The empirical approach to strengthen coordinated cadastral database accuracy

The coordinated cadastral database in Malaysia is known as National Digital Cadastral Database (NDCDB) with an expected accuracy of ±10cm in rural and ±5cm in urban area. Till date, there are approximately 7.8 million land parcels and 22 million boundary markers in the NDCDB for the whole of Peninsular Malaysia and Federal Territory of Labuan covering total area of 132,183 km2. Since 2010, NDCDB block adjustment has been carried out continuously without giving prime concern to eliminate gross errors in the adjustment's input data. This approach aims to propose a methodology to improve the positional accuracy of the existing NDCDB through utilisation of the current eKadaster application. A comprehensive investigation in the office and field processes has been carried out to prove the efficiency of the methodology introduced. This investigation was focused on the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL) right of way (ROW) survey from Dungun to Besut where displacement of 1 to 6 meters relative to the NDCDB coordinates, as shown in the Land Acquisition (LA) Plan, have been identified. Areas involved are coded as Block T10701, T1100101 and T1100102 which are located in Lubuk Kawah and Pelagat Sub-districts, in the state of Terengganu. Positional accuracy of the NDCDB after adjustment was further verified by comparing the coordinates of randomly picked ground proofing points in the field using Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) observation. This will determine the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of the respective NDCDB Block based on actual observations and adjusted coordinate values. With that, it can be concluded that the proposed approach is reasonably practical and capable to improve and strengthen the positional accuracy of existing coordinated cadastral database used in Malaysia

Australia's National Bowel Cancer Screening Program: does it work for Indigenous Australians?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite a lower incidence of bowel cancer overall, Indigenous Australians are more likely to be diagnosed at an advanced stage when prognosis is poor. Bowel cancer screening is an effective means of reducing incidence and mortality from bowel cancer through early identification and prompt treatment. In 2006, Australia began rolling out a population-based National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) using the Faecal Occult Blood Test. Initial evaluation of the program revealed substantial disparities in bowel cancer screening uptake with Indigenous Australians significantly less likely to participate in screening than the non-Indigenous population.</p> <p>This paper critically reviews characteristics of the program which may contribute to the discrepancy in screening uptake, and includes an analysis of organisational, structural, and socio-cultural barriers that play a part in the poorer participation of Indigenous and other disadvantaged and minority groups.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A search was undertaken of peer-reviewed journal articles, government reports, and other grey literature using electronic databases and citation snowballing. Articles were critically evaluated for relevance to themes that addressed the research questions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The NBCSP is not reaching many Indigenous Australians in the target group, with factors contributing to sub-optimal participation including how participants are selected, the way the screening kit is distributed, the nature of the test and comprehensiveness of its contents, cultural perceptions of cancer and prevailing low levels of knowledge and awareness of bowel cancer and the importance of screening.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our findings suggest that the population-based approach to implementing bowel cancer screening to the Australian population unintentionally excludes vulnerable minorities, particularly Indigenous and other culturally and linguistically diverse groups. This potentially contributes to exacerbating the already widening disparities in cancer outcomes that exist among Indigenous Australians. Modifications to the program are recommended to facilitate access and participation by Indigenous and other minority populations. Further research is also needed to understand the needs and social and cultural sensitivities of these groups around cancer screening and inform alternative approaches to bowel cancer screening.</p

Postoperative outcomes in oesophagectomy with trainee involvement

BACKGROUND: The complexity of oesophageal surgery and the significant risk of morbidity necessitates that oesophagectomy is predominantly performed by a consultant surgeon, or a senior trainee under their supervision. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of trainee involvement in oesophagectomy on postoperative outcomes in an international multicentre setting. METHODS: Data from the multicentre Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group (OGAA) cohort study were analysed, which comprised prospectively collected data from patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April 2018 and December 2018. Procedures were grouped by the level of trainee involvement, and univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to compare patient outcomes across groups. RESULTS: Of 2232 oesophagectomies from 137 centres in 41 countries, trainees were involved in 29.1 per cent of them (n = 650), performing only the abdominal phase in 230, only the chest and/or neck phases in 130, and all phases in 315 procedures. For procedures with a chest anastomosis, those with trainee involvement had similar 90-day mortality, complication and reoperation rates to consultant-performed oesophagectomies (P = 0.451, P = 0.318, and P = 0.382, respectively), while anastomotic leak rates were significantly lower in the trainee groups (P = 0.030). Procedures with a neck anastomosis had equivalent complication, anastomotic leak, and reoperation rates (P = 0.150, P = 0.430, and P = 0.632, respectively) in trainee-involved versus consultant-performed oesophagectomies, with significantly lower 90-day mortality in the trainee groups (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Trainee involvement was not found to be associated with significantly inferior postoperative outcomes for selected patients undergoing oesophagectomy. The results support continued supervised trainee involvement in oesophageal cancer surgery

