Effects of anatomical changes on pencil beam scanning proton plans in locally advanced NSCLC patients

Daily anatomical variations can cause considerable differences between delivered and planned dose. This study simulates and evaluates these effects in spot-scanning proton therapy for lung cancer patients. Robust intensity modulated treatment plans were designed on the mid-position CT scan for sixteen locally advanced lung cancer patients. To estimate dosimetric uncertainty, deformable registration was performed on their daily CBCTs to generate 4DCT equivalent scans for each fraction and to map recomputed dose to a common frame. Without adaptive planning, eight patients had an undercoverage of the targets of more than 2GyE (maximum of 14.1GyE) on the recalculated treatment dose from the daily anatomy variations including respiration. In organs at risk, a maximum increase of 4.7GyE in the D1 was found in the mediastinal structures. The effect of respiratory motion alone is smaller: 1.4GyE undercoverage for targets and less than 1GyE for organs at risk. Daily anatomical variations over the course of treatment can cause considerable dose differences in the robust planned dose distribution. An advanced planning strategy including knowledge of anatomical uncertainties would be recommended to improve plan robustness against interfractional variations. For large anatomical changes, adaptive therapy is mandator

Stereotactic image-guided lung radiotherapy (SBRT) for clinical early-stage NSCLC: a long-term report from a multi-institutional database of patients treated with or without a pathologic diagnosis

PURPOSE: Early stage lung cancer is treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in patients who are unable or unwilling to undergo surgical resection. Some patients' comorbidities are so severe that they are unable to even undergo a biopsy. A clinical diagnosis without biopsy before SBRT has been used, but there are limited data on its efficacy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data on patients treated with SBRT for non-small cell lung cancer, with and without tissue confirmation, were collected from multiple institutions across Europe, Canada, and the United States. Patients with a minimum of 2 years of comprehensive follow up were selected for analysis. Treatment and patient characteristics were compared. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), cause-specific survival (CSS), and rates of local recurrence (LR), regional recurrence (RR), and distant metastasis (DM) were calculated and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 701 patients were identified, of which 67% had tissue confirmation of their tumors. The 3- and 5-year outcomes for OS, CSS, and DFS were 83.8%, 93.1%, 69%, and 60.6%, 86.7%, 45.5%, respectively. The rates for LR, RR, and DM at 3 and 5 years were 6.4%, 9.3%, 14.3%, and 10.5%, 14.3%, 19.7%, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in survival outcomes or recurrences between the biopsy and no-biopsy cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT for clinically diagnosed lung cancers is efficacious in appropriately selected patients, with similar outcomes as those with a pathologic diagnosis. Thorough clinical and radiographic evaluations in a multidisciplinary setting are critical to the management of these patients

Development of Superparamagnetic Nanoparticles Coated with Polyacrylic Acid and Aluminum Hydroxide as an Efficient Contrast Agent for Multimodal Imaging

