MECPerf: An Application-Level Tool for Estimating the Network Performance in Edge Computing Environments

Edge computing is an emerging architecture in 5G networks where computing power is provided at the edge of the fixed network, to be as close as possible to the end users. Computation offloading, better communication latency, and reduction of traffic in the core network are just some of the possible benefits. However, the Quality of Experience (QoE) depends significantly on the network performance of the user device towards the edge server vs. cloud server, which is not known a priori and may generally change very fast, especially in heterogeneous, dense, and mobile deployments. Building on the emergence of standard interfaces for the installation and operation of thirdparty edge applications in a mobile network, such as the MultiAccess Edge Computing (MEC) under standardization at the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), we propose MECPerf, a tool for user-driven network performance measurements. Bandwidth and latency on different network segments are measured and stored in a central repository, from where they can be analyzed, e.g., by application and service providers without access to the underlying network management services, for run-time resource optimization

Hospital factors and patient characteristics in the treatment of colorectal cancer: a population based study

BACKGROUND: The present study focuses on the analysis of social, clinical and hospital characteristics that can lead to disparities in the management and outcome of care. To that end, indicators of the quality of initial treatment delivered to newly-diagnosed colorectal cancer patients in a North-Western Region of Italy, were investigated using administrative data. METHODS: The cohort includes all incident colorectal cancer patients (N = 24,187) selected by a validated algorithm from the Piedmont Hospital Discharge Record system over an 8-year period (2000–2007). Three indicators of quality of care in this population-based cohort were evaluated: the proportion of preoperative radiotherapy (RT) and of abdominoperineal (AP) resection in rectal cancer patients, and the proportion of postoperative in-hospital mortality in colorectal cancer patients. RESULTS: Among rectal cancers, older patients were less likely to have preoperative RT, and more likely to receive an AP resection compared to younger patients. The probability of undergoing preoperative RT and AP resection was reduced in females compared to males (odds ratio (OR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64-0.93 and OR 0.78, 95%CI 0.69-0.89, respectively). However, there was a trend of increasing RT over time (p for trend <0.01). The probability of undergoing AP resection was increased in less-educated patients and in hospitals with a low caseload. A higher risk of postoperative in-hospital mortality was found among colorectal cancer patients who were older, male, (female versus male OR 0.71, 95%CI 0.60-0.84), unmarried (OR 1.32, 95%CI 1.09-1.59) or with unknown marital status. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides evidence of the importance of social, clinical and hospital characteristics on the equity and quality of care in a Southern European country with an open-access public health care system

European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication

Population-based screening for early detection and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) and precursor lesions, using evidence-based methods, can be effective in populations with a significant burden of the disease provided the services are of high quality. Multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidelines for quality assurance in CRC screening and diagnosis have been developed by experts in a project co-financed by the European Union. The 450-page guidelines were published in book format by the European Commission in 2010. They include 10 chapters and over 250 recommendations, individually graded according to the strength of the recommendation and the supporting evidence. Adoption of the recommendations can improve and maintain the quality and effectiveness of an entire screening process, including identification and invitation of the target population, diagnosis and management of the disease and appropriate surveillance in people with detected lesions. To make the principles, recommendations and standards in the guidelines known to a wider professional and scientific community and to facilitate their use in the scientific literature, the original content is presented in journal format in an open-access Supplement of Endoscopy. The editors have prepared the present overview to inform readers of the comprehensive scope and content of the guidelines.Fil: Arrossi, Silvina. Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: von Karsa, Lawrence. International Agency for Research on Cancer; FranciaFil: Patrick, J.. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes Sheffield; Reino Unido. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Segnan, N.. International Agency for Research on Cancer; Francia. AO Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino; ItaliaFil: Atkin, W.. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Halloran, S.. University of Surrey; Reino UnidoFil: Saito, H.. National Cancer Centre; JapónFil: Sauvaget, C.. International Agency for Research on Cancer; FranciaFil: Scharpantgen, A.. Ministry of Health; LuxemburgoFil: Schmiegel, W.. Ruhr-Universität Bochum; AlemaniaFil: Senore, C.. AO Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino; ItaliaFil: Siddiqi, M.. Cancer Foundation of India; IndiaFil: Sighoko, D.. University of Chicago; Estados Unidos. Formerly International Agency for Research on Cancer; FranciaFil: Smith, R.. American Cancer Society; Estados UnidosFil: Smith S.. University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust; Reino UnidoFil: Suchanek, S.. Charles University; República ChecaFil: Suonio, E.. International Agency for Research on Cancer; FranciaFil: Tong, W.. Chinese Academy of Sciences; República de ChinaFil: Törnberg, S.. Stockholm Gotland Regional Cancer Centre. Department of Cancer Screening; SueciaFil: Van Cutsem, E.. Katholikie Universiteit Leuven; BélgicaFil: Vignatelli, L.. Agenzia Sanitaria e Sociale Regionale; ItaliaFil: Villain, P.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Voti, L.. Formerly International Agency for Research on Cancer; Francia. University of Miami; Estados UnidosFil: Watanabe, H.. Niigata University; JapónFil: Watson, J.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Winawer, S.. Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center; Estados UnidosFil: Young, G.. Flinders University. Gastrointestinal Services; AustraliaFil: Zaksas, V.. State Patient Fund; LituaniaFil: Zappa, M.. Cancer Prevention and Research Institute; ItaliaFil: Valori, R.. NHS Endoscopy; Reino Unid

Recommendations for a step-wise comparative approach to the evaluation of new screening tests for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND: New screening tests for colorectal cancer continue to emerge, but the evidence needed to justify their adoption in screening programs remains uncertain.METHODS: A review of the literature and a consensus approach by experts was undertaken to provide practical guidance on how to compare new screening tests with proven screening tests.RESULTS: Findings and recommendations from the review included the following: Adoption of a new screening test requires evidence of effectiveness relative to a proven comparator test. Clinical accuracy supported by programmatic population evaluation in the screening context on an intention-to-screen basis, including acceptability, is essential. Cancer-specific mortality is not essential as an endpoint provided that the mortality benefit of the comparator has been demonstrated and that the biologic basis of detection is similar. Effectiveness of the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test provides the minimum standard to be achieved by a new test. A 4-phase evaluation is recommended. An initial retrospective evaluation in cancer cases and controls (Phase 1) is followed by a prospective evaluation of performance across the continuum of neoplastic lesions (Phase 2). Phase 3 follows the demonstration of adequate accuracy in these 2 prescreening phases and addresses programmatic outcomes at 1 screening round on an intention-to-screen basis. Phase 4 involves more comprehensive evaluation of ongoing screening over multiple rounds. Key information is provided from the following parameters: the test positivity rate in a screening population, the true-positive and false-positive rates, and the number needed to colonoscope to detect a target lesion.CONCLUSIONS: New screening tests can be evaluated efficiently by this stepwise comparative approach. Cancer 2016;122:826-39. © 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.</p

Narrow-band Imaging for Detection of Neoplasia at Colonoscopy: a Meta-analysis of Data From Individual Patients in Randomized Controlled Trials

Background & Aims Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality assurance measure for colonoscopy. Some studies suggest that narrow band imaging (NBI) may be more effective at detection of adenomas than white-light endoscopy (WLE) when bowel preparation is optimal. We conducted a meta-analysis of data from individual patients in randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of NBI to WLE in detection of adenomas. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases, through April 2017, for randomized controlled trials that assessed detection of colon polyps by high-definition WLE vs NBI and from which data on individual patients was available. The primary outcome measure was ADR adjusted for bowel preparation quality. Multilevel regression models were used with patients nested within trials, and trial included as a random effect. Results We collected data from 11 trials, comprising 4491 patients and 6636 polyps detected. Adenomas were detected in 952/2251 (42.3%) participants examined by WLE vs 1011/2239 (45.2%) participants examined by NBI (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] for detection of adenoma by WLE vs NBI, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01–1.29; P=.04). NBI outperformed WLE only when bowel preparation was best: adequate preparation OR, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.92–1.24; P=.38) vs best preparation OR, 1.30 (95% CI, 1.04–1.62; P=.02). Second-generation bright NBI had a better ADR than WLE (second-generation NBI OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05–1.56; P=.02), whereas first-generation NBI did not. NBI detected more non-adenomatous polyps than WLE (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.06–1.44; P=.008) and flat polyps than WLE (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02–1.51; P=.03). Conclusions In a meta-analysis of data from individual patients in randomized controlled trials, we found NBI to have a higher ADR than WLE, and that this effect is greater when bowel preparation is optimal

