Sales promotions and channel coordination

Consumer sales promotions are usually the result of the decisions of two marketing channel parties, the manufacturer and the retailer. In making these decisions, each party normally follows its own interest: i.e. maximizes its own profit. Unfortunately, this results in a suboptimal outcome for the channel as a whole. Independent profit maximization by channel parties leads to a lack of channel coordination with the implication of leaving money on the table. This may well contribute to the notoriously low profitability of sales promotions. This paper first shows analytically why the suboptimality occurs, and then presents an empirical demonstration, using a unique dataset from an Efficient Consumer Response (ECR) project; ECR is a movement in which parties work together to optimize the distribution channel). In this dataset, actual profit is only a small fraction of potential profit, implying that there is a large degree of suboptimality. It is important that (1) channel parties are aware of this suboptimality; and (2) that they have tools to deal with it. Solutions to the channel coordination problem should ensure that the goals of the individual channel parties are aligned with the goals of the channel as a whole. The paper proposes one particular agreement for this purpose, called proportional discount sharing. Application to the ECR data shows a win-win result for both the manufacturer and the retailer. Recognition of the channel coordination problem by the manufacturer and the retailer is the necessary starting point for agreeing on a way of solving it in a win-win fashion

Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with major portal vein thrombosis by combined therapy with subcutaneous interferon-α and intra-arterial 5-fluorouracil; role of type 1 interferon receptor expression

We previously reported the beneficial effects of combination therapy of interferon (IFN)-α/5-fluorouracil (FU) for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with tumour thrombi in the major portal branches. This report describes the results of longer follow-up and includes more than double the number of patients relative to the original report, and evaluates the role of IFN-α/type 2 interferon receptor (IFNAR2) expression on the response to the combination therapy. The study subjects were 55 patients with advanced HCC and tumour thrombi in the major branches of the portal vein (Vp3 or 4). They were treated with at least two courses of IFN-α/5-FU without major complication. In the 55 patients, 24 (43.6%) showed objective response (eight (14.5%) showed complete response, 16 (29.1%) partial response), four (7.3%) showed no response, and 27 (49.1%) showed progressive disease. Immunohistochemically, IFNAR2 expression was detected in nine out of 13 (69.2%) patients. There was significant difference in the time-to-progression survival (P=0.0002) and the overall survival (P<0.0001) between IFNAR2-positive and -negative cases. There was a significant correlation between IFNAR2 expression and response to IFN-α/5-FU combination therapy in univariate analysis (P=0.0070). IFN-α/5-FU combination therapy is a promising modality for advanced HCC with tumour thrombi in the major portal branches and could significantly depend on IFNAR2 expression

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease