How useful is preoperative imaging for tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) staging of gastric cancer? A meta-analysis

Background Surgery is the fundamental curative option for gastric cancer patients. Imaging scans are routinely prescribed in an attempt to stage the disease prior to surgery. Consequently, the correlation between radiology exams and pathology is crucial for appropriate treatment planning.Methods Systematic searches were conducted using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 1998 to December 1, 2009. We calculated the accuracy, overstaging rate, understaging rate, Kappa statistic, sensitivity, and specificity for abdominal ultrasound (AUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET) with respect to the gold standard (pathology). We also compared the performance of CT by detector number and image type. A meta-analysis was performed.Results for pre-operative T staging MRI scans had better performance accuracy than CT and AUS; CT scanners using >= 4 detectors and multi-planar reformatted (MPR) images had higher staging performances than scanners with <4 detectors and axial images only. for pre-operative N staging PET had the lowest sensitivity, but the highest specificity among modalities; CT performance did not significantly differ by detector number or addition of MPR images. for pre-operative M staging performance did not significantly differ by modality, detector number, or MPR images.Conclusions the agreement between pre-operative TNM staging by imaging scans and post-operative staging by pathology is not perfect and may affect treatment decisions. Operator dependence and heterogeneity of data may account for the variations in staging performance. Physicians should consider this discrepancy when creating their treatment plans.Canadian Cancer SocietyOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareHanna Family Chair in Surgical OncologySunnybrook Hlth Sci Ctr, Sunnybrook Res Inst, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, CanadaSunnybrook Hlth Sci Ctr, Dept Med Imaging, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, CanadaUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Dept Surg, São Paulo, BrazilQueens Univ, Dept Community Hlth & Epidemiol, Kingston, ON, CanadaUniv Toronto, Div Biostat, Dalla Lana Sch Publ Hlth, Toronto, ON, CanadaInst Clin Evaluat Sci, Toronto, ON, CanadaSunnybrook Hlth Sci Ctr, Div Surg Oncol, Odette Canc Ctr, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, CanadaUniv Toronto, Dept Hlth Policy Management & Evaluat, Toronto, ON, CanadaUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Dept Surg, São Paulo, BrazilCanadian Cancer Society: 019325Web of Scienc

Ancient Latin American objects in the archive: selections from the George and Louise Patten collection of Salem Hyde cultural artifacts at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

https://scholar.utc.edu/exhibition-records/1004/thumbnail.jp

A Multisite Preregistered Paradigmatic Test of the Ego-Depletion Effect

We conducted a preregistered multilaboratory project (k = 36; N = 3,531) to assess the size and robustness of ego-depletion effects using a novel replication method, termed the paradigmatic replication approach. Each laboratory implemented one of two procedures that was intended to manipulate self-control and tested performance on a subsequent measure of self-control. Confirmatory tests found a nonsignificant result (d = 0.06). Confirmatory Bayesian meta-analyses using an informed-prior hypothesis (δ = 0.30, SD = 0.15) found that the data were 4 times more likely under the null than the alternative hypothesis. Hence, preregistered analyses did not find evidence for a depletion effect. Exploratory analyses on the full sample (i.e., ignoring exclusion criteria) found a statistically significant effect (d = 0.08); Bayesian analyses showed that the data were about equally likely under the null and informed-prior hypotheses. Exploratory moderator tests suggested that the depletion effect was larger for participants who reported more fatigue but was not moderated by trait self-control, willpower beliefs, or action orientation.</p

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

Background Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19.Methods The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 µg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 µg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (antispike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing.Findings Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6–77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3–214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030–27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996–43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41–1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996–30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826–64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90–2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37–14·32) and 15·90 (12·92–19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24–16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90–9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group).Interpretation Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Reporting Islam in Australian newspapers: the case of the proposed Elermore Vale mosque

This paper uses the local case study of a proposed mosque development in the Newcastle suburb of Elermore Vale as an example of how Islam has been reported in the Australian media. The media reports analysed were published in Newcastle's local newspaper The Herald between February 2010, when the Newcastle Muslim Association purchased the land for the proposed development, and March 2012, when the Land and Environment Court ruled against the proposal. The discourses evident in the newspaper content reveal a clear undercurrent of racism within the local reporting against the Muslim community and, it may be argued, are representative of a larger trend of Islamophobia in the West. While the key community protest group Elermore Vale Community for Appropriate Residential and Environment Strategies (EV CARES) attempted to discuss the mosque proposal by raising planning issues appropriate property development matters, antiMuslim sentiment was clearly evident in many of the articles.Illustrations of Edward Said's (1978, 2004) concept of 'Orientalism' emerged through the reporting, where Islam, and by extension the Newcastle Muslim Association, was portrayed as being different, strange and threatening to the local community. The fact that this kind of antiMuslim sentiment can be identified in local media products is indicative of the challenges for local media groups covering local media events, as it represents how a local matter can become contentious due to globally recognised concerns. In this instance, those concerns are the perceived threat of Muslim fundamentalism and Islam to the West. Discursive analysis of The Herald's reports demonstrates that discourses of power, religion, 'the Other', 'community' and 'the victim' are prevalently portrayed. Furthermore, these portrayals contribute to antiMuslim attitudes communicated by key parties in the articles, who use the Islamic religion as an identifier; the marginalisation of the Muslim community as 'Other'; and an 'us' vs. 'them' dichotomy to manifest perhaps more nationally held concerns at a local level

General Perceptions and Knowledge of Antibiotic Resistance and Antibiotic Use Behavior: A Cross-Sectional Survey of US Adults

This study aimed to assess understanding of antibiotic resistance and evaluate antibiotic use themes among the general public. In March 2018, respondents that were ≥21 years old and residing in the United States were recruited from ResearchMatch.org and surveyed to collect data on respondent expectations, knowledge, and opinions regarding prescribing antibiotics and antibiotic resistance. Content analysis was used to code open-ended definitions of antibiotic resistance into central themes. Chi-square tests were used to assess differences between the definitions of antibiotic resistance and antibiotic use. Among the 657 respondents, nearly all (99%) had taken an antibiotic previously. When asked to define antibiotic resistance, the definitions provided were inductively coded into six central themes: 35% bacteria adaptation, 22% misuse/overuse, 22% resistant bacteria, 10% antibiotic ineffectiveness, 7% body immunity, and 3% provided an incorrect definition with no consistent theme. Themes that were identified in respondent definitions of resistance significantly differed between those who reported having shared an antibiotic versus those who had not (p = 0.03). Public health campaigns remain a central component in the fight to combat antibiotic resistance. Future campaigns should address the public’s understanding of antibiotic resistance and modifiable behaviors that may contribute to resistance

Expanding the Scope of Electrophiles Capable of Targeting K‑Ras Oncogenes

There is growing interest in reversible and irreversible covalent inhibitors that target noncatalytic amino acids in target proteins. With a goal of targeting oncogenic K-Ras variants (e.g., G12D) by expanding the types of amino acids that can be targeted by covalent inhibitors, we survey a set of electrophiles for their ability to label carboxylates. We functionalized an optimized ligand for the K-Ras switch II pocket with a set of electrophiles previously reported to react with carboxylates and characterized the ability of these compounds to react with model nucleophiles and oncogenic K-Ras proteins. Here, we report that aziridines and stabilized diazo groups preferentially react with free carboxylates over thiols. Although we did not identify a warhead that potently labels K-Ras G12D, we were able to study the interactions of many electrophiles with K-Ras, as most of the electrophiles rapidly label K-Ras G12C. We characterized the resulting complexes by crystallography, hydrogen/deuterium exchange, and differential scanning fluorimetry. Our results both demonstrate the ability of a noncatalytic cysteine to react with a diverse set of electrophiles and emphasize the importance of proper spatial arrangements between a covalent inhibitor and its intended nucleophile. We hope that these results can expand the range of electrophiles and nucleophiles of use in covalent protein modulation