Simple model for linear and nonlinear mixing at unstable fluid interfaces with variable acceleration

A simple model is described for predicting the time evolution of the half-width h of a planar mixing layer between two immiscible incompressible fluids driven by an arbitrary time-dependent variable acceleration history a(l)a (t): The model is based on a heuristic expression for the kinetic energy per unit area of the mixing layer. This expression is based on that for the kinetic energy of a linearly perturbed interface, but with a dynamically renormalized wavelength which becomes proportional to h in the nonlinear regime. An equation of motion for h is then derived by means of Lagrange�s equations. This model reproduces the known linear growth rates of the Rayleigh-Taylor (RT) and Richtmyer-Meshkov (RM) instabilities, as well as the quadratic RT and power-law RM growth laws in the nonlinear regime. The time exponent in the RM power law depends on the rate of kinetic energy dissipation. In the case of zero dissipation, this exponent reduces to 2/3 in agreement with elementary scaling arguments. A conservative numerical scheme is proposed to solve the model equations, and is used to perform calculations that agree well with published mixing data from linear electric motor experiments. Considerations involved in implementing the model in hydrodynamics codes are briefly discussed

A Phase I Study Investigating AZD8186, a Potent and Selective Inhibitor of PI3Kβ/δ, in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors

Advanced Solid Tumors; PI3K beta/delta inhibitorTumores sólidos avanzados; Inhibidor de PI3K beta/deltaTumors sòlids avançats; Inhibidor de PI3K beta/deltaPurpose: To characterize safety and tolerability of the selective PI3Kβ inhibitor AZD8186, identify a recommended phase II dose (RP2D), and assess preliminary efficacy in combination with abiraterone acetate or vistusertib. Patients and Methods: This phase I open-label study included patients with advanced solid tumors, particularly prostate cancer, triple-negative breast cancer, and squamous non–small cell lung cancer. The study comprised four arms: (i) AZD8186 monotherapy dose finding; (ii) monotherapy dose expansion; (iii) AZD8186/abiraterone acetate (with prednisone); and (iv) AZD8186/vistusertib. The primary endpoints were safety, tolerability, and identification of the RP2D of AZD8186 monotherapy and in combination. Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics, and tumor and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses. Results: In total, 161 patients were enrolled. AZD8186 was well tolerated across all study arms, the most common adverse events being gastrointestinal symptoms. In the monotherapy dose-finding arm, four patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (mainly rash). AZD8186 doses of 60-mg twice daily [BID; 5 days on, 2 days off (5:2)] and 120-mg BID (continuous and 5:2 dosing) were taken into subsequent arms. The PKs of AZD8186 were dose proportional, without interactions with abiraterone acetate or vistusertib, and target inhibition was observed in plasma and tumor tissue. Monotherapy and combination therapy showed preliminary evidence of limited antitumor activity by imaging and, in prostate cancer, PSA reduction. Conclusions: AZD8186 monotherapy had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile, and combination with abiraterone acetate/prednisone or vistusertib was also tolerated. There was preliminary evidence of antitumor activity, meriting further exploration of AZD8186 in subsequent studies in PI3Kβ pathway–dependent cancers.This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. We thank the patients and their doctors and caregivers who participated in this study. We acknowledge support in Cambridge from Cancer Research UK, Experimental Cancer Medicine Center, NIHR Biomedical Research Center, and NIHR Cambridge Clinical Research Center. Research at the Christie NHS Foundation Trust was supported by the NIHR Manchester Clinical Research Facility and Manchester Experimental Cancer Medicine Center award. We also thank Martine Roudier (AstraZeneca) for providing analysis data of tumor tissue biopsies, and Wolfram Brugger and Caroline Kennedy (AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK). Abiraterone acetate was kindly provided by Janssen. Medical writing and editorial assistance were provided by Bioscript Medical, Macclesfield, UK, and funded by AstraZeneca

