Hybrid teaching and learning environment in the context of virtual product development

Product development means identifying the needs of different stakeholders, developing a product for them to the point where it is ready for production and use, and documenting it. To manage the complexity of product development, it is becoming increasingly digitalised. As virtual product development is a key area of industry, teaching in this area is an important component of a practice-oriented engineering curriculum. Engineering education constantly requires new teaching and learning formats. The trend is towards a systematic combination of digital teaching materials for self-organised individual and cooperative self-study on the one hand, and in-depth forms of classroom teaching tailored to the needs of students on the other - in short: hybrid forms of teaching and learning. Within the framework of an eTeach impulse project for a hybrid teaching and learning environment for virtual product development, important results have been developed, implemented and evaluated to achieve this goal

Economic Effects of Climate Change in Developing Countries: Economy-wide and Regional Analysis for Ethiopia

Quantifying the economic effects of climate change is a crucial step for planning adaptation in developing countries. This study assesses the economy-wide and regional effects of climate change induced productivity and labor supply shocks in agriculture in Ethiopia. The study shows, in worst case scenario, the effects on national GDP may add up to -8% with uneven regional effects ranging from -10% in agrarian regions (e.g. Amhara) to +2.5% in urbanized regions (e.g. Addis Ababa). Cost-free exogenous structural change scenarios in labor markets and transaction costs may offset about 20-30% of the ripple effects of climate change. Therefore, the ongoing structural transformation in the country may underpin the resilience of the economy to climate change. Nevertheless, given the role of agriculture in the current economic structure of the country and the potency of biophysical impacts of climate change, adaptation in the sector is indispensable. Otherwise, climate change may hamper economic progress of the country, and make rural livelihood unpredictable

Multi-objective calibration of RothC using measured carbon stocks and auxiliary data of a long-term experiment in Switzerland

Interactions between model parameters and low spatiotemporal resolution of available data mean that conventional soil organic carbon (SOC) models are often affected by equifinality, with consequent uncertainty in SOC forecasts. Estimation of belowground C inputs is another major source of uncertainty in SOC modelling. Models are usually calibrated on SOC stocks and fluxes from long‐term experiments (LTEs), whereas other point data are not used for constraining the model parameters. We used data from an agricultural long‐term (> 65 years) fertilization experiment to test a multi‐objective parameter estimation approach on the RothC model, combining SOC data from different fertilization treatments with microbial biomass, basal respiration and Zimmermann’s fractions data. We also compared two methods to estimate the belowground C inputs: a conventional scaling of belowground biomass from crop harvest yield and an alternative approach based on constant belowground C for cereals measured experimentally in the field. The resulting posterior parameter distributions still suffered from some equifinality; the most stable C pool kinetic constants and composition of exogenous organic matter were the most sensitive parameters. The use of fixed belowground C inputs for cereals improved the model performance, reducing the importance of treatment‐specific parameters and processes. The introduction of microbial biomass and basal respiration data was effective for increasing determination of the calibration, but also suggested a change in the model structure: the microbial biomass pool, which is proportional to the C inputs in the traditional models, could be represented by different microbial physiology functions

Phase I study of daily and weekly regimens of the orally administered MDM2 antagonist idasanutlin in patients with advanced tumors

SUMMARY: Aim The oral MDM2 antagonist idasanutlin inhibits the p53-MDM2 interaction, enabling p53 activation, tumor growth inhibition, and increased survival in xenograft models. Methods We conducted a Phase I study of idasanutlin (microprecipitate bulk powder formulation) to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, food effect, and clinical activity in patients with advanced malignancies. Schedules investigated were once weekly for 3 weeks (QW × 3), once daily for 3 days (QD × 3), or QD × 5 every 28 days. We also analyzed p53 activation and the anti-proliferative effects of idasanutlin. Results The dose-escalation phase included 85 patients (QW × 3, n = 36; QD × 3, n = 15; QD × 5, n = 34). Daily MTD was 3200 mg (QW × 3), 1000 mg (QD × 3), and 500 mg (QD × 5). Most common adverse events were diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, decreased appetite, and thrombocytopenia. Dose-limiting toxicities were nausea/vomiting and myelosuppression; myelosuppression was more frequent with QD dosing and associated with pharmacokinetic exposure. Idasanutlin exposure was approximately dose proportional at low doses, but less than dose proportional at > 600 mg. Although inter-patient variability in exposure was high with all regimens, cumulative idasanutlin exposure over the whole 28-day cycle was greatest with a QD × 5 regimen. No major food effect on pharmacokinetic exposure occurred. MIC-1 levels were higher with QD dosing, increasing in an exposure-dependent manner. Best response was stable disease in 30.6% of patients, prolonged (> 600 days) in 2 patients with sarcoma. Conclusions Idasanutlin demonstrated dose- and schedule-dependent p53 activation with durable disease stabilization in some patients. Based on these findings, the QD × 5 schedule was selected for further development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01462175 (ClinicalTrials.gov), October 31, 2011. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10637-021-01141-2

