Concurrent once-daily versus twice-daily chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (CONVERT): an open-label, phase 3, randomised, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: The CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin-etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00433563) and is currently in follow-up. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35-58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24-34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21-31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95-1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50-62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45-57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI -3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3-4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) and grade 3-4 radiation pneumonitis (4 [3%] of 254 vs 4 [2%] of 246; p=0·70). 11 patients died from treatment-related causes (three in the twice-daily group and eight in the once-daily group). INTERPRETATION: Survival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, and toxicity was similar and lower than expected with both regimens. Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK (Clinical Trials Awards and Advisory Committee), French Ministry of Health, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Cancer Research Fund, Lung Cancer, and Radiation Oncology Groups)

The development of a HAMstring InjuRy (HAMIR) index to mitigate injury risk through innovative imaging, biomechanics, and data analytics : Protocol for an observational cohort study

Background The etiology of hamstring strain injury (HSI) in American football is multi-factorial and understanding these risk factors is paramount to developing predictive models and guiding prevention and rehabilitation strategies. Many player-games are lost due to the lack of a clear understanding of risk factors and the absence of effective methods to minimize re-injury. This paper describes the protocol that will be followed to develop the HAMstring InjuRy (HAMIR) index risk prediction models for HSI and re-injury based on morphological, architectural, biomechanical and clinical factors in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I collegiate football players. Methods A 3-year, prospective study will be conducted involving collegiate football student-athletes at four institutions. Enrolled participants will complete preseason assessments of eccentric hamstring strength, on-field sprinting biomechanics and muscle–tendon volumes using magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI). Athletic trainers will monitor injuries and exposure for the duration of the study. Participants who sustain an HSI will undergo a clinical assessment at the time of injury along with MRI examinations. Following completion of structured rehabilitation and return to unrestricted sport participation, clinical assessments, MRI examinations and sprinting biomechanics will be repeated. Injury recurrence will be monitored through a 6-month follow-up period. HAMIR index prediction models for index HSI injury and re-injury will be constructed. Discussion The most appropriate strategies for reducing risk of HSI are likely multi-factorial and depend on risk factors unique to each athlete. This study will be the largest-of-its-kind (1200 player-years) to gather detailed information on index and recurrent HSI, and will be the first study to simultaneously investigate the effect of morphological, biomechanical and clinical variables on risk of HSI in collegiate football athletes. The quantitative HAMIR index will be formulated to identify an athlete’s propensity for HSI, and more importantly, identify targets for injury mitigation, thereby reducing the global burden of HSI in high-level American football players. Trial Registration The trial is prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05343052; April 22, 2022)

TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access

Plant traits - the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants - determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait‐based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits - almost complete coverage for ‘plant growth form’. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait–environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives

Global wealth disparities drive adherence to COVID-safe pathways in head and neck cancer surgery

