Effect of Temperature on AZ31 Alloys Production by Gas Atomization Method

This study experimentally investigates the effect of temperature on the size and shape of the AZ31 alloy powder made by the gas atomization method. A constant nozzle diameter of 2mm was used during the tests at a gas pressure of 35 bar and three different temperatures of 790, 820, and 850°C. Argon gas was used for the atomization of the melt while the shape of the powder produced was determined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). In addition, XRD and XRF analyses were adopted to determine the phases of the powders' internal structure as well as the percentages of each phase. Furthermore, a laser-assisted measurement device was utilized for powder size analysis. The results revealed that most of the AZ31 alloy powders got into flake and spherical forms and few in the form of ligaments, rods or droplets depending on the temperature. Moreover, the finest powder was obtained at a temperature of 790 °C with powder shape of both droplet and spherical

International comparison of cosmetic outcomes of breast conserving surgery and radiation therapy for women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast

Purpose: To assess the cosmetic impact of breast conserving surgery (BCS), whole breast irradiation (WBI) fractionation and tumour bed boost (TBB) use in a phase III trial for women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast. Materials and methods: Baseline and 3-year cosmesis were assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Cosmetic Rating System and digital images in a randomised trial of non-low risk DCIS treated with postoperative WBI +/- TBB. Baseline cosmesis was assessed for four geographic clusters of treating centres. Cosmetic failure was a global score of fair or poor. Cosmetic deterioration was a score change from excellent or good at baseline to fair or poor at three years. Odds ratios for cosmetic deterioration by WBI dose-fractionation and TBB use were calculated for both scoring systems. Results: 1608 women were enrolled from 11 countries between 2007 and 2014. 85-90% had excellent or good baseline cosmesis independent of geography or assessment method. TBB (16 Gy in 8 fractions) was associated with a >2-fold risk of cosmetic deterioration (p

Radiation doses and fractionation schedules in non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ in the breast (BIG 3-07/TROG 07.01):a randomised, factorial, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND: Whole breast irradiation (WBI) after conservative surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) reduces local recurrence. We investigated whether a tumour bed boost after WBI improved outcomes, and examined radiation dose fractionation sensitivity for non-low-risk DCIS. METHODS: The study was an international, randomised, unmasked, phase 3 trial involving 136 participating centres of six clinical trials organisations in 11 countries (Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Italy, Ireland, and the UK). Eligible patients were women aged 18 years or older with unilateral, histologically proven, non-low-risk DCIS treated by breast-conserving surgery with at least 1 mm of clear radial resection margins. They were assigned to one of four groups (1:1:1:1) of no tumour bed boost versus boost after conventional versus hypofractionated WBI, or randomly assigned to one of two groups (1:1) of no boost versus boost after each centre prespecified conventional or hypofractionated WBI. The conventional WBI used was 50 Gy in 25 fractions, and hypofractionated WBI was 42·5 Gy in 16 fractions. A boost dose of 16 Gy in eight fractions, if allocated, was delivered after WBI. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was time to local recurrence. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00470236). FINDINGS: Between June 25, 2007, and June 30, 2014, 1608 patients were randomly assigned to have no boost (805 patients) or boost (803 patients). Conventional WBI was given to 831 patients, and hypofractionated WBI was given to 777 patients. Median follow-up was 6·6 years. The 5-year free-from-local-recurrence rates were 92·7% (95% CI 90·6-94·4%) in the no-boost group and 97·1% (95·6-98·1%) in the boost group (hazard ratio 0·47; 0·31-0·72; p<0·001). The boost group had higher rates of grade 2 or higher breast pain (10% [8-12%] vs 14% [12-17%], p=0·003) and induration (6% [5-8%] vs 14% [11-16%], p<0·001). INTERPRETATION: In patients with resected non-low-risk DCIS, a tumour bed boost after WBI reduced local recurrence with an increase in grade 2 or greater toxicity. The results provide the first randomised trial data to support the use of boost radiation after postoperative WBI in these patients to improve local control. The international scale of the study supports the generalisability of the results. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Susan G Komen for the Cure, Breast Cancer Now, OncoSuisse, Dutch Cancer Society, Canadian Cancer Trials Group

