The Parallelized Large-Eddy Simulation Model (PALM) version 4.0 for atmospheric and oceanic flows: model formulation, recent developments, and future perspectives

In this paper we present the current version of the Parallelized Large-Eddy Simulation Model (PALM) whose core has been developed at the Institute of Meteorology and Climatology at Leibniz Universität Hannover (Germany). PALM is a Fortran 95-based 5 code with some Fortran 2003 extensions and has been applied for the simulation of a variety of atmospheric and oceanic boundary layers for more than 15 years. PALM is optimized for use on massively parallel computer architectures and was recently ported to general-purpose graphics processing units. In the present paper we give a detailed description of the current version of the model and its features, such as an embedded 10 Lagrangian cloud model and the possibility to use Cartesian topography. Moreover, we discuss recent model developments and future perspectives for LES applications.DFG/RA/617/3DFG/RA/617/6DFG/RA/617/16DFG/RA/617/27-

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA):an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of −7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI −6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0–30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0–32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0–30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5–5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7–5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67–1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.</p

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA):an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of −7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI −6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0–30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0–32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0–30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5–5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7–5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67–1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.</p

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA):an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of −7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI −6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0–30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0–32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0–30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5–5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7–5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67–1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.</p

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer (DIPLOMA):an international randomised non-inferiority trial

Background: The oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery has been questioned for several abdominal cancers. Concerns also exist regarding the use of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer as randomised trials are lacking. Methods: In this international randomised non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults with resectable pancreatic cancer from 35 centres in 12 countries. Patients were randomly assigned to either MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) or open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Both patients and pathologists were blinded to the assigned approach. Primary endpoint was radical resection (R0, ≥1 mm free margin) in patients who had ultimately undergone resection. Analyses for the primary endpoint were by modified intention-to-treat, excluding patients with missing data on primary endpoint. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of −7% was compared with the lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of absolute difference in the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN44897265). Findings: Between May 8, 2018 and May 7, 2021, 258 patients were randomly assigned to MIDP (131 patients) or ODP (127 patients). Modified intention-to-treat analysis included 114 patients in the MIDP group and 110 patients in the ODP group. An R0 resection occurred in 83 (73%) patients in the MIDP group and in 76 (69%) patients in the ODP group (difference 3.7%, 90% CI −6.2 to 13.6%; pnon-inferiority = 0.039). Median lymph node yield was comparable (22.0 [16.0–30.0] vs 23.0 [14.0–32.0] nodes, p = 0.86), as was the rate of intraperitoneal recurrence (41% vs 38%, p = 0.45). Median follow-up was 23.5 (interquartile range 17.0–30.0) months. Other postoperative outcomes were comparable, including median time to functional recovery (5 [95% CI 4.5–5.5] vs 5 [95% CI 4.7–5.3] days; p = 0.22) and overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67–1.46, p = 0.94). Serious adverse events were reported in 23 (18%) of 131 patients in the MIDP group vs 28 (22%) of 127 patients in the ODP group. Interpretation: This trial provides evidence on the non-inferiority of MIDP compared to ODP regarding radical resection rates in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The present findings support the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in patients with resectable left-sided pancreatic cancer. Funding: Medtronic Covidien AG, Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical Limited, Dutch Gastroenterology Society.</p

(Re) defining salesperson motivation: current status, main challenges, and research directions

The construct of motivation is one of the central themes in selling and sales management research. Yet, to-date no review article exists that surveys the construct (both from an extrinsic and intrinsic motivation context), critically evaluates its current status, examines various key challenges apparent from the extant research, and suggests new research opportunities based on a thorough review of past work. The authors explore how motivation is defined, major theories underpinning motivation, how motivation has historically been measured, and key methodologies used over time. In addition, attention is given to principal drivers and outcomes of salesperson motivation. A summarizing appendix of key articles in salesperson motivation is provided

Sample-Specific Output Constraints for Neural Networks

It is common practice to constrain the output space of a neural network with the final layer to a problem-specific value range. However, for many tasks it is desired to restrict the output space for each input independently to a different subdomain with a non-trivial geometry, e.g. in safety-critical applications, to exclude hazardous outputs sample-wise. We propose ConstraintNet—a scalable neural network architecture which constrains the output space in each forward pass independently. Contrary to prior approaches, which perform a projection in the final layer, ConstraintNet applies an input-dependent parametrization of the constrained output space. Thereby, the complete interior of the constrained region is covered and computational costs are reduced significantly. For constraints in form of convex polytopes, we leverage the vertex representation to specify the parametrization. The second modification consists of adding an auxiliary input in form of a tensor description of the constraint to enable the handling of multiple constraints for the same sample. Finally, ConstraintNet is end-to-end trainable with almost no overhead in the forward and backward pass. We demonstrate ConstraintNet on two regression tasks: First, we modify a CNN and construct several constraints for facial landmark detection tasks. Second, we demonstrate the application to a follow object controller for vehicles and accomplish safe reinforcement learning in this case. In both experiments, ConstraintNet improves performance and we conclude that our approach is promising for applying neural networks in safety-critical environments

