Potentials and Challenges of Additive Manufacturing Technologies for Heat Exchanger

The rapid development of additive manufacturing (AM) technologies enables a radical paradigm shift in the construction of heat exchangers. In place of a layout limited to the use of planar or tubular starting materials, heat exchangers can now be optimized, reflecting their function and application in a particular environment. The complexity of form is no longer a restriction but a quality. Instead of brazing elements, resulting in rather inflexible standard components prone to leakages, with AM, we finally can create seamless integrated and custom solutions from monolithic material. To address AM for heat exchangers we both focus on the processes, materials, and connections as well as on the construction abilities within certain modeling and simulation tools. AM is not the total loss of restrictions. Depending on the processes used, delicate constraints have to be considered. But on the other hand, we can access materials, which can operate in a much wider heat range. It is evident that conventional modeling techniques cannot match the requirements of a flexible and adaptive form finding. Instead, we exploit biomimetic and mathematical approaches with parametric modeling. This results in unseen configurations and pushes the limits of how we should think about heat exchangers today

Chapter Potentials and Challenges of Additive Manufacturing Technologies for Heat Exchanger

The rapid development of additive manufacturing (AM) technologies enables a radical paradigm shift in the construction of heat exchangers. In place of a layout limited to the use of planar or tubular starting materials, heat exchangers can now be optimized, reflecting their function and application in a particular environment. The complexity of form is no longer a restriction but a quality. Instead of brazing elements, resulting in rather inflexible standard components prone to leakages, with AM, we finally can create seamless integrated and custom solutions from monolithic material. To address AM for heat exchangers we both focus on the processes, materials, and connections as well as on the construction abilities within certain modeling and simulation tools. AM is not the total loss of restrictions. Depending on the processes used, delicate constraints have to be considered. But on the other hand, we can access materials, which can operate in a much wider heat range. It is evident that conventional modeling techniques cannot match the requirements of a flexible and adaptive form finding. Instead, we exploit biomimetic and mathematical approaches with parametric modeling. This results in unseen configurations and pushes the limits of how we should think about heat exchangers today

A phase III, double-blind, randomized trial of palonosetron compared with ondansetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy

n/

VESTIGE: Adjuvant Immunotherapy in Patients With Resected Esophageal, Gastroesophageal Junction and Gastric Cancer Following Preoperative Chemotherapy With High Risk for Recurrence (N+ and/or R1): An Open Label Randomized Controlled Phase-2-Study.

Background: Perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery is one recommended standard treatment for patients with resectable gastric and esophageal cancer. Even with a multimodality treatment more than half of patients will relapse following surgical resection. Patients who have a poor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and have an incomplete (R1) resection or have metastatic lymph nodes in the resection specimen (N+) are especially at risk of recurrence. Current clinical practice is to continue with the same chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting as before surgery. In the phase II randomized EORTC VESTIGE trial (NCT03443856), patients with high risk resected gastric or esophageal adenocarcinoma will be randomized to either adjuvant chemotherapy (as before surgery) or to immunotherapy with nivolumab and low dose ipilimumab (nivolumab 3 mg/kg IV Q2W plus Ipilimumab 1 mg/kg IV Q6W for 1 year). The primary endpoint of the study is disease free survival, with secondary endpoints of overall survival, safety and toxicity, and quality of life. This is an open label randomized controlled multi-center phase-2 superiority trial. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to study arms. The trial will recruit 240 patients; recruitment commenced July 2019 and is anticipated to take 30 months. Detailed inclusion/exclusion criteria, toxicity management guidelines, and statistical plans for EORTC VESTIGE are described in the manuscript. Clinical Trial Registration: The trial is registered with www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03443856

Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Background Costly biologicals in palliative oncology are emerging at a rapid pace. For example, in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma addition of cetuximab to a palliative chemotherapy regimen appears to improve survival. However, it simultaneously results in higher costs. We aimed to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of adding c

