Analytical Solution for the Deformation of a Cylinder under Tidal Gravitational Forces

Quite a few future high precision space missions for testing Special and General Relativity will use optical resonators which are used for laser frequency stabilization. These devices are used for carrying out tests of the isotropy of light (Michelson-Morley experiment) and of the universality of the gravitational redshift. As the resonator frequency not only depends on the speed of light but also on the resonator length, the quality of these measurements is very sensitive to elastic deformations of the optical resonator itself. As a consequence, a detailed knowledge about the deformations of the cavity is necessary. Therefore in this article we investigate the modeling of optical resonators in a space environment. Usually for simulation issues the Finite Element Method (FEM) is applied in order to investigate the influence of disturbances on the resonator measurements. However, for a careful control of the numerical quality of FEM simulations a comparison with an analytical solution of a simplified resonator model is beneficial. In this article we present an analytical solution for the problem of an elastic, isotropic, homogeneous free-flying cylinder in space under the influence of a tidal gravitational force. The solution is gained by solving the linear equations of elasticity for special boundary conditions. The applicability of using FEM codes for these simulations shall be verified through the comparison of the analytical solution with the results gained within the FEM code.Comment: 23 pages, 3 figure

Antibacterial 45S5 Bioglass®-based scaffolds reinforced with genipin cross-linked gelatin for bone tissue engineering

45S5 Bioglass® (BG) scaffolds with high porosity (>90%) were coated with genipin cross-linked gelatin (GCG) and further incorporated with poly(p-xylyleneguanidine) hydrochloride (PPXG). The obtained GCG coated scaffolds maintained the high porosity and well interconnected pore structure. A 26-fold higher compressive strength was provided to 45S5 BG scaffolds by GCG coating, which slightly retarded but did not inhibit the in vitro bioactivity of 45S5 BG scaffolds in SBF. Moreover, the scaffolds were made antibacterial against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria by using polyguanidine, i.e. PPXG, in this study. Osteoblast-like cells (MG-63) were seeded onto PPXG and GCG coated scaffolds. PPXG was biocompatible with MG-63 cells at a low concentration (10 μg mL−1). MG-63 cells were shown to attach and spread on both uncoated and GCG coated scaffolds, and the mitochondrial activity measurement indicated that GCG coating had no negative influence on the cell proliferation behavior of MG-63 cells. The developed novel antibacterial bioactive 45S5 BG-based composite scaffolds with improved mechanical properties are promising candidates for bone tissue engineering

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of adjuvant oral capecitabine vs intravenous 5-FU/LV in Dukes' C colon cancer: the X-ACT trial

Oral capecitabine (Xeloda<sup>®</sup>) is an effective drug with favourable safety in adjuvant and metastatic colorectal cancer. Oxaliplatin-based therapy is becoming standard for Dukes' C colon cancer in patients suitable for combination therapy, but is not yet approved by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the adjuvant setting. Adjuvant capecitabine is at least as effective as 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV), with significant superiority in relapse-free survival and a trend towards improved disease-free and overall survival. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant capecitabine from payer (UK National Health Service (NHS)) and societal perspectives. We used clinical trial data and published sources to estimate incremental direct and societal costs and gains in quality-adjusted life months (QALMs). Acquisition costs were higher for capecitabine than 5-FU/LV, but higher 5-FU/LV administration costs resulted in 57% lower chemotherapy costs for capecitabine. Capecitabine vs 5-FU/LV-associated adverse events required fewer medications and hospitalisations (cost savings £3653). Societal costs, including patient travel/time costs, were reduced by >75% with capecitabine vs 5-FU/LV (cost savings £1318), with lifetime gain in QALMs of 9 months. Medical resource utilisation is significantly decreased with capecitabine vs 5-FU/LV, with cost savings to the NHS and society. Capecitabine is also projected to increase life expectancy vs 5-FU/LV. Cost savings and better outcomes make capecitabine a preferred adjuvant therapy for Dukes' C colon cancer. This pharmacoeconomic analysis strongly supports replacing 5-FU/LV with capecitabine in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer in the UK