Postoperative elective pelvic nodal irradiation compared to prostate bed irradiation in locally advanced prostate cancer – a retrospective analysis of dose-escalated patients

Background: It is uncertain if whole-pelvic irradiation (WPRT) in addition to dose-escalated prostate bed irradiation (PBRT) improves biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) after prostatectomy for locally advanced tumors. This study was initiated to analyze if WPRT is associated with bPFS in a patient cohort with dose-escalated (> 70 Gy) PBRT. Methods: Patients with locally advanced, node-negative prostate carcinoma who had PBRT with or without WPRT after prostatectomy between 2009 and 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. A simultaneous integrated boost with equivalent-doses-in-2-Gy-fractions (EQD-2) of 79.29 Gy or 71.43 Gy to the prostate bed was applied in patients with margin-positive (or detectable) and margin-negative/undetectable tumors, respectively. WPRT (44 Gy) was offered to patients at an increased risk of lymph node metastases. Results: Forty-three patients with PBRT/WPRT and 77 with PBRT-only were identified. Baseline imbalances included shorter surgery-radiotherapy intervals (S-RT-Intervals) and fewer resected lymph nodes in the WPRT group. WPRT was significantly associated with better bPFS in univariate (p = 0.032) and multivariate models (HR = 0.484, p = 0.015). Subgroup analysis indicated a benefit of WPRT (p = 0.029) in patients treated with rising PSA values who mostly had negative margins (74.1%); WPRT was not associated with a longer bPFS in the postoperative setting with almost exclusively positive margins (96.8%). Conclusion: We observed a longer bPFS after WPRT compared to PBRT in patients with locally advanced prostate carcinoma who underwent dose-escalated radiotherapy. In subset analyses, the association was only observed in patients with rising PSA values but not in patients with non-salvage postoperative radiotherapy for positive margins

The FLUXNET2015 dataset and the ONEFlux processing pipeline for eddy covariance data

The FLUXNET2015 dataset provides ecosystem-scale data on CO2, water, and energy exchange between the biosphere and the atmosphere, and other meteorological and biological measurements, from 212 sites around the globe (over 1500 site-years, up to and including year 2014). These sites, independently managed and operated, voluntarily contributed their data to create global datasets. Data were quality controlled and processed using uniform methods, to improve consistency and intercomparability across sites. The dataset is already being used in a number of applications, including ecophysiology studies, remote sensing studies, and development of ecosystem and Earth system models. FLUXNET2015 includes derived-data products, such as gap-filled time series, ecosystem respiration and photosynthetic uptake estimates, estimation of uncertainties, and metadata about the measurements, presented for the first time in this paper. In addition, 206 of these sites are for the first time distributed under a Creative Commons (CC-BY 4.0) license. This paper details this enhanced dataset and the processing methods, now made available as open-source codes, making the dataset more accessible, transparent, and reproducible.Peer reviewe

The handbook for standardized field and laboratory measurements in terrestrial climate change experiments and observational studies (ClimEx)

1. Climate change is a world‐wide threat to biodiversity and ecosystem structure, functioning and services. To understand the underlying drivers and mechanisms, and to predict the consequences for nature and people, we urgently need better understanding of the direction and magnitude of climate change impacts across the soil–plant–atmosphere continuum. An increasing number of climate change studies are creating new opportunities for meaningful and high‐quality generalizations and improved process understanding. However, significant challenges exist related to data availability and/or compatibility across studies, compromising opportunities for data re‐use, synthesis and upscaling. Many of these challenges relate to a lack of an established ‘best practice’ for measuring key impacts and responses. This restrains our current understanding of complex processes and mechanisms in terrestrial ecosystems related to climate change. 2. To overcome these challenges, we collected best‐practice methods emerging from major ecological research networks and experiments, as synthesized by 115 experts from across a wide range of scientific disciplines. Our handbook contains guidance on the selection of response variables for different purposes, protocols for standardized measurements of 66 such response variables and advice on data management. Specifically, we recommend a minimum subset of variables that should be collected in all climate change studies to allow data re‐use and synthesis, and give guidance on additional variables critical for different types of synthesis and upscaling. The goal of this community effort is to facilitate awareness of the importance and broader application of standardized methods to promote data re‐use, availability, compatibility and transparency. We envision improved research practices that will increase returns on investments in individual research projects, facilitate second‐order research outputs and create opportunities for collaboration across scientific communities. Ultimately, this should significantly improve the quality and impact of the science, which is required to fulfil society's needs in a changing world

Author Correction: The FLUXNET2015 dataset and the ONEFlux processing pipeline for eddy covariance data.

The following authors were omitted from the original version of this Data Descriptor: Markus Reichstein and Nicolas Vuichard. Both contributed to the code development and N. Vuichard contributed to the processing of the ERA-Interim data downscaling. Furthermore, the contribution of the co-author Frank Tiedemann was re-evaluated relative to the colleague Corinna Rebmann, both working at the same sites, and based on this re-evaluation a substitution in the co-author list is implemented (with Rebmann replacing Tiedemann). Finally, two affiliations were listed incorrectly and are corrected here (entries 190 and 193). The author list and affiliations have been amended to address these omissions in both the HTML and PDF versions