Sequential FDG-PET and induction chemotherapy in locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the Oesophago-gastric junction (AEG): The Heidelberg Imaging program in Cancer of the oesophago-gastric junction during Neoadjuvant treatment: HICON trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>18-Fluorodeoxyglucose-PET (¹⁸F-FDG-PET) can be used for early response assessment in patients with locally advanced adenocarcinomas of the oesophagogastric junction (AEG) undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. It has been recently shown in the MUNICON trials that response-guided treatment algorithms based on early changes of the FDG tumor uptake detected by PET are feasible and that they can be implemented into clinical practice.</p> <p>Only 40%-50% of the patients respond metabolically to therapy. As metabolic non-response is known to be associated with a dismal prognosis, metabolic non-responders are increasingly treated with alternative neoadjuvant chemotherapies or chemoradiation in order to improve their clinical outcome. We plan to investigate whether PET can be used as response assessment during radiochemotherapy given as salvage treatment in early metabolic non-responders to standard chemotherapy.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The HICON trial is a prospective, non-randomized, explorative imaging study evaluating the value of PET as a predictor of histopathological response in metabolic non-responders. Patients with resectable AEG type I and II according to Siewerts classification, staged cT3/4 and/or cN+ and cM0 by endoscopic ultrasound, spiral CT or MRI and FDG-PET are eligible. Tumors must be potentially R0 resectable and must have a sufficient FDG-baseline uptake. Only metabolic non-responders, showing a < 35% decrease of SUV two weeks after the start of neoadjuvant chemotherapy are eligible for the study and are taken to intensified taxane-based RCT (chemoradiotherapy (45 Gy) before surgery. ¹⁸FDG-PET scans will be performed before ( = Baseline) and after 14 days of standard neoadjuvant therapy as well as after the first cycle of salvage docetaxel/cisplatin chemotherapy (PET 1) and at the end of radiochemotherapy (PET2). Tracer uptake will be assessed semiquantitatively using standardized uptake values (SUV). The percentage difference ΔSUV = 100 (SUV_Baseline- SUV _PET1)/SUV_Baselinewill be calculated and assessed as an early predictor of histopathological response. In a secondary analysis, the association between the difference SUV_PET1- SUV_PET2and histopathological response will be evaluated.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The aim of this study is to investigate the potential of sequential ¹⁸FDG-PET in predicting histopathological response in AEG tumors to salvage neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy in patients who do not show metabolic response to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Clinical trial identifier <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01271322">NCT01271322</a></p

Impact of COVID-19 on cancer service delivery: results from an international survey of oncology clinicians.

To report clinician-perceived changes to cancer service delivery in response to COVID-19. Multidisciplinary Australasian cancer clinician survey in collaboration with the European Society of Medical Oncology. Between May and June 2020 clinicians from 70 countries were surveyed; majority from Europe (n=196; 39%) with 1846 COVID-19 cases per million people, Australia (AUS)/New Zealand (NZ) (n=188; 38%) with 267/236 per million and Asia (n=75; 15%) with 121 per million at time of survey distribution. Medical oncologists (n=372; 74%), radiation oncologists (n=91; 18%) and surgical oncologists (n=38; 8%). Eighty-nine per cent of clinicians reported altering clinical practices; more commonly among those with versus without patients diagnosed with COVID-19 (n=142; 93% vs n=225; 86%, p=0.03) but regardless of community transmission levels (p=0.26). More European clinicians (n=111; 66.1%) had treated patients diagnosed with COVID-19 compared with Asia (n=20; 27.8%) and AUS/NZ (n=8; 4.8%), p&lt;0.001. Many clinicians (n=307; 71.4%) reported concerns that reduced access to standard treatments during the pandemic would negatively impact patient survival. The reported proportion of consultations using telehealth increased by 7.7-fold, with 25.1% (n=108) of clinicians concerned that patient survival would be worse due to this increase. Clinicians reviewed a median of 10 fewer outpatients/week (including non-face to face) compared with prior to the pandemic, translating to 5010 fewer specialist oncology visits per week among the surveyed group. Mental health was negatively impacted for 52.6% (n=190) of clinicians. Clinicians reported widespread changes to oncology services, in regions of both high and low COVID-19 case numbers. Clinician concerns of potential negative impacts on patient outcomes warrant objective assessment, with system and policy implications for healthcare delivery at large