Parallelizing Monte Carlo with PMC

PMC (Parallel Monte Carlo) is a system of generic interface routines that allows easy porting of Monte Carlo packages of large-scale physics simulation codes to Massively Parallel Processor (MPP) computers. By loading various versions of PMC, simulation code developers can configure their codes to run in several modes: serial, Monte Carlo runs on the same processor as the rest of the code; parallel, Monte Carlo runs in parallel across many processors of the MPP with the rest of the code running on other MPP processor(s); distributed, Monte Carlo runs in parallel across many processors of the MPP with the rest of the code running on a different machine. This multi-mode approach allows maintenance of a single simulation code source regardless of the target machine. PMC handles passing of messages between nodes on the MPP, passing of messages between a different machine and the MPP, distributing work between nodes, and providing independent, reproducible sequences of random numbers. Several production codes have been parallelized under the PMC system. Excellent parallel efficiency in both the distributed and parallel modes results if sufficient workload is available per processor. Experiences with a Monte Carlo photonics demonstration code and a Monte Carlo neutronics package are described

Odyssey

We present results obtained with the Odyssey simulation code. Odyssey is a 1, 2, and 3 dimensional AMR code using cartesian, cylindrical, and spherical coordinates. The results provide an interesting snapshot of Odyssey at this point in its development. Results include parallel performance and scaling, Eulerian hydrodynamics algorithm comparisons, ADI based diffusion solvers on hierarchical meshes, ECB treatment of material interfaces in diffusion solves

Optimizing anticancer therapy in metastatic non-castrate prostate cancer: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline

Purpose This clinical practice guideline addresses abiraterone or docetaxel with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for metastatic prostate cancer that has not been treated (or has been minimally treated) with testosterone-lowering agents. Methods Standard therapy for newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer has been ADT alone. Three studies have compared ADT alone with ADT and docetaxel, and two studies have compared ADT alone with ADT and abiraterone. Results Three prospective randomized studies (GETUG-AFU 15, STAMPEDE, and CHAARTED) examined overall survival (OS) with adding docetaxel to ADT. STAMPEDE and CHAARTED favored docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; n = 2,962 and HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; n = 790, respectively). GETUG-AFU 15 was negative. LATITUDE and STAMPEDE examined the impact on OS of adding abiraterone (with prednisone or prednisolone) to ADT. LATITUDE and STAMPEDE favored abiraterone (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.76; n = 1,199 and HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.76; n = 1,917, respectively). Recommendations ADT plus docetaxel or abiraterone in newly diagnosed metastatic non-castrate prostate cancer offers a survival benefit as compared with ADT alone. The strongest evidence of benefit with docetaxel is in men with de novo high-volume (CHAARTED criteria) metastatic disease. Similar survival benefits are seen using abiraterone acetate in high-risk patients (LATITUDE criteria) and in the metastatic population in STAMPEDE. ADT plus abiraterone and ADT plus docetaxel have not been compared, and it is not known if some men benefit more from one regimen as opposed to the other. Fitness for chemotherapy, patient comorbidities, toxicity profiles, quality of life, drug availability, and cost should be considered in this decision. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines

Single-scatter Monte Carlo compared to condensed history results for low energy electrons

A Monte Carlo code has been developed to simulate individual electron interactions. The code has been instrumental in determining the range of validity for the widely used condensed history method. This task was accomplished by isolating and testing the condensed history assumptions. The results show that the condensed history method fails for low energy electron transport due to inaccuracies in energy loss and spatial positioning.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/29795/1/0000141.pd

Schwarz type preconditioners for the neutron diffusion equation

[EN] Domain decomposition is a mature methodology that has been used to accelerate the convergence of partial differential equations. Even if it was devised as a solver by itself, it is usually employed together with Krylov iterative methods improving its rate of convergence, and providing scalability with respect to the size of the problem. In this work, a high order finite element discretization of the neutron diffusion equation is considered. In this problem the preconditioning of large and sparse linear systems arising from a source driven formulation becomes necessary due to the complexity of the problem. On the other hand, preconditioners based on an incomplete factorization are very expensive from the point of view of memory requirements. The acceleration of the neutron diffusion equation is thus studied here by using alternative preconditioners based on domain decomposition techniques inside Schur complement methodology. The study considers substructuring preconditioners, which do not involve overlapping, and additive Schwarz preconditioners, where some overlapping between the subdomains is taken into account. The performance of the different approaches is studied numerically using two-dimensional and three-dimensional problems. It is shown that some of the proposed methodologies outperform incomplete LU factorization for preconditioning as long as the linear system to be solved is large enough, as it occurs for three-dimensional problems. They also outperform classical diagonal Jacobi preconditioners, as long as the number of systems to be solved is large enough in such a way that the overhead of building the pre-conditioner is less than the improvement in the convergence rate. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.The work has been partially supported by the spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad under projects ENE 2014-59442-P and MTM2014-58159-P, the Generalitat Valenciana under the project PROMETEO II/2014/008 and the Universitat Politècnica de València under the project FPI-2013. The work has also been supported partially by the Swedish Research Council (VR-Vetenskapsrådet) within a framework grant called DREAM4SAFER, research contract C0467701.Vidal-Ferràndiz, A.; González Pintor, S.; Ginestar Peiro, D.; Verdú Martín, GJ.; Demazière, C. (2017). Schwarz type preconditioners for the neutron diffusion equation. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics. 309:563-574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2016.02.056S56357430