Complexity reduction for frequency-response masking filters using cyclotomic polynomial prefilters

Proceedings - IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems3297-3300PICS

Are Aboriginal people more likely to be diagnosed with more advanced cancer?

Objective: To determine whether Aboriginal people in New South Wales were diagnosed with more advanced cancer than non-Aboriginal people. Design, setting and participants: Cross-sectional study of cancer cases, excluding lymphohaematopoietic cancers and cancers of unknown primary site, diagnosed in NSW in 2001–2007. Main outcome measure: Spread of disease at time of cancer diagnosis. Results: Overall, 40.3% of 2039 cancers in Aboriginal people and 46.6% of 191 954 cancers in non-Aboriginal people were localised at diagnosis. After adjusting for age, sex, year of diagnosis, area of residence and socioeconomic status, Aboriginal people had significantly higher risks of regional or distant spread for head and neck cancer, relative to localised spread, than non-Aboriginal people (regional: adjusted relative risk ratio [RRR], 1.89; 95% CI, 1.21–2.98; distant: adjusted RRR, 3.40; 95% CI, 1.85–6.05; P < 0.001). For breast, cervical and prostate cancers and melanoma, the risks of regional or distant spread were higher for Aboriginal people, but these differences were not statistically significant. For lung, colorectal, upper gastrointestinal tract, other gynaecological, and eye, brain and central nervous system cancers, the risks of regional, distant and unknown spread of cancer were similar for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. Conclusion: Aboriginal people were more likely than non-Aboriginal people to be diagnosed with more advanced cancer for only a few cancer types, most notably head and neck cancers. Differences in spread of disease at diagnosis are unlikely to explain much of the survival differences observed across a wide range of cancers between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in NSW

Comparing colorectal cancer treatment and survival for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in New South Wales

Objectives: Our aim was to compare surgical treatment rates and survival rates for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in New South Wales with colorectal cancer, and to describe the medical treatment received by a sample of Aboriginal people with colorectal cancer. Design, setting and participants: All people diagnosed with colorectal cancer in NSW during 2001–2007 were identified and their cancer registry records linked to hospital admissions data and death records. A medical records audit of a sample of Aboriginal people diagnosed with colorectal cancer during 2000–2011 was also conducted. Main outcome measures: Cause-specific survival, odds of surgical treatment, and the proportions of people receiving adjuvant treatments. Results: Of 29 777 eligible colorectal cancer cases, 278 (0.9%) involved Aboriginal people. Similar proportions of Aboriginal (76%) and non-Aboriginal (79%) people had undergone surgical treatment. Colorectal cancer-specific survival was similar for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people up to 18 months after diagnosis, but 5 years post-diagnosis the risk of death for Aboriginal people who had had surgical treatment was 68% higher than for non-Aboriginal people (adjusted hazards ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.32–2.09). Of 145 Aboriginal people with colorectal cancer identified by the medical records audit, 117 (81%) had undergone surgery, and 56 (48%) had also received adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Conclusions: Aboriginal people with colorectal cancer had poorer survival rates than non-Aboriginal people, although rates of surgical treatment, complications and follow-up colonoscopy were similar. More work is needed to identify and understand why outcomes for Aboriginal people with colorectal cancer are different from those of other New South Wales residents.This study was conducted as part of the Aboriginal Patterns of Cancer Care Project (APOCC), which was funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council Health Services Research grant (application 440202). Linkage of the POC data to the population datasets was funded by a Cancer Institute NSW Epidemiology Linkage grant (application 10/EPI/2-05)