Table-driven software architecture for a stitching system

Native code for a CNC stitching machine is generated by generating a geometry model of a preform; generating tool paths from the geometry model, the tool paths including stitching instructions for making stitches; and generating additional instructions indicating thickness values. The thickness values are obtained from a lookup table. When the stitching machine runs the native code, it accesses a lookup table to determine a thread tension value corresponding to the thickness value. The stitching machine accesses another lookup table to determine a thread path geometry value corresponding to the thickness value

Automated gantry-type stitching system

A stitching system includes a gantry that is movable along a material support table. Mounted to the gantry are a plurality of stitching heads and bobbins. The stitching heads are individually controllable in a z-direction, and the bobbins are individually controllable in the z-direction. Each stitching head is paired with a bobbin. Each pair of stitching heads and the bobbins is controlled synchronously in the z-direction. The stitching system is well-suited for stitching preforms of aircraft wing covers and other preforms having variable thickness and compound, contoured three-dimensional surfaces

Uptake of genetic testing by the children of Lynch syndrome variant carriers across three generations

Many Lynch syndrome (LS) carriers remain unidentified, thus missing early cancer detection and prevention opportunities. Tested probands should inform their relatives about cancer risk and options for genetic counselling and predictive gene testing, but many fail to undergo testing. To assess predictive testing uptake and demographic factors influencing this decision in LS families, a cross-sectional registry-based cohort study utilizing the Finnish Lynch syndrome registry was undertaken. Tested LS variant probands (1184) had 2068 children divided among three generations: 660 parents and 1324 children (first), 445 and 667 (second), and 79 and 77 (third). Of children aged 418 years, 801 (67.4%), 146 (43.2%), and 5 (23.8%), respectively, were genetically tested. Together, 539 first-generation LS variant carriers had 2068 children and grandchildren (3.84 per carrier). Of the 1548 (2.87 per carrier) eligible children, 952 (61.5%) were tested (1.77 per carrier). In multivariate models, age (OR 1.08 per year; 95% CI 1.06-1.10), family gene (OR 2.83; 1.75-4.57 for MLH1 and 2.59; 1.47-4.56 for MSH2 compared with MSH6), one or more tested siblings (OR 6.60; 4.82-9.03), no siblings (OR 4.63; 2.64-8.10), and parent under endoscopic surveillance (OR 5.22; 2.41-11.31) were independent predictors of having genetic testing. Examples of parental adherence to regular surveillance and genetically tested siblings strongly influenced children at 50% risk of LS to undergo predictive gene testing. High numbers of untested, adult at-risk individuals exist even among well-established cohorts of known LS families with good adherence to endoscopic surveillance.Peer reviewe

Limitations and pitfalls of using family letters to communicate genetic risk: a qualitative study with patients and healthcare professionals

European genetic testing guidelines recommend that healthcare professionals (HCPs) discuss the familial implications of any test with a patient and offer written material to help them share the information with family members. Giving patients these “family letters” to alert any relatives of their risk has become part of standard practice and has gone relatively unquestioned over the years. Communication with at-risk relatives will become an increasingly pressing issue as mainstream and routine practice incorporates broad genome tests and as the number of findings potentially relevant to relatives increases. This study therefore explores problems around the use of family letters to communicate about genetic risk. We conducted 16 focus groups with 80 HCPs, and 35 interviews with patients, recruited from across the UK. Data were analyzed thematically and we constructed four themes: 1) HCPs writing family letters: how to write them and why?, 2) Patients’ issues with handing out family letters, 3) Dissemination becomes an uncontrolled form of communication, and 4) When the relative has the letter, is the patient’s and HCP’s duty discharged? We conclude by suggesting alternative and supplementary methods of communication, for example through digital tools, and propose that in comparison to communication by family letter, direct contact by HCPs might be a more appropriate and successful option

How communication of genetic information within the family is addressed in genetic counselling: a systematic review of research evidence

Supporting consultands to communicate risk information with their relatives is key to obtaining the full benefits of genetic health care. To understand how health-care professionals address this issue in clinical practice and what interventions are used specifically to assist consultands in their communication of genetic information to appropriate relatives, we conducted a systematic review. Four electronic databases and four subject-specific journals were searched for papers published, in English, between January 1997 and May 2014. Of 2926 papers identified initially, 14 papers met the inclusion criteria for the review and were heterogeneous in design, setting and methods. Thematic data analysis has shown that dissemination of information within families is actively encouraged and supported by professionals. Three overarching themes emerged: (1) direct contact from genetic services: sending letters to relatives of mutation carriers; (2) professionals' encouragement of initially reluctant consultands to share relevant information with at-risk relatives and (3) assisting consultands in communicating genetic information to their at-risk relatives, which included as subthemes (i) psychoeducational guidance and (ii) written information aids. Findings suggest that professionals' practice and interventions are predicated on the need to proactively encourage family communication. We discuss this in the context of what guidance of consultands by professionals might be appropriate, as best practices to facilitate family communication, and of the limits to non-directiveness in genetic counselling

Prognostic factors in prostate cancer

Prognostic factors in organ confined prostate cancer will reflect survival after surgical radical prostatectomy. Gleason score, tumour volume, surgical margins and Ki-67 index have the most significant prognosticators. Also the origins from the transitional zone, p53 status in cancer tissue, stage, and aneuploidy have shown prognostic significance. Progression-associated features include Gleason score, stage, and capsular invasion, but PSA is also highly significant. Progression can also be predicted with biological markers (E-cadherin, microvessel density, and aneuploidy) with high level of significance. Other prognostic features of clinical or PSA-associated progression include age, IGF-1, p27, and Ki-67. In patients who were treated with radiotherapy the survival was potentially predictable with age, race and p53, but available research on other markers is limited. The most significant published survival-associated prognosticators of prostate cancer with extension outside prostate are microvessel density and total blood PSA. However, survival can potentially be predicted by other markers like androgen receptor, and Ki-67-positive cell fraction. In advanced prostate cancer nuclear morphometry and Gleason score are the most highly significant progression-associated prognosticators. In conclusion, Gleason score, capsular invasion, blood PSA, stage, and aneuploidy are the best markers of progression in organ confined disease. Other biological markers are less important. In advanced disease Gleason score and nuclear morphometry can be used as predictors of progression. Compound prognostic factors based on combinations of single prognosticators, or on gene expression profiles (tested by DNA arrays) are promising, but clinically relevant data is still lacking