An efficient strategy for evaluating new non-invasive screening tests for colorectal cancer: the guiding principles.

New screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) are rapidly emerging. Conducting trials with mortality reduction as the end point supporting their adoption is challenging. We re-examined the principles underlying evaluation of new non-invasive tests in view of technological developments and identification of new biomarkers. A formal consensus approach involving a multidisciplinary expert panel revised eight previously established principles. Twelve newly stated principles emerged. Effectiveness of a new test can be evaluated by comparison with a proven comparator non-invasive test. The faecal immunochemical test is now considered the appropriate comparator, while colonoscopy remains the diagnostic standard. For a new test to be able to meet differing screening goals and regulatory requirements, flexibility to adjust its positivity threshold is desirable. A rigorous and efficient four-phased approach is proposed, commencing with small studies assessing the test's ability to discriminate between CRC and non-cancer states (phase I), followed by prospective estimation of accuracy across the continuum of neoplastic lesions in neoplasia-enriched populations (phase II). If these show promise, a provisional test positivity threshold is set before evaluation in typical screening populations. Phase III prospective studies determine single round intention-to-screen programme outcomes and confirm the test positivity threshold. Phase IV studies involve evaluation over repeated screening rounds with monitoring for missed lesions. Phases III and IV findings will provide the real-world data required to model test impact on CRC mortality and incidence. New non-invasive tests can be efficiently evaluated by a rigorous phased comparative approach, generating data from unbiased populations that inform predictions of their health impact

GP participation in increasing uptake in a national bowel cancer screening programme: the PEARL project

Policy Research Unit (PRU) in Cancer Awareness, Screening and Early BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER The PEARL project The PRU receives funding for a research programme from the Department of Health Policy Research Programm

An efficient strategy for evaluating new non-invasive screening tests for colorectal cancer: the guiding principles

Objective: New screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) are rapidly emerging. Conducting trials with mortality reduction as the end point supporting their adoption is challenging. We re-examined the principles underlying evaluation of new non-invasive tests in view of technological developments and identification of new biomarkers. Design: A formal consensus approach involving a multidisciplinary expert panel revised eight previously established principles. Results: Twelve newly stated principles emerged. Effectiveness of a new test can be evaluated by comparison with a proven comparator non-invasive test. The faecal immunochemical test is now considered the appropriate comparator, while colonoscopy remains the diagnostic standard. For a new test to be able to meet differing screening goals and regulatory requirements, flexibility to adjust its positivity threshold is desirable. A rigorous and efficient four-phased approach is proposed, commencing with small studies assessing the test’s ability to discriminate between CRC and non-cancer states (phase I), followed by prospective estimation of accuracy across the continuum of neoplastic lesions in neoplasia-enriched populations (phase II). If these show promise, a provisional test positivity threshold is set before evaluation in typical screening populations. Phase III prospective studies determine single round intention-to-screen programme outcomes and confirm the test positivity threshold. Phase IV studies involve evaluation over repeated screening rounds with monitoring for missed lesions. Phases III and IV findings will provide the real-world data required to model test impact on CRC mortality and incidence. Conclusion: New non-invasive tests can be efficiently evaluated by a rigorous phased comparative approach, generating data from unbiased populations that inform predictions of their health impact

Colorectal cancer screening

N/