Peer reviewe

TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access

Plant traits—the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants—determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait-based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits—almost complete coverage for ‘plant growth form’. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait–environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives.Rest of authors: Decky Junaedi, Robert R. Junker, Eric Justes, Richard Kabzems, Jeffrey Kane, Zdenek Kaplan, Teja Kattenborn, Lyudmila Kavelenova, Elizabeth Kearsley, Anne Kempel, Tanaka Kenzo, Andrew Kerkhoff, Mohammed I. Khalil, Nicole L. Kinlock, Wilm Daniel Kissling, Kaoru Kitajima, Thomas Kitzberger, Rasmus Kjøller, Tamir Klein, Michael Kleyer, Jitka Klimešová, Joice Klipel, Brian Kloeppel, Stefan Klotz, Johannes M. H. Knops, Takashi Kohyama, Fumito Koike, Johannes Kollmann, Benjamin Komac, Kimberly Komatsu, Christian König, Nathan J. B. Kraft, Koen Kramer, Holger Kreft, Ingolf Kühn, Dushan Kumarathunge, Jonas Kuppler, Hiroko Kurokawa, Yoko Kurosawa, Shem Kuyah, Jean-Paul Laclau, Benoit Lafleur, Erik Lallai, Eric Lamb, Andrea Lamprecht, Daniel J. Larkin, Daniel Laughlin, Yoann Le Bagousse-Pinguet, Guerric le Maire, Peter C. le Roux, Elizabeth le Roux, Tali Lee, Frederic Lens, Simon L. Lewis, Barbara Lhotsky, Yuanzhi Li, Xine Li, Jeremy W. Lichstein, Mario Liebergesell, Jun Ying Lim, Yan-Shih Lin, Juan Carlos Linares, Chunjiang Liu, Daijun Liu, Udayangani Liu, Stuart Livingstone, Joan Llusià, Madelon Lohbeck, Álvaro López-García, Gabriela Lopez-Gonzalez, Zdeňka Lososová, Frédérique Louault, Balázs A. Lukács, Petr Lukeš, Yunjian Luo, Michele Lussu, Siyan Ma, Camilla Maciel Rabelo Pereira, Michelle Mack, Vincent Maire, Annikki Mäkelä, Harri Mäkinen, Ana Claudia Mendes Malhado, Azim Mallik, Peter Manning, Stefano Manzoni, Zuleica Marchetti, Luca Marchino, Vinicius Marcilio-Silva, Eric Marcon, Michela Marignani, Lars Markesteijn, Adam Martin, Cristina Martínez-Garza, Jordi Martínez-Vilalta, Tereza Mašková, Kelly Mason, Norman Mason, Tara Joy Massad, Jacynthe Masse, Itay Mayrose, James McCarthy, M. Luke McCormack, Katherine McCulloh, Ian R. McFadden, Brian J. McGill, Mara Y. McPartland, Juliana S. Medeiros, Belinda Medlyn, Pierre Meerts, Zia Mehrabi, Patrick Meir, Felipe P. L. Melo, Maurizio Mencuccini, Céline Meredieu, Julie Messier, Ilona Mészáros, Juha Metsaranta, Sean T. Michaletz, Chrysanthi Michelaki, Svetlana Migalina, Ruben Milla, Jesse E. D. Miller, Vanessa Minden, Ray Ming, Karel Mokany, Angela T. Moles, Attila Molnár V, Jane Molofsky, Martin Molz, Rebecca A. Montgomery, Arnaud Monty, Lenka Moravcová, Alvaro Moreno-Martínez, Marco Moretti, Akira S. Mori, Shigeta Mori, Dave Morris, Jane Morrison, Ladislav Mucina, Sandra Mueller, Christopher D. Muir, Sandra Cristina Müller, François Munoz, Isla H. Myers-Smith, Randall W. Myster, Masahiro Nagano, Shawna Naidu, Ayyappan Narayanan, Balachandran Natesan, Luka Negoita, Andrew S. Nelson, Eike Lena Neuschulz, Jian Ni, Georg Niedrist, Jhon Nieto, Ülo Niinemets, Rachael Nolan, Henning Nottebrock, Yann Nouvellon, Alexander Novakovskiy, The Nutrient Network, Kristin Odden Nystuen, Anthony O'Grady, Kevin O'Hara, Andrew O'Reilly-Nugent, Simon Oakley, Walter Oberhuber, Toshiyuki Ohtsuka, Ricardo Oliveira, Kinga Öllerer, Mark E. Olson, Vladimir Onipchenko, Yusuke Onoda, Renske E. Onstein, Jenny C. Ordonez, Noriyuki Osada, Ivika Ostonen, Gianluigi Ottaviani, Sarah Otto, Gerhard E. Overbeck, Wim A. Ozinga, Anna T. Pahl, C. E. Timothy Paine, Robin J. Pakeman, Aristotelis C. Papageorgiou, Evgeniya Parfionova, Meelis Pärtel, Marco Patacca, Susana Paula, Juraj Paule, Harald Pauli, Juli G. Pausas, Begoña Peco, Josep Penuelas, Antonio Perea, Pablo Luis Peri, Ana Carolina Petisco-Souza, Alessandro Petraglia, Any Mary Petritan, Oliver L. Phillips, Simon Pierce, Valério D. Pillar, Jan Pisek, Alexandr Pomogaybin, Hendrik Poorter, Angelika Portsmuth, Peter Poschlod, Catherine Potvin, Devon Pounds, A. Shafer Powell, Sally A. Power, Andreas Prinzing, Giacomo