An assessment framework for classifying determinants of household water consumption and their priorities for research and practice

Achieving a thorough understanding of the determinants of household water consumption is crucial to support demand management strategies. Yet, existing research on household water consumption determinants is often limited to specific case studies, with findings that are difficult to generalize and not conclusive. Here, we contribute a framework for review, classification, and analysis of the literature on the determinants of household water consumption. Firstly, we identify a comprehensive set of 48 relevant publications, based on a systematic paper search. The framework firstly classifies household determinants into observable (physically seen/measured aspects of the house), latent (relates to the way occupants think/act/feel) and external (external to house and influence at regional level). Secondly, we undertake a trade-off analysis of different criteria that account for the representation of a potential water consumption determinant in the literature, its impact across heterogeneous case studies, and the effort required to collect information on it. The results of our trade-off analysis show that distinct groups of determinants exist, allowing for the formulation of four recommendation categories. These provide guidance for practitioners on which determinants to consider in practice and for researchers to prioritize in future research (Figure 1).A. Cominola, L. Preiss, M. Thyer, H. R. Maier, P. Prevos, R. Stewart, and A. Castellett

Pre-treatment differences and early response monitoring of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients using magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can identify pre-treatment differences or monitor early response in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane library, Medline and Embase databases were searched for publications until January 1, 2012. After primary selection, studies were selected based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Two reviewers assessed study contents using an extraction form. RESULTS: In 15 studies, which were mainly underpowered and of heterogeneous study design, 31 different parameters were studied. Most frequently studied parameters were tumour diameter or volume, K(trans), K(ep), V(e), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). Other parameters were analysed in only two or less studies. Tumour diameter, volume, and kinetic parameters did not show any pre-treatment differences between responders and non-responders. In two studies, pre-treatment differences in ADC were observed between study groups. At early response monitoring significant and non-significant changes for all parameters were observed for most of the imaging parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on distinguishing responders and non-responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using pre-treatment MRI, as well as using MRI for early response monitoring, is weak and based on underpowered study results and heterogeneous study design. Thus, the value of breast MRI for response evaluation has not yet been established. KEY POINTS: Few well-validated pre-treatment MR parameters exist that identify responders and non-responders. Eligible studies showed heterogeneous study designs which hampered pooling of data. Confounders and technical variations of MRI accuracy are not studied adequately. Value of MRI for response evaluation needs to be established further

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in recalls from the Dutch breast cancer screening program : validation of results in a large multireader, multicase study

OBJECTIVES: Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is a promising problem-solving tool in women referred from a breast cancer screening program. We aimed to study the validity of preliminary results of CESM using a larger panel of radiologists with different levels of CESM experience. METHODS: All women referred from the Dutch breast cancer screening program were eligible for CESM. 199 consecutive cases were viewed by ten radiologists. Four had extensive CESM experience, three had no CESM experience but were experienced breast radiologists, and three were residents. All readers provided a BI-RADS score for the low-energy CESM images first, after which the score could be adjusted when viewing the entire CESM exam. BI-RADS 1-3 were considered benign and BI-RADS 4-5 malignant. With this cutoff, we calculated sensitivity, specificity and area under the ROC curve. RESULTS: CESM increased diagnostic accuracy in all readers. The performance for all readers using CESM was: sensitivity 96.9 % (+3.9 %), specificity 69.7 % (+33.8 %) and area under the ROC curve 0.833 (+0.188). CONCLUSION: CESM is superior to conventional mammography, with excellent problem-solving capabilities in women referred from the breast cancer screening program. Previous results were confirmed even in a larger panel of readers with varying CESM experience. KEY POINTS: • CESM is consistently superior to conventional mammography • CESM increases diagnostic accuracy regardless of a reader's experience • CESM is an excellent problem-solving tool in recalls from screening programs

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in recalls from the Dutch breast cancer screening program : validation of results in a large multireader, multicase study

OBJECTIVES: Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is a promising problem-solving tool in women referred from a breast cancer screening program. We aimed to study the validity of preliminary results of CESM using a larger panel of radiologists with different levels of CESM experience. METHODS: All women referred from the Dutch breast cancer screening program were eligible for CESM. 199 consecutive cases were viewed by ten radiologists. Four had extensive CESM experience, three had no CESM experience but were experienced breast radiologists, and three were residents. All readers provided a BI-RADS score for the low-energy CESM images first, after which the score could be adjusted when viewing the entire CESM exam. BI-RADS 1-3 were considered benign and BI-RADS 4-5 malignant. With this cutoff, we calculated sensitivity, specificity and area under the ROC curve. RESULTS: CESM increased diagnostic accuracy in all readers. The performance for all readers using CESM was: sensitivity 96.9 % (+3.9 %), specificity 69.7 % (+33.8 %) and area under the ROC curve 0.833 (+0.188). CONCLUSION: CESM is superior to conventional mammography, with excellent problem-solving capabilities in women referred from the breast cancer screening program. Previous results were confirmed even in a larger panel of readers with varying CESM experience. KEY POINTS: • CESM is consistently superior to conventional mammography • CESM increases diagnostic accuracy regardless of a reader's experience • CESM is an excellent problem-solving tool in recalls from screening programs