Early diagnosis of disease and follow-up of therapy is of vital importance for appropriate patient management since it allows rapid treatment, thereby reducing mortality and improving health and quality of life with lower expenditure for health care systems. New approaches include nanomedicine-based diagnosis combined with therapy. Nanoparticles (NPs), as contrast agents for in vivo diagnosis, have the advantage of combining several imaging agents that are visible using different modalities, thereby achieving high spatial resolution, high sensitivity, high specificity, morphological, and functional information. In this work, we present the development of aluminum hydroxide nanostructures embedded with polyacrylic acid (PAA) coated iron oxide superparamagnetic nanoparticles, Fe3O4@Al(OH)3, synthesized by a two-step co-precipitation and forced hydrolysis method, their physicochemical characterization and first biomedical studies as dual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/positron emission tomography (PET) contrast agents for cell imaging. The so-prepared NPs are size-controlled, with diameters below 250 nm, completely and homogeneously coated with an Al(OH)3 phase over the magnetite cores, superparamagnetic with high saturation magnetization value (Ms = 63 emu/g-Fe3O4), and porous at the surface with a chemical affinity for fluoride ion adsorption. The suitability as MRI and PET contrast agents was tested showing high transversal relaxivity (r2) (83.6 mM−1 s −1 ) and rapid uptake of 18F-labeled fluoride ions as a PET tracer. The loading stability with 18F-fluoride was tested in longitudinal experiments using water, buffer, and cell culture media. Even though the stability of the 18F-label varied, it remained stable under all conditions. A first in vivo experiment indicates the suitability of Fe3O4@Al(OH)3 nanoparticles as a dual contrast agent for sensitive short-term (PET) and high-resolution long-term imaging (MRI).This work was supported by the European Commission under the PANA project, Call H2020-NMP2015-two-stage, Grant 686009, and partially supported by the Consellería de Educación Program for the Development of Strategic Grouping in Materials—AEMAT at the University of Santiago de Compostela under Grant No. ED431E2018/08, Xunta de Galicia, and the Flemish Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT grant agreement n◦ 140061, SBO ‘NanoCoMIT’). Furthermore, we acknowledge infrastructure funding for the preclinical PET/MRI scanner from ‘Stichting tegen Kanker’ (STK 2015-145) and from the Hercules Stichting (AKUL/13/29). Frederik Cleeren is a Postdoctoral Fellow of The Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO; 12R3119N)S

Investigation of the added value of CT-based radiomics in predicting the development of brain metastases in patients with radically treated stage III NSCLC

Introduction: Despite radical intent therapy for patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), cumulative incidence of brain metastases (BM) reaches 30%. Current risk stratification methods fail to accurately identify these patients. As radiomics features have been shown to have predictive value, this study aims to develop a model combining clinical risk factors with radiomics features for BM development in patients with radically treated stage III NSCLC. Methods: Retrospective analysis of two prospective multicentre studies. Inclusion criteria: adequately staged [18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (18-FDG-PET-CT), contrast-enhanced chest CT, contrast-enhanced brain magnetic resonance imaging/CT] and radically treated stage III NSCLC, exclusion criteria: second primary within 2 years of NSCLC diagnosis and prior prophylactic cranial irradiation. Primary endpoint was BM development any time during follow-up (FU). CT-based radiomics features (N = 530) were extracted from the primary lung tumour on 18-FDG-PET-CT images, and a list of clinical features (N = 8) was collected. Univariate feature selection based on the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic was performed to identify relevant features. Generalized linear models were trained using the selected features, and multivariate predictive performance was assessed through the AUC. Results: In total, 219 patients were eligible for analysis. Median FU was 59.4 months for the training cohort and 67.3 months for the validation cohort; 21 (15%) and 17 (22%) patients developed BM in the training and validation cohort, respectively. Two relevant clinical features (age and adenocarcinoma histology) and four relevant radiomics features were identified as predictive. The clinical model yielded the highest AUC value of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.58–0.84), better than radiomics or a combination of clinical parameters and radiomics (both an AUC of 0.62, 95% CIs of 0.47–076 and 0.48–0.76, respectively). Conclusion: CT-based radiomics features of primary NSCLC in the current setup could not improve on a model based on clinical predictors (age and adenocarcinoma histology) of BM development in radically treated stage III NSCLC patients

Quality of life after patient-initiated vs physician-initiated response to symptom monitoring:the SYMPRO-Lung trial

BackgroundPrevious studies using patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) to monitor symptoms during and after (lung) cancer treatment used alerts that were sent to the health-care provider, although an approach in which patients receive alerts could be more clinically feasible. The primary aim of this study was to compare the effect of weekly PROM symptom monitoring via a reactive approach (patient receives alert) or active approach (health-care provider receives alert) with care as usual on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 15 weeks after start of treatment in lung cancer patients.MethodsThe SYMPRO–Lung trial is a multicenter randomized controlled trial using a stepped wedge design. Stage I-IV lung cancer patients in the reactive and active groups reported PROM symptoms weekly, which were linked to a common alerting algorithm. HRQOL was measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline and after 15 weeks. Linear regression analyses and effect size estimates were used to assess mean QOL–C30 change scores between groups, accounting for confounding.ResultsA total of 515 patients were included (160 active group, 89 reactive group, 266 control group). No differences in HRQOL were observed between the reactive and active group (summary score: unstandardized beta [B] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -3.22 to 4.24, Cohen d effect size [ES] = 0.06; physical functioning: B = 0.25, 95% CI = -5.15 to 4.64, ES = 0.02). The combined intervention groups had statistically and clinically significantly better mean change scores on the summary score (B = 4.85, 95% CI = 1.96 to 7.73, ES = 0.57) and physical functioning (B = 7.00, 95% CI = 2.90 to 11.09, ES = 0.71) compared with the control group.ConclusionsWeekly PRO symptom monitoring statistically and clinically significantly improves HRQOL in lung cancer patients. The logistically less intensive, reactive approach may be a better fit for implementation

