A comparative study of different integrate-and-fire neurons: spontaneous activity, dynamical response, and stimulus-induced correlation

Stochastic integrate-and-fire (IF) neuron models have found widespread applications in computational neuroscience. Here we present results on the white-noise-driven perfect, leaky, and quadratic IF models, focusing on the spectral statistics (power spectra, cross spectra, and coherence functions) in different dynamical regimes (noise-induced and tonic firing regimes with low or moderate noise). We make the models comparable by tuning parameters such that the mean value and the coefficient of variation of the interspike interval match for all of them. We find that, under these conditions, the power spectrum under white-noise stimulation is often very similar while the response characteristics, described by the cross spectrum between a fraction of the input noise and the output spike train, can differ drastically. We also investigate how the spike trains of two neurons of the same kind (e.g. two leaky IF neurons) correlate if they share a common noise input. We show that, depending on the dynamical regime, either two quadratic IF models or two leaky IFs are more strongly correlated. Our results suggest that, when choosing among simple IF models for network simulations, the details of the model have a strong effect on correlation and regularity of the output.Comment: 12 page

When to wait for more evidence?: real options analysis in proton therapy.

Purpose. Trends suggest that cancer spending growth will accelerate. One method for controlling costs is to examine whether the benefits of new technologies are worth the extra costs. However, especially new and emerging technologies are often more costly, while limited clinical evidence of superiority is available. In that situation it is often unclear whether to adopt the new technology now, with the risk of investing in a suboptimal therapy, or to wait for more evidence, with the risk of withholding patients their optimal treatment. This trade-off is especially difficult when it is costly to reverse the decision to adopt a technology, as is the case for proton therapy. Real options analysis, a technique originating from financial economics, assists in making this trade-off. Methods. We examined whether to adopt proton therapy, as compared to stereotactic body radiotherapy, in the treatment of inoperable stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Three options are available: adopt without further research; adopt and undertake a trial; or delay adoption and undertake a trial. The decision depends on the expected net gain of each option, calculated by subtracting its total costs from its expected benefits. Results. In The Netherlands, adopt and trial was found to be the preferred option, with an optimal sample size of 200 patients. Increase of treatment costs abroad and costs of reversal altered the preferred option. Conclusion. We have shown that real options analysis provides a transparent method of weighing the costs and benefits of adopting and/or further researching new and expensive technologies. The Oncologist 2011;16:1752-176

The impact of late treatment-toxicity on generic health-related quality of life in head and neck cancer patients after radiotherapy

SummaryTo examine the impact of late treatment-related xerostomia and dysphagia on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients after radiotherapy. A multi-center cross-sectional survey was performed. Patients with a follow-up of at least 6months after curative radiotherapy, without evidence of recurrent disease were eligible for inclusion. The Euroqol-5D questionnaire (EQ-5D) was filled out and toxicity was scored and converted to the RTOG scale. The EQ-5D measures generic HRQOL in terms of utility and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Missing data on the EQ-5D were imputed using multiple imputation. HRQOL was compared between subgroups of patients with and without toxicity. Subsequently, the impact of xerostomia and dysphagia on HRQOL was analyzed using multivariate regression analyses. Both analyses were performed separately for utility scores and VAS scores. The study population was composed of 396 HNC patients. The average utility and VAS scores were 0.85 (scale 0–1) and 75 (scale 0–100). Subgroups of patients with xerostomia and/or dysphagia showed statistically significantly lower utility and VAS scores (P=0.000–0.022). The multivariate regression model showed that xerostomia and dysphagia were negative predictors of both utility and VAS scores. Other factors which influenced HRQOL in at least one of the two regression models were: sex, tumor location and the addition of surgery to radiotherapy. Xerostomia and dysphagia diminish generic HRQOL. Moreover dysphagia affects patients’ HRQOL stronger than xerostomia

Combined use of hyperthermia and radiation therapy for treating locally advanced cervical carcinoma (Withdrawn Paper, art. no. CD006377, 2010)

Hyperthermia is a type of cancer treatment in which body tissue is exposed to high temperatures to damage and kill cancer cells. It was introduced into clinical oncology practice several decades ago. Positive clinical results, mostly obtained in single institutions, resulted in clinical implementation albeit in a limited number of cancer centres worldwide. Because large scale randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are lacking, firm conclusions cannot be drawn regarding its definitive role as an adjunct to radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced cervical carcinoma (LACC).To assess whether adding hyperthermia to standard radiotherapy for LACC has an impact on (1) local tumour control, (2) survival and (3) treatment related morbidity.The electronic databases of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (Issue 1, 2009) and Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Groups Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, online databases for trial registration, handsearching of journals and conference abstracts, reviews, reference lists, and contacts with experts were used to identify potentially eligible trials, published and unpublished until January 2009.RCTs comparing radiotherapy alone (RT) versus combined hyperthermia and radiotherapy (RHT) in patients with LACC.Between 1987 and 2009 the results of six RCTs were published, these were used for the current analysis.74% of patients had FIGO stage IIIB LACC. Treatment outcome was significantly better for patients receiving the combined treatment (Figures 1 to 3). The pooled data analysis yielded a significantly higher complete response rate (relative risk (RR) 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.79; p <0.001), a significantly reduced local recurrence rate at 3 years (hazard ratio (HR) 0.48; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.63; p <0.001) and a significanly better overall survival (OS) at three years following the combined treatment with RHT(HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.99; p = 0.05). No significant difference was observed in treatment related acute (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.30 to 3.31; p = 0.99) or late grade 3 to 4 toxicity (RR 1.01; CI 95% 0.44 to 2.30; p = 0.96) between both treatments.The limited number of patients available for analysis, methodological flaws and a significant over-representation of patients with FIGO stage IIIB prohibit drawing definite conclusions regarding the impact of adding hyperthermia to standard radiotherapy. However, available data do suggest that the addition of hyperthermia improves local tumour control and overall survival in patients with locally advanced cervical carcinoma without affecting treatment related grade 3 to 4 acute or late toxicity

A Fokker-Planck formalism for diffusion with finite increments and absorbing boundaries

Gaussian white noise is frequently used to model fluctuations in physical systems. In Fokker-Planck theory, this leads to a vanishing probability density near the absorbing boundary of threshold models. Here we derive the boundary condition for the stationary density of a first-order stochastic differential equation for additive finite-grained Poisson noise and show that the response properties of threshold units are qualitatively altered. Applied to the integrate-and-fire neuron model, the response turns out to be instantaneous rather than exhibiting low-pass characteristics, highly non-linear, and asymmetric for excitation and inhibition. The novel mechanism is exhibited on the network level and is a generic property of pulse-coupled systems of threshold units.Comment: Consists of two parts: main article (3 figures) plus supplementary text (3 extra figures

Concurrent once-daily versus twice-daily chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (CONVERT): an open-label, phase 3, randomised, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: The CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin-etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00433563) and is currently in follow-up. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35-58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24-34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21-31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95-1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50-62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45-57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI -3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3-4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) and grade 3-4 radiation pneumonitis (4 [3%] of 254 vs 4 [2%] of 246; p=0·70). 11 patients died from treatment-related causes (three in the twice-daily group and eight in the once-daily group). INTERPRETATION: Survival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, and toxicity was similar and lower than expected with both regimens. Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK (Clinical Trials Awards and Advisory Committee), French Ministry of Health, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Cancer Research Fund, Lung Cancer, and Radiation Oncology Groups)