Puglielli, Petr Pyšek, Valerie Raevel, Anja Rammig, Johannes Ransijn, Courtenay A. Ray, Peter B. Reich, Markus Reichstein, Douglas E. B. Reid, Maxime Réjou-Méchain, Victor Resco de Dios, Sabina Ribeiro, Sarah Richardson, Kersti Riibak, Matthias C. Rillig, Fiamma Riviera, Elisabeth M. R. Robert, Scott Roberts, Bjorn Robroek, Adam Roddy, Arthur Vinicius Rodrigues, Alistair Rogers, Emily Rollinson, Victor Rolo, Christine Römermann, Dina Ronzhina, Christiane Roscher, Julieta A. Rosell, Milena Fermina Rosenfield, Christian Rossi, David B. Roy, Samuel Royer-Tardif, Nadja Rüger, Ricardo Ruiz-Peinado, Sabine B. Rumpf, Graciela M. Rusch, Masahiro Ryo, Lawren Sack, Angela Saldaña, Beatriz Salgado-Negret, Roberto Salguero-Gomez, Ignacio Santa-Regina, Ana Carolina Santacruz-García, Joaquim Santos, Jordi Sardans, Brandon Schamp, Michael Scherer-Lorenzen, Matthias Schleuning, Bernhard Schmid, Marco Schmidt, Sylvain Schmitt, Julio V. Schneider, Simon D. Schowanek, Julian Schrader, Franziska Schrodt, Bernhard Schuldt, Frank Schurr, Galia Selaya Garvizu, Marina Semchenko, Colleen Seymour, Julia C. Sfair, Joanne M. Sharpe, Christine S. Sheppard, Serge Sheremetiev, Satomi Shiodera, Bill Shipley, Tanvir Ahmed Shovon, Alrun Siebenkäs, Carlos Sierra, Vasco Silva, Mateus Silva, Tommaso Sitzia, Henrik Sjöman, Martijn Slot, Nicholas G. Smith, Darwin Sodhi, Pamela Soltis, Douglas Soltis, Ben Somers, Grégory Sonnier, Mia Vedel Sørensen, Enio Egon Sosinski Jr, Nadejda A. Soudzilovskaia, Alexandre F. Souza, Marko Spasojevic, Marta Gaia Sperandii, Amanda B. Stan, James Stegen, Klaus Steinbauer, Jörg G. Stephan, Frank Sterck, Dejan B. Stojanovic, Tanya Strydom, Maria Laura Suarez, Jens-Christian Svenning, Ivana Svitková, Marek Svitok, Miroslav Svoboda, Emily Swaine, Nathan Swenson, Marcelo Tabarelli, Kentaro Takagi, Ulrike Tappeiner, Rubén Tarifa, Simon Tauugourdeau, Cagatay Tavsanoglu, Mariska te Beest, Leho Tedersoo, Nelson Thiffault, Dominik Thom, Evert Thomas, Ken Thompson, Peter E. Thornton, Wilfried Thuiller, Lubomír Tichý, David Tissue, Mark G. Tjoelker, David Yue Phin Tng, Joseph Tobias, Péter Török, Tonantzin Tarin, José M. Torres-Ruiz, Béla Tóthmérész, Martina Treurnicht, Valeria Trivellone, Franck Trolliet, Volodymyr Trotsiuk, James L. Tsakalos, Ioannis Tsiripidis, Niklas Tysklind, Toru Umehara, Vladimir Usoltsev, Matthew Vadeboncoeur, Jamil Vaezi, Fernando Valladares, Jana Vamosi, Peter M. van Bodegom, Michiel van Breugel, Elisa Van Cleemput, Martine van de Weg, Stephni van der Merwe, Fons van der Plas, Masha T. van der Sande, Mark van Kleunen, Koenraad Van Meerbeek, Mark Vanderwel, Kim André Vanselow, Angelica Vårhammar, Laura Varone, Maribel Yesenia Vasquez Valderrama, Kiril Vassilev, Mark Vellend, Erik J. Veneklaas, Hans Verbeeck, Kris Verheyen, Alexander Vibrans, Ima Vieira, Jaime Villacís, Cyrille Violle, Pandi Vivek, Katrin Wagner, Matthew Waldram, Anthony Waldron, Anthony P. Walker, Martyn Waller, Gabriel Walther, Han Wang, Feng Wang, Weiqi Wang, Harry Watkins, James Watkins, Ulrich Weber, James T. Weedon, Liping Wei, Patrick Weigelt, Evan Weiher, Aidan W. Wells, Camilla Wellstein, Elizabeth Wenk, Mark Westoby, Alana Westwood, Philip John White, Mark Whitten, Mathew Williams, Daniel E. Winkler, Klaus Winter, Chevonne Womack, Ian J. Wright, S. Joseph Wright, Justin Wright, Bruno X. Pinho, Fabiano Ximenes, Toshihiro Yamada, Keiko Yamaji, Ruth Yanai, Nikolay Yankov, Benjamin Yguel, Kátia Janaina Zanini, Amy E. Zanne, David Zelený, Yun-Peng Zhao, Jingming Zheng, Ji Zheng, Kasia Ziemińska, Chad R. Zirbel, Georg Zizka, Irié Casimir Zo-Bi, Gerhard Zotz, Christian Wirth.Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry; Max Planck Society; German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig; International Programme of Biodiversity Science (DIVERSITAS); International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP); Future Earth; French Foundation for Biodiversity Research (FRB); GIS ‘Climat, Environnement et Société'.http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/gcbhj2021Plant Production and Soil Scienc