What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach

Ambiguity surrounding the effect of external engagement on academic research has raised questions about what motivates researchers to collaborate with third parties. We argue that what matters for society is research that can be absorbed by users. We define openness as a willingness by researchers to make research more usable by external partners by responding to external influences in their own research practices. We ask what kinds of characteristics define those researchers who are more open to creating usable knowledge. Our empirical study analyses a sample of 1583 researchers working at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC). Results demonstrate that it is personal factors (academic identity and past experience) that determine which researchers have open behaviours. The paper concludes that policies to encourage external engagement should focus on experiences which legitimate and validate knowledge produced through user encounters, both at the academic formation career stage as well as through providing ongoing opportunities to engage with third parties.The data used for this study comes from the IMPACTO project funded by the Spanish Council for Scientific Research - CSIC (Ref. 200410E639). The work also benefited from a mobility grant awarded by Eu-Spri Forum to Julia Olmos Penuela & Paul Benneworth for her visiting research to the Center of Higher Education Policy Studies. Finally, Julia Olmos Penuela also benefited from a post-doctoral grant funded by the Generalitat Valenciana (APOSTD-2014-A-006).Olmos-Peñuela, J.; Benneworth, P.; Castro-Martínez, E. (2015). What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach. Minerva. 53(4):381-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-015-9283-4S381410534Abreu, Maria, Vadim Grinevich, Alan Hughes, and Michael Kitson. 2009. Knowledge exchange between academics and the business, public and third sectors. Cambridge: Centre for Business Research and UK-IRC.Aghion, Philippe, Mathias Dewatripont, and Jeremy C. Stein. 2008. Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. RAND Journal of Economics 39: 617–635.Ajzen, Icek. 2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 27–58.Alrøe, Hugo Fjelsted, and Erik Steen Kristensen. 2002. Towards a systemic research methodology in agriculture: Rethinking the role of values in science. Agriculture and Human Values 19(1): 3–23.Audretsch, David B., Werner Bönte, and Stefan Krabel. 2010. Why do scientists in public research institutions cooperate with private firms. In DRUID Working Paper, 10–27.Baldini, Nicola, Rosa Grimaldi, and Maurizio Sobrero. 2007. To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics 70(2): 333–354.Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Barnett, R. 2009. Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum. Studies in Higher Education 34(4): 429–440.Becher, Tony. 1994. The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education 19(2): 151–161.Becher, Tony, and Paul Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. McGraw-Hill International.Bekkers, Rudi, and Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas. 2008. Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy 37(10): 1837–1853.Belderbos, René, Martin Carree, Bert Diederen, Boris Lokshin, and Reinhilde Veugelers. 2004. Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization 22(8): 1237–1263.Benner, Mats, and Ulf Sandström. 2000. Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy 29(2): 291–301.Bercovitz, Janet, and Maryann Feldman. 2008. Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science 19(1): 69–89.Berman, Elizabeth Popp. 2011. Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton University Press.Bleiklie, Ivar, and Roar Høstaker. 2004. Modernizing research training-education and science policy between profession, discipline and academic institution. Higher Education Policy 17(2): 221–236.Bozeman, Barry, Daniel Fay, and Catherine P. Slade. 2013. Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer 38(1): 1–67.Collini, Stefan. 2009. Impact on humanities: Researchers must take a stand now or be judged and rewarded as salesmen. The Times Literary Supplement 5563: 18–19.D’Este, Pablo, and Markus Perkmann. 2011. Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer 36(3): 316–339.D’Este, Pablo, Oscar Llopis, and Alfredo Yegros. 2013. Conducting pro-social research: Cognitive diversity, research excellence and awareness about the social impact of research: INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series.Deem, Rosemary, and Lisa Lucas. 2007. Research and teaching cultures in two contrasting UK policy contexts: Academic life in education departments in five English and Scottish universities. Higher Education 54(1): 115–133.DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.Downing, David B. 2005. The knowledge contract: Politics and paradigms in the academic workplace. Lincoln: Nebraska University of Nebraska Press.Donovan, Claire. 2007. The qualitative future of research evaluation. Science and Public Policy 34(8): 585–597.Durning, Bridget. 2004. Planning academics and planning practitioners: Two tribes or a community of practice? Planning Practice and Research 19(4): 435–446.Edquist, Charles. 1997. System of innovation approaches: Their emergence and characteristics. In Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations, ed. C. Edquist, 1–35. London: Pinter.Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy 29(2): 109–123.Fromhold-Eisebith, Martina, Claudia Werker, and Marcel Vojnic. 2014. Tracing the social dimension in innovation networks. In The social dynamics of innovation networks, eds. Roel Rutten, Paul Benneworth, Frans Boekema, and Dessy Irawati. London: Routledge (in press).Geuna, Aldo, and Alessandro Muscio. 2009. The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva 47(1): 93–114.Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Gläser, Jochen. 2012. How does Governance change research content? On the possibility of a sociological middle-range theory linking science policy studies to the sociology of scientific knowledge. Technical University Berlin. Technology Studies Working Papers. http://www.ts.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg226/TUTS/TUTS-WP-1-2012.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2015.Goethner, Maximilian, Martin Obschonka, Rainer K. Silbereisen, and Uwe Cantner. 2012. Scientists’ transition to academic entrepreneurship: Economic and psychological determinants. Journal of Economic Psychology 33(3): 628–641.Gulbrandsen, Magnus, and Jens-Christian Smeby. 2005. Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy 34(6): 932–950.Haeussler, Carolin, and Jeannette Colyvas. 2011. Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy 40(1): 41–54.Hessels, Laurens K., Harro van Lente, John Grin, and Ruud E.H.M. Smits. 2011. Changing struggles for relevance in eight fields of natural science. Industry and Higher Education 25(5): 347–357.Hessels, Laurens K., and Harro Van Lente. 2008. Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy 37(4): 740–760.Hoye, Kate, and Fred Pries. 2009. ‘Repeat commercializers’, the ‘habitual entrepreneurs’ of university–industry technology transfer. Technovation 29(10): 682–689.Jacobson, Nora, Dale Butterill, and Paula Goering. 2004. Organizational factors that influence university-based researchers’ engagement in knowledge transfer activities. Science Communication 25(3): 246–259.Jain, Sanjay, Gerard George, and Mark Maltarich. 2009. Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy 38(6): 922–935.Jasanoff, Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2013. Sociotechnical imaginaries and national energy policies. Science as Culture 22(2): 189–196.Jensen, Pablo. 2011. A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science 20(1): 26–36.Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Kronenberg, Kristin, and Marjolein Caniëls. 2014. Professional proximity in research collaborations. In The social dynamics of innovation networks, eds. Roel Rutten, Paul Benneworth, Frans Boekema, and Dessy Irawati. London: Routledge (in press).Krueger, Rob, and David Gibbs. 2010. Competitive global city regions and sustainable development’: An interpretive institutionalist account in the South East of England. Environment and planning A 42: 821–837.Lam, Alice. 2011. What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy 40(10): 1354–1368.Landry, Réjean, Malek Saïhi, Nabil Amara, and Mathieu Ouimet. 2010. Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy 39(10): 1387–1403.Lee, Alison, and David Boud. 2003. Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education 28(2): 187–200.Lee, Yong S. 1996. ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university–industry collaboration. Research Policy 25(6): 843–863.Lee, Yong S. 2000. The sustainability of university–industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer 25(2): 111–133.Leisyte, Liudvika, Jürgen Enders, and Harry De Boer. 2008. The freedom to set research agendas—illusion and reality of the research units in the Dutch Universities. Higher Education Policy 21(3): 377–391.Louis, Karen Seashore, David Blumenthal, Michael E. Gluck, and Michael A. Stoto. 1989. Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly 34(1): 110–131.Lowe, Philip, Jeremy Phillipson, and Katy Wilkinson. 2013. Why social scientists should engage with natural scientists. Contemporary Social Science 8(3): 207–222.Martín-Sempere, María José, Belén Garzón-García, and Jesús Rey-Rocha. 2008. Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science 17(3): 349–367.Martin, Ben. 2003. The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. In Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance, eds. A. Geuna, A.J. Salter, and W.E. Steinmueller, 7–29. Cheltenhan: Edward Elgar.Merton, Robert K. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Miller, Thaddeus R., and Mark W. Neff. 2013. De-facto science policy in the making: how scientists shape science policy and why it matters (or, why STS and STP scholars should socialize). Minerva 51(3): 295–315.Muthén, Bengt O. 1998–2004. Mplus Technical Appendices. Muthén & Muthén. Los Angeles, CA.: Muthén & Muthén.Nedeva, Maria. 2013. Between the global and the national: Organising European science. Research Policy 42(1): 220–230.Neff, Mark William. 2014. Research prioritization and the potential pitfall of path dependencies in coral reef science. Minerva 52(2): 213–235.Nelson, Richard R. 2001. Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer 26(1): 13–19.Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, Paul Benneworth, and Elena Castro-Martínez. 2014a. Are ‘STEM from Mars and SSH from Venus’? Challenging disciplinary stereotypes of research’s social value. Science and Public Policy 41: 384–400.Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, Elena Castro-Martínez, and Manuel Fernández-Esquinas. 2014b. Diferencias entre áreas científicas en las prácticas de divulgación de la investigación: un estudio empírico en el CSIC. Revista Española de Documentación Científica. doi: 10.3989/redc.2014.2.1096 .Ouimet, Mathieu, Nabil Amara, Réjean Landry, and John Lavis. 2007. Direct interactions medical school faculty members have with professionals and managers working in public and private sector organizations: A cross-sectional study. Scientometrics 72(2): 307–323.Perkmann, Markus, Valentina Tartari, Maureen McKelvey, Erkko Autio, Anders Brostrom, Pablo D’Este, Riccardo Fini, et al. 2013. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy 42(2): 423–442.Philpott, Kevin, Lawrence Dooley, Caroline O’Reilly, and Gary Lupton. 2011. The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation 31(4): 161–170.Rutten, Roel, and Frans Boekema. 2012. From learning region to learning in a socio-spatial context. Regional Studies 46(8): 981–992.Sarewitz, Daniel, and Roger A. Pielke. 2007. The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy 10(1): 5–16.Sauermann, Henry, and Paula Stephan. 2013. Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organization Science 24(3): 889–909.Schein, Edgar H. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Shane, Scott. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science 11(4): 448–469.Spaapen, Jack, and Leonie van Drooge. 2011. Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation 20(3): 211–218.Stokes, Donald E. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Tartari, Valentina, and Stefano Breschi. 2012. Set them free: scientists’ evaluations of the benefits and costs of university–industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change 21(5): 1117–1147.Tinker, Tony, and Rob Gray. 2003. Beyond a critique of pure reason: From policy to politics to praxis in environmental and social research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 16(5): 727–761.van Rijnsoever, Frank J., Laurens K. Hessels, and Rens L.J. Vandeberg. 2008. A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy 37(8): 1255–1266.Venkataraman, Sankaran. 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor’s perspective. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth 3: 119–138.Verspagen, Bart. 2006. University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation systems. Journal of Economic Surveys 20(4): 607–632.Villanueva-Felez, Africa, Jordi Molas-Gallart, and Alejandro Escribá-Esteve. 2013. Measuring personal networks and their relationship with scientific production. Minerva 51(4): 465–483.Watermeyer, Richard. 2015. Lost in the ‘third space’: the impact of public engagement in higher education on academic identity, research practice and career progression. European Journal of Higher Education (online first, doi: 10.1080/21568235.2015.1044546 ).Weingart, Peter. 2009. Editorial for Issue 47/3. Minerva 47(3): 237–239.Ziman, John. 1996. ‘Postacademic science’: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies 1: 67–80.Zomer, Arend H., Ben W.A. Jongbloed, and Jürgen Enders. 2010. Do spin-offs make the academics’ heads spin? The impacts of spin-off companies on their parent research organisation. Minerva 48(3): 331–353

