A Synoptical Classification of the Bivalvia (Mollusca)

The following classification summarizes the suprageneric taxono-my of the Bivalvia for the upcoming revision of the Bivalvia volumes of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part N. The development of this classification began with Carter (1990a), Campbell, Hoeks-tra, and Carter (1995, 1998), Campbell (2000, 2003), and Carter, Campbell, and Campbell (2000, 2006), who, with assistance from the United States National Science Foundation, conducted large-scale morphological phylogenetic analyses of mostly Paleozoic bivalves, as well as molecular phylogenetic analyses of living bivalves. Dur-ing the past several years, their initial phylogenetic framework has been revised and greatly expanded through collaboration with many students of bivalve biology and paleontology, many of whom are coauthors. During this process, all available sources of phylogenetic information, including molecular, anatomical, shell morphological, shell microstructural, bio- and paleobiogeographic as well as strati-graphic, have been integrated into the classification. The more recent sources of phylogenetic information include, but are not limited to, Carter (1990a), Malchus (1990), J. Schneider (1995, 1998a, 1998b, 2002), T. Waller (1998), Hautmann (1999, 2001a, 2001b), Giribet and Wheeler (2002), Giribet and Distel (2003), Dreyer, Steiner, and Harper (2003), Matsumoto (2003), Harper, Dreyer, and Steiner (2006), Kappner and Bieler (2006), Mikkelsen and others (2006), Neulinger and others (2006), Taylor and Glover (2006), Kříž (2007), B. Morton (2007), Taylor, Williams, and Glover (2007), Taylor and others (2007), Giribet (2008), and Kirkendale (2009). This work has also benefited from the nomenclator of bivalve families by Bouchet and Rocroi (2010) and its accompanying classification by Bieler, Carter, and Coan (2010).This classification strives to indicate the most likely phylogenetic position for each taxon. Uncertainty is indicated by a question mark before the name of the taxon. Many of the higher taxa continue to undergo major taxonomic revision. This is especially true for the superfamilies Sphaerioidea and Veneroidea, and the orders Pectinida and Unionida. Because of this state of flux, some parts of the clas-sification represent a compromise between opposing points of view. Placement of the Trigonioidoidea is especially problematic. This Mesozoic superfamily has traditionally been placed in the order Unionida, as a possible derivative of the superfamily Unionoidea (see Cox, 1952; Sha, 1992, 1993; Gu, 1998; Guo, 1998; Bieler, Carter, & Coan, 2010). However, Chen Jin-hua (2009) summarized evi-dence that Trigonioidoidea was derived instead from the superfamily Trigonioidea. Arguments for these alternatives appear equally strong, so we presently list the Trigonioidoidea, with question, under both the Trigoniida and Unionida, with the contents of the superfamily indicated under the Trigoniida.Fil: Carter, Joseph G.. University of North Carolina; Estados UnidosFil: Altaba, Cristian R.. Universidad de las Islas Baleares; EspañaFil: Anderson, Laurie C.. South Dakota School of Mines and Technology; Estados UnidosFil: Araujo, Rafael. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales; EspañaFil: Biakov, Alexander S.. Russian Academy of Sciences; RusiaFil: Bogan, Arthur E.. North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences; Estados UnidosFil: Campbell, David. Paleontological Research Institution; Estados UnidosFil: Campbell, Matthew. Charleston Southern University; Estados UnidosFil: Chen, Jin Hua. Chinese Academy of Sciences. Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology; República de ChinaFil: Cope, John C. W.. National Museum of Wales. Department of Geology; Reino UnidoFil: Delvene, Graciela. Instituto Geológico y Minero de España; EspañaFil: Dijkstra, Henk H.. Netherlands Centre for Biodiversity; Países BajosFil: Fang, Zong Jie. Chinese Academy of Sciences; República de ChinaFil: Gardner, Ronald N.. No especifica;Fil: Gavrilova, Vera A.. Russian Geological Research Institute; RusiaFil: Goncharova, Irina A.. Russian Academy of Sciences; RusiaFil: Harries, Peter J.. University of South Florida; Estados UnidosFil: Hartman, Joseph H.. University of North Dakota; Estados UnidosFil: Hautmann, Michael. Paläontologisches Institut und Museum; SuizaFil: Hoeh, Walter R.. Kent State University; Estados UnidosFil: Hylleberg, Jorgen. Institute of Biology; DinamarcaFil: Jiang, Bao Yu. Nanjing University; República de ChinaFil: Johnston, Paul. Mount Royal University; CanadáFil: Kirkendale, Lisa. University Of Wollongong; AustraliaFil: Kleemann, Karl. Universidad de Viena; AustriaFil: Koppka, Jens. Office de la Culture. Section d’Archéologie et Paléontologie; SuizaFil: Kříž, Jiří. Czech Geological Survey. Department of Sedimentary Formations. Lower Palaeozoic Section; República ChecaFil: Machado, Deusana. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Malchus, Nikolaus. Institut Català de Paleontologia; EspañaFil: Márquez Aliaga, Ana. Universidad de Valencia; EspañaFil: Masse, Jean Pierre. Universite de Provence; FranciaFil: McRoberts, Christopher A.. State University of New York at Cortland. Department of Geology; Estados UnidosFil: Middelfart, Peter U.. Australian Museum; AustraliaFil: Mitchell, Simon. The University of the West Indies at Mona; JamaicaFil: Nevesskaja, Lidiya A.. Russian Academy of Sciences; RusiaFil: Özer, Sacit. Dokuz Eylül University; TurquíaFil: Pojeta, John Jr.. National Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Polubotko, Inga V.. Russian Geological Research Institute; RusiaFil: Pons, Jose Maria. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; EspañaFil: Popov, Sergey. Russian Academy of Sciences; RusiaFil: Sanchez, Teresa Maria. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; ArgentinaFil: Sartori, André F.. Field Museum of National History; Estados UnidosFil: Scott, Robert W.. Precision Stratigraphy Associates; Estados UnidosFil: Sey, Irina I.. Russian Geological Research Institute; RusiaFil: Signorelli, Javier Hernan. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico; ArgentinaFil: Silantiev, Vladimir V.. Kazan Federal University; RusiaFil: Skelton, Peter W.. Open University. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences; Reino UnidoFil: Steuber, Thomas. The Petroleum Institute; Emiratos Arabes UnidosFil: Waterhouse, J. Bruce. No especifica;Fil: Wingard, G. Lynn. United States Geological Survey; Estados UnidosFil: Yancey, Thomas. Texas A&M University; Estados Unido

Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial

Background Previous evidence supports androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with primary radiotherapy as initial treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the use and optimal duration of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. Methods RADICALS-HD was a randomised controlled trial of ADT duration within the RADICALS protocol. Here, we report on the comparison of short-course versus long-course ADT. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after previous radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to add 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT) or 24 months of ADT (long-course ADT) to radiotherapy, using subcutaneous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (monthly in the short-course ADT group and 3-monthly in the long-course ADT group), daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. The comparison had more than 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 75% to 81% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72). Standard time-to-event analyses were used. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00541047 . Findings Between Jan 30, 2008, and July 7, 2015, 1523 patients (median age 65 years, IQR 60–69) were randomly assigned to receive short-course ADT (n=761) or long-course ADT (n=762) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 138 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years (7·0–10·0), 313 metastasis-free survival events were reported overall (174 in the short-course ADT group and 139 in the long-course ADT group; HR 0·773 [95% CI 0·612–0·975]; p=0·029). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 71·9% (95% CI 67·6–75·7) in the short-course ADT group and 78·1% (74·2–81·5) in the long-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 105 (14%) of 753 participants in the short-course ADT group and 142 (19%) of 757 participants in the long-course ADT group (p=0·025), with no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Compared with adding 6 months of ADT, adding 24 months of ADT improved metastasis-free survival in people receiving postoperative radiotherapy. For individuals who can accept the additional duration of adverse effects, long-course ADT should be offered with postoperative radiotherapy. Funding Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society

Adding 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy to postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of short-course versus no androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised controlled trial

Background Previous evidence indicates that adjuvant, short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves metastasis-free survival when given with primary radiotherapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the value of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy is unclear. Methods RADICALS-HD was an international randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of ADT used in combination with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to radiotherapy alone (no ADT) or radiotherapy with 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT), using monthly subcutaneous gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue injections, daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as distant metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. Standard survival analysis methods were used, accounting for randomisation stratification factors. The trial had 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 80% to 86% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·67). Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. Findings Between Nov 22, 2007, and June 29, 2015, 1480 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 61–69]) were randomly assigned to receive no ADT (n=737) or short-course ADT (n=743) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 121 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 7·1–10·1), metastasis-free survival events were reported for 268 participants (142 in the no ADT group and 126 in the short-course ADT group; HR 0·886 [95% CI 0·688–1·140], p=0·35). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 79·2% (95% CI 75·4–82·5) in the no ADT group and 80·4% (76·6–83·6) in the short-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 121 (17%) of 737 participants in the no ADT group and 100 (14%) of 743 in the short-course ADT group (p=0·15), with no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Metastatic disease is uncommon following postoperative bed radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adding 6 months of ADT to this radiotherapy did not improve metastasis-free survival compared with no ADT. These findings do not support the use of short-course ADT with postoperative radiotherapy in this patient population

Metal ion recognition. Interaction of new oxygen-nitrogen donor macrocycles with selected transition and post-transition metal ions

As part of an ongoing investigation of the factors influencing metal ionrecognition, we have investigated structure/function relationships involvingthe metal-ion binding by three new N-benzyl-substituted, 15- and 16-membered,macrocyclic ligands incorporating N2O 3- and N 3O 3-donor sets (withthe N 3O 3-system consisting of a N 2O 3-macrocyclic ring with an attachedCH 2CH 2NCH 2C 6H 5 pendant arm). Selected solid complexes of thelatter ligand were isolated and the X-ray structures of individual Ni(II) and Ag(I) complexeswere obtained.\ud Where solubility permitted, potentiometric titration studies in 95% methanolwere employed to investigate the binding affinities of all three ligand derivativestowards Co(II), Ni(II), Cu(II), Zn(II), Cd(II), Ag(I) and Pb(II). The 15-memberedN 2O 3-ring was found to be selective for Ag(I) over the other six metalsinvestigated, including Cu(II). However, the presence of a further nitrogen donorin the form of the pendant benzylamine functionality in the N 3O 3-donorsystem results in an increase in its binding affinity for Ag(I) but an even greaterincrease occurs for Cu(II). As a consequence, the latter ion is now more stronglybound than Ag(I). The factors influencing these respective selectivities are discussed