A case control study of leukaemia and lymphoma in young persons in West Cumbria

A case control study of 97 persons under 25 diagnosed with leukaemia or lymphoma from 1950-85 resident in West Cumbria, compared with 1001 age and sex matched controls has been carried out. Raised odds ratios have been found for being born; within five kilometres of the Sellafield nuclear plant; to mothers aged greater than 40 years at the time of birth and to fathers accumulating greater than 100 milliSieverts of radiation before conception. Raised odds ratios were also found for pre-natal radiography and viral infection, but the prevalence of these factors was not increased in the vicinity of Sellafield. Examination of habits of children that may have resulted in enhanced exposure to the Sellafield discharges showed no significant raised odds ratios. However, for cases of leukaemia eating shellfish more than weekly compared with less than monthly, an odds ratio of 6.00 (95&#37; Confidence interval 0.50-71.7) was found based on two exposed cases, neither of whom were born within five kilometres of Sellafield. The raised odds ratio of 6.24 (95&#37; Confidence Interval 1.51-25.76) found for preconceptual radiation dose in excess of 100 milliSieverts compared with zero dose, was based on four cases of leukaemia, three of whom were born within five kilometres of the Sellafield plant. For the other two cases of leukaemia born within 5 km of the plant one father had a radiation dose of 97 milliSieverts whilst the other father was known to have been employed at Sellafield at the time of birth of the index case, but his radiation dosimetry was not available. Therefore the risk of leukaemia for being born within five kilometres of Sellafield can be explained statistically by the association with paternal preconceptual radiation exposure of fathers of cases. This result has important implications for radiobiology and radiation protection.</p

Global study into the pros and cons of ISO 18404: a convergent mixed method study and recommendations for further research

Purpose The paper aims to investigate the pros and cons of having a standard for lean six sigma developed in 2015. The study follows up on a previous study by Antony et al. (2021) in more depth and aims to provide a more detailed investigation of various aspects of the standard. Design/methodology/approach A sequential mixed methodology was utilised by interviewing a panel of leading academics and practitioners familiar with lean six sigma followed by distributing a survey questionnaire to continuous improvement and operational excellence (OPEX) personnel. Findings The findings indicate that continuous improvement and OPEX professionals have conflicting views of International Standards Organisation (ISO) 18404. A majority of the participants of the qualitative study suggested, whilst supporting the requirement for a lean sigma standard, voiced concerns about the auditability of the standard and whether it is currently “fit for purpose” and proposed that it needs to be revised. Within the quantitative survey, 42% had never heard of the standard, and of the 58% who had heard of it, 90% had read it. Just 10% stated that they had or would apply the standard within their organisations. Just fewer than 50% felt that the standard was fit for purpose which suggests for further refinements of the standard in the future. Finally, 85% of respondents of the quantitative survey suggested for the revision of the standard whilst just 15% felt it should be removed. Research limitations/implications Other than a previous study by Antony et al. (2021), implementation of ISO 18404 in organisations and its benefits as well as empirical study looking into the impact of the standard on corporate performance in the literature were limited. An opportunity to review lessons learnt from a case study on the ISO 18404 standard implementation within an organisation would further enhance the research. Originality/value The paper provides a valuable resource for organisations to obtain insight into a standard in lean six sigma and whether to implement it or not. Furthermore, the results can form the basis of a case for the future revision of the standard by consolidating and strengthening the findings from the first study with more detailed quantitative and qualitative study.peer-reviewe

A study into the pros and cons of ISO 18404:viewpoints from leading academics and practitioners

Abstract Purpose This paper aims to present and summarise the arguments for and against the ISO 18404 standard and the perceived advantages and disadvantages of implementing it. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative interview approach was utilised by interviewing a panel of leading academics and practitioners familiar with Lean Six Sigma. Practical Implications and Findings The results indicate that Lean Six Sigma professionals have conflicting opinions on ISO 18404. An overwhelming majority of the panel questioned the quality of the standard and whether it is fit for purpose , while others see the advantages of a common standard in helping continuous improvement deployment. Research limitations As the standard has not been widely adopted, there were limited examples on ISO 18404 discussion in the literature. Much of the current literature focuses on the theoretical application of the standard with sparse practical examples providing case study deployment. Also, the interviews were short and at a high level. There is an opportunity for further study and analysis. It was difficult to find qualified interviewees who were familiar with the standard. A very real constraint when conducting research into ISO 18404 is to obtain a balanced view of the standard from those who have a vested interest in its continuation and evolution, or not. Paper type: Research article Introduction Originality/value The paper provides a resource for people to obtain insight into the value or nonvalue add of a standard in Lean Six Sigma and the appropriate details of such a standard. These results can form the basis of a case for the implementation of the standard for those organisations currently trying to decide whether to implement it or notpeer-reviewe