Selecting a Subset Based on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events for Patient-Reported Symptom Monitoring in Lung Cancer Treatment: Mixed Methods Study

BackgroundThe Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) item library covers a wide range of symptoms relevant to oncology care. There is a need to select a subset of items relevant to specific patient populations to enable the implementation of PRO-CTCAE–based symptom monitoring in clinical practice. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to develop a PRO-CTCAE–based subset relevant to patients with lung cancer that can be used for monitoring during multidisciplinary clinical practice. MethodsThe PRO-CTCAE–based subset for patients with lung cancer was generated using a mixed methods approach based on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines for developing questionnaires, comprising a literature review and semistructured interviews with both patients with lung cancer and health care practitioners (HCPs). Both patients and HCPs were queried on the relevance and impact of all PRO-CTCAE items. The results were summarized, and after a final round of expert review, a selection of clinically relevant items for patients with lung cancer was made. ResultsA heterogeneous group of patients with lung cancer (n=25) from different treatment modalities and HCPs (n=22) participated in the study. A final list of eight relevant PRO-CTCAE items was created: decreased appetite, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, constipation, nausea, sadness, and pain (general). ConclusionsOn the basis of the literature and both professional and patient input, a subset of PRO-CTCAE items has been identified for use in patients with lung cancer in clinical practice. Future work is needed to confirm the validity and effectiveness of this PRO-CTCAE–based lung cancer subset internationally and in real-world clinical practice settings

Are memantine, methylphenidate and donepezil effective in sparing cognitive functioning after brain irradiation?

One strategy to reduce neurocognitive deterioration in patients after brain irradiation is the use of neuroprotective medication. To generate up-to date knowledge regarding neuroprotective agents we performed a systematic review on the clinical effectiveness of three agents that were reported to have neuroprotective characteristics: memantine, methylphenidate and donepezil. The use of memantine after brain irradiation showed a delay in cognitive deterioration, although at 24 weeks this did not reach significance (P = 0.059). Lack of significance is likely to be the result of the limited statistical power of 35% and memantine did show significant differences in secondary outcomes. The study on methylphenidate was not conclusive. Donepezil revealed significant differences in a few cognitive tests however no difference in global cognition was found. In addition, larger effects were observed in individuals with greater cognitive dysfunction prior to treatment