ECDIS users genuine qualification in maritime industry great demand

In this paper author summarizes present maritime industry growing preference for highly qualified officers in the field of ECDIS operation. Current ECDIS training internationally recognised requirements are described including Manila amendments and Polish approach to the IMO Model course 1.27. Various forms of training available nowadays are presented within the paper. Advantages and disadvantages of each method are identified. Author outlines the necessity of improving ECDIS trainers’ competency

Position Cross-Checking on ECDIS in View of International Regulations Requirements and OCIMF Recommendations

In this paper author suggest methods for position cross-checking on modern bridge equipped with ECDIS. Terrestrial navigation techniques in relation to newly implemented technology are adopted to fulfil international requirements and recommendations. Author proposes voyage recording procedures conforming to IMO requirements ready to be used as navigational procedures in Safety Management System. Vessel Inspection Questionnaire of Ship Inspection Report Programme is used to systematize the needs. Differences in approach between paper charts and ECDIS navigation are exposed and clarified serving as a guide for ships liable to undergo vetting inspection. Author shows both, advantages and weak points of various ECDIS features using as an example ECDIS manufactured by Japan Radio Company

Denosumab versus zoledronic acid in bone disease treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: an international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study

Background: Multiple myeloma is characterised by monoclonal paraprotein production and osteolytic lesions, commonly leading to skeletal-related events (spinal cord compression, pathological fracture, or surgery or radiotherapy to affected bone). Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting RANKL, reduces skeletal-related events associated with bone lesions or metastases in patients with advanced solid tumours. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Methods: In this international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, patients in 259 centres and 29 countries aged 18 years or older with symptomatic newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who had at least one documented lytic bone lesion were randomly assigned (1:1; centrally, by interactive voice response system using a fixed stratified permuted block randomisation list with a block size of four) to subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg plus intravenous placebo every 4 weeks or intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg plus subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks (both groups also received investigators' choice of first-line antimyeloma therapy). Stratification was by intent to undergo autologous transplantation, antimyeloma therapy, International Staging System stage, previous skeletal-related events, and region. The clinical study team and patients were masked to treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid with respect to time to first skeletal-related event in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned patients). All safety endpoints were analysed in the safety analysis set, which includes all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of active study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01345019. Findings: From May 17, 2012, to March 29, 2016, we enrolled 1718 patients and randomly assigned 859 to each treatment group. The study met the primary endpoint; denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid for time to first skeletal-related event (hazard ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·85–1·14; pnon-inferiority=0·010). 1702 patients received at least one dose of the investigational drug and were included in the safety analysis (850 patients receiving denosumab and 852 receiving zoledronic acid). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events for denosumab and zoledronic acid were neutropenia (126 [15%] vs 125 [15%]), thrombocytopenia (120 [14%] vs 103 [12%]), anaemia (100 [12%] vs 85 [10%]), febrile neutropenia (96 [11%] vs 87 [10%]), and pneumonia (65 [8%] vs 70 [8%]). Renal toxicity was reported in 85 (10%) patients in the denosumab group versus 146 (17%) in the zoledronic acid group; hypocalcaemia adverse events were reported in 144 (17%) versus 106 (12%). Incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw was not significantly different between the denosumab and zoledronic acid groups (35 [4%] vs 24 [3%]; p=0·147). The most common serious adverse event for both treatment groups was pneumonia (71 [8%] vs 69 [8%]). One patient in the zoledronic acid group died of cardiac arrest that was deemed treatment-related. Interpretation: In patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid for time to skeletal-related events. The results from this study suggest denosumab could be an additional option for the standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma with bone disease. Funding: Amgen. © 2018 Elsevier Lt

Addition of elotuzumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with newly diagnosed, transplantation ineligible multiple myeloma (ELOQUENT-1): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone has shown improved progression-free and overall survival versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We aimed to assess these regimens in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT). METHODS: ELOQUENT-1 is an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial conducted at 185 hospitals, oncology practices, and research centres in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed, untreated, symptomatic myeloma and not candidates for high-dose therapy plus HSCT, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or lower. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone or lenalidomide and dexamethasone using an interactive voice response system, stratified by the International Staging System (ISS; stage I-II vs III), age (<75 years vs ≥75 years), and ECOG performance status (0 vs 1-2). Patients in the elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone group received elotuzumab administered intravenously at 10 mg/kg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 during cycles 1 and 2, days 1 and 15 during cycles 3-18, and then at 20 mg/kg on day 1 for subsequent cycles. In both treatment groups, patients received 25 mg lenalidomide orally on days 1-21 of each cycle and 40 mg dexamethasone on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, as per the primary definition from European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation criteria in all randomly assigned patients (intention-to-treat population). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01335399 (completed). FINDINGS: Between Aug 4, 2011, and June 19, 2014, 748 patients were randomly assigned (374 in each treatment group) and 742 patients received treatment (333 (90%) of 371 in the elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone group vs 339 (91%) of 371 in the lenalidomide and dexamethasone group discontinued treatment). The median age of patients was 73·0 years (IQR 69·0-78·0), 294 (39%) patients were 75 years or older. Most patients were White (711 [95%]) and male (412 [55%]). At a minimum follow-up of 65·3 months, the median progression-free survival was not significantly different between the groups: 31·4 months (95% CI 26·2-36·8) in the elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 29·5 months (23·5-34·3) in the lenalidomide and dexamethasone group (HR 0·93, 95·71% CI 0·77-1·12; stratified log-rank p=0·44). The median follow-up was 70·6 months (IQR 35·1-79·2). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event was neutropenia (64 [17%] of 371 vs 79 [21%] of 371). Study drug toxicity was the reported cause of death in five (1%) versus four (1%) patients. INTERPRETATION: Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone did not significantly improve progression-free survival versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are ineligible for HSCT. Although these data contribute to the treatment landscape, further research is needed to find ways to improve treatments in the front-line setting. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb. Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved