Pennsylvania Folklife Vol. 21, No. 1

• The Fraktur of Monroe County • Minutes of the West Grove Housekeepers Association as Source Material for Folklife Studies • The Searight Tavern on the National Road: An Archaeological Study • The Brown Sugar Game in Western Pennsylvania • Bread Baking in Mifflin County, Pennsylvania: Commentary for the Documentary Film in the Encyclopaedia Cinematographica • Notes and Documents: Literature for the Allegheny Frontier: The Huntingdon Literary Museum and Monthly Miscellany (1810) • Hunting and Food-Gathering: Folk-Cultural Questionnaire No. 21https://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/pafolklifemag/1045/thumbnail.jp

Pennsylvania Folklife Vol. 26, No. 2

• Battalion Day: Militia Exercise and Frolic in Pennsylvania Before the Civil War • Folklore in the Library: Cherished Memories of Old Lancaster • Widows\u27 Wills for Philadelphia County, 1750-1784: A Study of Pennsylvania German Folklife • Forest County Lore • The Big Valley Amish of Central Pennsylvania: A Community of Cultural Contrasts • Maurice A. Mook (1904-1973): An Appreciation • Collectanea: Ore-Mining and Basket-Making in Maxatawny ; The Sharadin Tannery at Kutztown ; Occult Lore Recorded in Cumberland County • German Immigrants in America as Presented in Travel Accounts • The Pie and Related Forms in Pennsylvania Cuisine: Folk-Cultural Questionnaire No. 46https://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/pafolklifemag/1071/thumbnail.jp

Pennsylvania Folklife Vol. 17, No. 4

• Floral Motifs in Dutchland\u27s Art • What the Pennsylvania Dutch Dialect Has Meant in My Life • How I Make Soap • Pennsylvania German Snakelore • Amish Nicknames • Amish Nicknames from Holmes County, Ohio • Folk Festival Program • Festival Highlights • Pennsylvania Dutch Cooking Today and Yesterday • Folk Medicine in Butler County, Pennsylvania • Finger Games and Rhymes • Huckleberry Picking on Shade Mountain • Mealtimes and Table Settings: Folk-Cultural Questionnaire #8https://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/pafolklifemag/1032/thumbnail.jp

Deep-tow magnetic anomaly study of the Pacific Jurassic Quiet Zone and implications for the geomagnetic polarity reversal timescale and geomagnetic field behavior

Author Posting. © American Geophysical Union, 2008. This article is posted here by permission of American Geophysical Union for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Journal of Geophysical Research 113 (2008): B07110, doi:10.1029/2007JB005527.The Jurassic Quiet Zone (JQZ) is a region of low-amplitude magnetic anomalies whose distinctive character may be related to geomagnetic field behavior. We collected deep-tow magnetic profiles in Pigafetta Basin (western Pacific) where previous deep-tow data partially covered the JQZ sequence. Our goals were to extend the survey through the JQZ, examine anomaly correlations, and refine a preliminary geomagnetic polarity timescale (GPTS) model. We collected a series of closely spaced profiles over anomaly M34 and Ocean Drilling Program Hole 801C to examine anomaly correlation in detail, one profile in between previous profiles, and two long profiles extending the survey deeper into the JQZ. Anomaly features can be readily correlated except in a region of low-amplitude, short-wavelength anomalies in the middle of the survey area (“low-amplitude zone” or LAZ). The small multiprofile surveys demonstrate anomaly linearity, implying that surrounding anomalies are also linear and likely result from crustal recording of geomagnetic field changes. We constructed a GPTS model assuming that most anomalies result from polarity reversals. The polarity timescale is similar to the polarity sequences from previous studies, but its global significance is uncertain because of problems correlating anomalies in the LAZ and the ambiguous nature of the small JQZ anomalies. Overall anomaly amplitude decreases with age into the LAZ and then increases again, implying low geomagnetic field strength, perhaps related to a rapidly reversing field. Other factors that may contribute to the LAZ are interference of anomalies over narrow, crustal polarity zones and poorly understood local tectonic complexities.This research was supported by the National Science Foundation grants OCE-0099161 and OCE-0099237. Tominaga was partly supported by funds from the Jane and R. Ken Williams ’45 Chair in Ocean Drilling Science, Education, and Technology

European clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer (OMEC-4)

Introduction: The OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project aims to provide clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of esophagogastric oligometastatic disease (OMD). Methods: Guidelines were developed according to AGREE II and GRADE principles. Guidelines were based on a systematic review (OMEC-1), clinical case discussions (OMEC-2), and a Delphi consensus study (OMEC-3) by 49 European expert centers for esophagogastric cancer. OMEC identified patients for whom the term OMD is considered or could be considered. Disease-free interval (DFI) was defined as the time between primary tumor treatment and detection of OMD. Results: Moderate to high quality of evidence was found (i.e. 1 randomized and 4 non-randomized phase II trials) resulting in moderate recommendations. OMD is considered in esophagogastric cancer patients with 1 organ with ≤ 3 metastases or 1 involved extra-regional lymph node station. In addition, OMD continues to be considered in patients with OMD without progression in number of metastases after systemic therapy. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is recommended for baseline staging and for restaging after systemic therapy when local treatment is considered. For patients with synchronous OMD or metachronous OMD and a DFI ≤ 2 years, recommended treatment consists of systemic therapy followed by restaging to assess suitability for local treatment. For patients with metachronous OMD and DFI > 2 years, upfront local treatment is additionally recommended. Discussion: These multidisciplinary European clinical practice guidelines for the uniform definition, diagnosis and treatment of esophagogastric OMD can be used to standardize inclusion criteria in future clinical trials and to reduce variation in treatment

Definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer: A Delphi consensus study in Europe

Background: Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer. Methods: In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Delphi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi questionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%) or consensus (≥75%). Results: A total of 48 experts participated in the starting meeting, both Delphi rounds, and the consensus meeting (overall response rate: 71%). OMD was considered in patients with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer limited to 1 organ with ≤3 metastases or 1 extra-regional lymph node station (consensus). In addition, OMD was considered in patients without progression at restaging after systemic therapy (consensus). For patients with synchronous or metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval ≤2 years, systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment was considered as treatment (consensus). For metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval >2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment followed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). Conclusion: The OMEC project has resulted in a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer. This can be used to standardise inclusion criteria for future clinical trials