Impact of resection margin status on survival in advanced N stage pancreatic cancer – a multi-institutional analysis

Background!#!The present study aimed to examine the impact of microscopically tumour-infiltrated resection margins (R1) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients with advanced lymphonodular metastasis (pN1-pN2) on overall survival (OS).!##!Methods!#!This retrospective, multi-institutional analysis included patients undergoing surgical resection for PDAC at three tertiary university centres between 2005 and 2018. Subcohorts of patients with lymph node status pN0-N2 were stratified according to the histopathological resection status using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.!##!Results!#!The OS of the entire cohort (n = 620) correlated inversely with the pN status (26 [pN0], 18 [pN1], 11.8 [pN2] months, P &amp;lt; 0.001) and R status (21.7 [R0], 12.5 [R1] months, P &amp;lt; 0.001). However, there was no statistically significant OS difference between R0 versus R1 in cases with advanced lymphonodular metastases: 19.6 months (95% CI: 17.4-20.9) versus 13.6 months (95% CI: 10.7-18.0) for pN1 stage and 13.7 months (95% CI: 10.7-18.9) versus 10.1 months (95% CI: 7.9-19.1) for pN2, respectively. Accordingly, N stage-dependent Cox regression analysis revealed that R status was a prognostic factor in pN0 cases only. Furthermore, there was no significant survival disadvantage for patients with R0 resection but circumferential resection margin invasion (≤ 1 mm; CRM+; 10.7 months) versus CRM-negative (13.7 months) cases in pN2 stages (P = 0.5).!##!Conclusions!#!An R1 resection is not associated with worse OS in pN2 cases. If there is evidence of advanced lymph node metastasis and a re-resection due to an R1 situation (e.g. at venous or arterial vessels) may substantially increase the perioperative risk, margin clearance in order to reach local control might be avoided with respect to the OS

Adjuvant therapy is associated with improved overall survival in patients with pancreatobiliary or mixed subtype ampullary cancer after pancreatoduodenectomy - A multicenter cohort study

Background/Objective: The benefit of adjuvant therapy in ampullary cancer (AMPAC) patients following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is debated. The aim of this study was to determine the role of adjuvant therapy after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in histological subtypes of AMPAC.Methods: Patients undergoing PD for AMPAC at 5 high-volume European surgical centers from 1996 to 2017 were identified. Patient baseline characteristics, surgical and histopathological parameters, and long-term overall survival (OS) after resection were evaluated.Results: 214 patients undergoing PD for AMPAC were included. ASA score (ASA1-2 149 vs. ASA 3-4 82 months median OS, p = 0.002), preoperative serum CEA (CEA &lt;0.5 ng/ml 128 vs. CEA &gt;0.5 ng/ml 62 months, p = 0.013), preoperative serum CA19-9 (CA19-9 &lt; 40 IU/ml 147 vs. CA19-9 &gt; 40IU/ml 111 months, p = 0.042), T stage (T1-2 163 vs. T3-4 98 months, p &lt; 0.001), N stage (NO 159 vs. N+ 110 months, p &lt; 0.001), grading (G1-2 145 vs. G3-4 113 months, p = 0.026), R status (RO 136 vs. R+ 38 months, p = 0.031), and histological subtype (intestinal subtype 156 vs. PB/M subtype 118 months, p = 0.003) qualified as prognostic parameters. In multivariable analysis, ASA score (HR 1.784, 95%CI 0.997-3.193, p = 0.050) and N stage (HR 1.831, 95%CI 0.904-3.707, p = 0.033) remained independent prognostic factors. In PB/M subtype AMPAC, patients undergoing adjuvant therapy showed an improved median overall survival (adjuvant therapy 85 months vs. no adjuvant therapy 65 months, p = 0.005), and adjuvant therapy remained an independent prognostic parameter in multivariate analysis (HR 0.351, 95% CI 0.151-0.851, p = 0.015). There was no significant benefit of adjuvant therapy in intestinal subtype AMPAC patients.Conclusion: Adjuvant treatment seems indicated in pancreatobiliary or mixed type AMPAC. (C) 2020 IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved