting it, plus the usual chemotherapy, than those given just the chemo — 13 percent versus 5 percent. “It’s out of the box” in terms of how cancer is usually treated, and many doctors don’t understand it or think it can help, said Dr. Roger Stupp, a brain tumor expert at Northwestern University in Chicago. He led the company-sponsored study while previously at University Hospital Zurich in Switzerland, and gave results Sunday at an American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Washington.

“This is nothing short of a revolutionary technology,” lead investigator Teresa Woodruff said.

Woodruff is a reproductive scientist and director of the Women’s Health Research Institute at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago.

Woodruff is a reproductive scientist and director of the Women’s Health Research Institute at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago.

EVATAR, as it’s called, resembles a small cube. A special fluid pumping through all of the organ models performs the function of blood.