Quality of life after breast-conserving therapy and adjuvant radiotherapy for non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (BIG 3-07/TROG 07.01): 2-year results of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

BackgroundBIG 3-07/TROG 07.01 is an international, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial evaluating tumour bed boost and hypofractionation in patients with non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ following breast-conserving surgery and whole breast radiotherapy. Here, we report the effects of diagnosis and treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 2 years.MethodsThe BIG 3-07/TROG 07.01 trial is ongoing at 118 hospitals in 11 countries. Women aged 18 years or older with completely excised non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ were randomly assigned, by use of a minimisation algorithm, to tumour bed boost or no tumour bed boost, following conventional whole breast radiotherapy or hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy using one of three randomisation categories. Category A was a 4-arm randomisation of tumour bed boost versus no boost following conventional whole breast radiotherapy (50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks) versus hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy (42·5 Gy in 16 fractions over 3·5 weeks). Category B was a 2-arm randomisation between tumour bed boost versus no boost following conventional whole breast radiotherapy, and category C was a 2-arm randomisation between tumour bed boost versus no boost following hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy. Stratification factors were age at diagnosis, planned endocrine therapy, and treating centre. The primary endpoint, time to local recurrence, will be reported when participants have completed 5 years of follow-up. The HRQOL statistical analysis plan prespecified eight aspects of HRQOL, assessed by four questionnaires at baseline, end of treatment, and at 6, 12, and 24 months after radiotherapy: fatigue and physical functioning (EORTC QLQ-C30); cosmetic status, breast-specific symptoms, arm and shoulder functional status (Breast Cancer Treatment Outcome Scale); body image and sexuality (Body Image Scale); and perceived risk of invasive breast cancer (Cancer Worry Scale and a study-specific question). For each of these measures, tumour bed boost was compared with no boost, and conventional whole breast radiotherapy compared with hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy, by use of generalised estimating equation models. Analyses were by intention to treat, with Hochberg adjustment for multiple testing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00470236.FindingsBetween June 1, 2007, and Aug 14, 2013, 1208 women were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive no tumour bed boost (n=605) or tumour bed boost (n=603). 396 of 1208 women were assigned to category A: conventional whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=100) or no boost (n=98), or to hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=98) or no boost (n=100). 447 were assigned to category B: conventional whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=223) or no boost (n=224). 365 were assigned to category C: hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy with tumour bed boost (n=182) or no boost (n=183). All patients were followed up at 2 years for the HRQOL analysis. 1098 (91%) of 1208 patients received their allocated treatment, and most completed their scheduled HRQOL assessments (1147 [95%] of 1208 at baseline; 988 [87%] of 1141 at 2 years). Cosmetic status was worse with tumour bed boost than with no boost across all timepoints (difference 0·10 [95% CI 0·05–0·15], global p=0·00014, Hochberg-adjusted p=0·0016); at the end of treatment, the estimated difference between tumour bed boost and no boost was 0·13 (95% CI 0·06–0·20; p=0·00021), persisting at 24 months (0·13 [0·06–0·20]; p=0·00021). Arm and shoulder function was also adversely affected by tumour bed boost across all timepoints (0·08 [95% CI 0·03–0·13], global p=0·0033, Hochberg adjusted p=0·045); the difference between tumour bed boost and no boost at the end of treatment was 0·08 (0·01 to 0·15, p=0·021), and did not persist at 24 months (0·04 [–0·03 to 0·11], p=0·29). None of the other six prespecified aspects of HRQOL differed significantly after adjustment for multiple testing. Conventional whole breast radiotherapy was associated with worse body image than hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy at the end of treatment (difference –1·10 [95% CI –1·79 to –0·42], p=0·0016). No significant differences were reported in the other PROs between conventional whole breast radiotherapy compared with hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy.InterpretationTumour bed boost was associated with persistent adverse effects on cosmetic status and arm and shoulder functional status, which might inform shared decision making while local recurrence analysis is pending

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field