Multidisciplinary Taiwan consensus for the use of conventional TACE in hepatocellular carcinoma treatment

Developed in early 1980s, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) with Lipiodol was adopted globally after large-scale randomized control trials and meta-analyses proving its effectiveness were completed. Also known as “conventional TACE” (cTACE), TACE is currently the first-line treatment for patients with unresectable intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and delivers both ischemic and cytotoxic effects to targeted tumors. Although new technology and clinical studies have contributed to a more comprehensive understanding of when and how to apply this widely-adopted therapeutic modality, some of these new findings and techniques have yet to be incorporated into a guideline appropriate for Taiwan. In addition, differences in the underlying liver pathologies and treatment practices for transcatheter embolization between Taiwan and other Asian or Western populations have not been adequately addressed, with significant variations in the cTACE protocols adopted in different parts of the world. These mainly revolve around the amount and type of chemotherapeutic agents used, the type of embolic materials, reliance on Lipiodol, and the degree of selectiveness in catheter positioning. Subsequently, interpreting and comparing results obtained from different centers in a systematic fashion remain difficult, even for experienced practitioners. To address these concerns, we convened a panel of experts specializing in different aspects of HCC treatment to devise modernized recommendations that reflect recent clinical experiences, as well as cTACE protocols which are tailored for use in Taiwan. The conclusions of this expert panel are described herein

Structure finding in cosmological simulations: the state of affairs

The ever increasing size and complexity of data coming from simulations of cosmic structure formation demand equally sophisticated tools for their analysis. During the past decade, the art of object finding in these simulations has hence developed into an important discipline itself. A multitude of codes based upon a huge variety of methods and techniques have been spawned yet the question remained as to whether or not they will provide the same (physical) information about the structures of interest. Here we summarize and extent previous work of the `halo finder comparison project': we investigate in detail the (possible) origin of any deviations across finders. To this extent, we decipher and discuss differences in halo-finding methods, clearly separating them from the disparity in definitions of halo properties. We observe that different codes not only find different numbers of objects leading to a scatter of up to 20 per cent in the halo mass and Vmax function, but also that the particulars of those objects that are identified by all finders differ. The strength of the variation, however, depends on the property studied, e.g. the scatter in position, bulk velocity, mass and the peak value of the rotation curve is practically below a few per cent, whereas derived quantities such as spin and shape show larger deviations. Our study indicates that the prime contribution to differences in halo properties across codes stems from the distinct particle collection methods and - to a minor extent - the particular aspects of how the procedure for removing unbound particles is implemented. We close with a discussion of the relevance and implications of the scatter across different codes for other fields such as semi-analytical galaxy formation models, gravitational lensing and observables in general