Effect of Tumor-Treating Fields Plus Maintenance Temozolomide vs Maintenance Temozolomide Alone on Survival in Patients With Glioblastoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Tumor-treating fields (TTFields) is an antimitotic treatment modality that interferes with glioblastoma cell division and organelle assembly by delivering low-intensity alternating electric fields to the tumor. To investigate whether TTFields improves progression-free and overall survival of patients with glioblastoma, a fatal disease that commonly recurs at the initial tumor site or in the central nervous system. In this randomized, open-label trial, 695 patients with glioblastoma whose tumor was resected or biopsied and had completed concomitant radiochemotherapy (median time from diagnosis to randomization, 3.8 months) were enrolled at 83 centers (July 2009-2014) and followed up through December 2016. A preliminary report from this trial was published in 2015; this report describes the final analysis. Patients were randomized 2:1 to TTFields plus maintenance temozolomide chemotherapy (n = 466) or temozolomide alone (n = 229). The TTFields, consisting of low-intensity, 200 kHz frequency, alternating electric fields, was delivered (≥ 18 hours/d) via 4 transducer arrays on the shaved scalp and connected to a portable device. Temozolomide was administered to both groups (150-200 mg/m2) for 5 days per 28-day cycle (6-12 cycles). Progression-free survival (tested at α = .046). The secondary end point was overall survival (tested hierarchically at α = .048). Analyses were performed for the intent-to-treat population. Adverse events were compared by group. Of the 695 randomized patients (median age, 56 years; IQR, 48-63; 473 men [68%]), 637 (92%) completed the trial. Median progression-free survival from randomization was 6.7 months in the TTFields-temozolomide group and 4.0 months in the temozolomide-alone group (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.76; P < .001). Median overall survival was 20.9 months in the TTFields-temozolomide group vs 16.0 months in the temozolomide-alone group (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.76; P < .001). Systemic adverse event frequency was 48% in the TTFields-temozolomide group and 44% in the temozolomide-alone group. Mild to moderate skin toxicity underneath the transducer arrays occurred in 52% of patients who received TTFields-temozolomide vs no patients who received temozolomide alone. In the final analysis of this randomized clinical trial of patients with glioblastoma who had received standard radiochemotherapy, the addition of TTFields to maintenance temozolomide chemotherapy vs maintenance temozolomide alone, resulted in statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival and overall survival. These results are consistent with the previous interim analysis. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00916409

A phase I study of the oral gamma secretase inhibitor R04929097 in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors (PHL-078/CTEP 8575)

PURPOSE: To establish the recommended phase II dose of the oral γ-secretase inhibitor RO4929097 (RO) in combination with gemcitabine; secondary objectives include the evaluation of safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, biomarkers of Notch signaling and preliminary anti-tumor activity. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled in cohorts of escalating RO dose levels (DLs). Tested RO DLs were 20 mg, 30 mg, 45 mg and 90 mg. RO was administered orally, once daily on days 1-3, 8-10, 15-17, 22-24. Gemcitabine was administered at 1,000 mg/m(2) on d1, 8, and 15 in 28 d cycles. Dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed by CTCAE v4. Serial plasma was collected for RO (total and unbound) and gemcitabine pharmacokinetic analysis. Biomarkers of Notch signaling were assessed by immunohistochemistry in archival tissue. Antitumor activity was evaluated (RECIST 1.1). RESULTS: A total of 18 patients were enrolled to establish the recommended phase II dose. Of these, 3 patients received 20 mg RO, 7 patients received 30 mg RO, 6 patients received 45 mg RO and 2 patients received 90 mg RO. DLTs were grade 3 transaminitis (30 mg RO), grade 3 transaminitis and maculopapular rash (45 mg RO), and grade 3 transaminitis and failure to receive 75 % of planned RO doses secondary to prolonged neutropenia (90 mg); all were reversible. The maximum tolerated dose was exceeded at 90 mg RO. Pharmacokinetic analysis of both total and free RO confirmed the presence of autoinduction at 45 and 90 mg. Median levels of Notch3 staining were higher in individuals who received fewer than 4 cycles (p = 0.029). Circulating angiogenic factor levels did not correlate with time to progression or ≥ grade 3 adverse events. Best response (RECIST 1.1) was partial response (nasopharyngeal cancer) and stable disease > 4 months was observed in 3 patients (pancreas, tracheal, and breast primary cancers). CONCLUSIONS: RO and gemcitabine can be safely combined. The recommended phase II dose of RO was 30 mg in combination with gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2). Although RO exposure was limited by the presence of autoinduction, RO levels achieved exceeded the area under the concentration-time curve for 0-24 h (AUC(0-24)) predicted for efficacy in preclinical models using daily dosing. Evidence of clinical antitumor activity and prolonged stable disease were identified

A Randomized Phase II Trial of Epigenetic Priming with Guadecitabine and Carboplatin in Platinum-resistant, Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: Platinum resistance in ovarian cancer is associated with epigenetic modifications. Hypomethylating agents (HMA) have been studied as carboplatin resensitizing agents in ovarian cancer. This randomized phase II trial compared guadecitabine, a second-generation HMA, and carboplatin (G+C) against second-line chemotherapy in women with measurable or detectable platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received either G+C (guadecitabine 30 mg/m2 s.c. once-daily for 5 days and carboplatin) or treatment of choice (TC; topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine) in 28-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were RECIST v1.1 and CA-125 response rate, 6-month PFS, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 100 patients treated, 51 received G+C and 49 received TC, of which 27 crossed over to G+C. The study did not meet its primary endpoint as the median PFS was not statistically different between arms (16.3 weeks vs. 9.1 weeks in the G+C and TC groups, respectively; P = 0.07). However, the 6-month PFS rate was significantly higher in the G+C group (37% vs. 11% in TC group; P = 0.003). The incidence of grade 3 or higher toxicity was similar in G+C and TC groups (51% and 49%, respectively), with neutropenia and leukopenia being more frequent in the G+C group. CONCLUSIONS: Although this trial did not show superiority for PFS of G+C versus TC, the 6-month PFS increased in G+C treated patients. Further refinement of this strategy should focus on identification of predictive markers for patient selection