Niraparib plus abiraterone acetate with prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and homologous recombination repair gene alterations: second interim analysis of the randomized phase III MAGNITUDE trial

Background: Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and BRCA alterations have poor outcomes. MAGNITUDE found patients with homologous recombination repair gene alterations (HRR+), particularly BRCA1/2, benefit from first-line therapy with niraparib plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP). Here we report longer follow-up from the second prespecified interim analysis (IA2). Patients and methods: Patients with mCRPC were prospectively identified as HRR+ with/without BRCA1/2 alterations and randomized 1 : 1 to niraparib (200 mg orally) plus AAP (1000 mg/10 mg orally) or placebo plus AAP. At IA2, secondary endpoints [time to symptomatic progression, time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, overall survival (OS)] were assessed. Results: Overall, 212 HRR+ patients received niraparib plus AAP (BRCA1/2 subgroup, n = 113). At IA2 with 24.8 months of median follow-up in the BRCA1/2 subgroup, niraparib plus AAP significantly prolonged radiographic progression-free survival {rPFS; blinded independent central review; median rPFS 19.5 versus 10.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.55 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.78]; nominal P = 0.0007} consistent with the first prespecified interim analysis. rPFS was also prolonged in the total HRR+ population [HR = 0.76 (95% CI 0.60-0.97); nominal P = 0.0280; median follow-up 26.8 months]. Improvements in time to symptomatic progression and time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy were observed with niraparib plus AAP. In the BRCA1/2 subgroup, the analysis of OS with niraparib plus AAP demonstrated an HR of 0.88 (95% CI 0.58-1.34; nominal P = 0.5505); the prespecified inverse probability censoring weighting analysis of OS, accounting for imbalances in subsequent use of poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase inhibitors and other life-prolonging therapies, demonstrated an HR of 0.54 (95% CI 0.33-0.90; nominal P = 0.0181). No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions: MAGNITUDE, enrolling the largest BRCA1/2 cohort in first-line mCRPC to date, demonstrated improved rPFS and other clinically relevant outcomes with niraparib plus AAP in patients with BRCA1/2-altered mCRPC, emphasizing the importance of identifying this molecular subset of patients

Radiographic progression with nonrising PSA in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: post hoc analysis of PREVAIL.

Background Advanced prostate cancer is a phenotypically diverse disease that evolves through multiple clinical courses. PSA level is the most widely used parameter for disease monitoring, but it has well-recognized limitations. Unlike in clinical trials, in practice, clinicians may rely on PSA monitoring alone to determine disease status on therapy. This approach has not been adequately tested.Methods Chemotherapy-naive asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic men (n=872) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who were treated with the androgen receptor inhibitor enzalutamide in the PREVAIL study were analyzed post hoc for rising versus nonrising PSA (empirically defined as >1.05 vs ⩽1.05 times the PSA level from 3 months earlier) at the time of radiographic progression. Clinical characteristics and disease outcomes were compared between the rising and nonrising PSA groups.Results Of 265 PREVAIL patients with radiographic progression and evaluable PSA levels on the enzalutamide arm, nearly one-quarter had a nonrising PSA. Median progression-free survival in this cohort was 8.3 months versus 11.1 months in the rising PSA cohort (hazard ratio 1.68; 95% confidence interval 1.26-2.23); overall survival was similar between the two groups, although less than half of patients in either group were still at risk at 24 months. Baseline clinical characteristics of the two groups were similar.Conclusions Non-rising PSA at radiographic progression is a common phenomenon in mCRPC patients treated with enzalutamide. As restaging in advanced prostate cancer patients is often guided by increases in PSA levels, our results demonstrate that disease progression on enzalutamide can occur without rising PSA levels. Therefore, a disease monitoring strategy that includes imaging not entirely reliant on serial serum PSA measurement may more accurately identify disease progression