Flexible Ultrasound System (FUS) for Exploration and Human Research

No abstract availabl

Constitutivism

A brief explanation and overview of constitutivism

The twilight of the Liberal Social Contract? On the Reception of Rawlsian Political Liberalism

This chapter discusses the Rawlsian project of public reason, or public justification-based 'political' liberalism, and its reception. After a brief philosophical rather than philological reconstruction of the project, the chapter revolves around a distinction between idealist and realist responses to it. Focusing on political liberalism’s critical reception illuminates an overarching question: was Rawls’s revival of a contractualist approach to liberal legitimacy a fruitful move for liberalism and/or the social contract tradition? The last section contains a largely negative answer to that question. Nonetheless the chapter's conclusion shows that the research programme of political liberalism provided and continues to provide illuminating insights into the limitations of liberal contractualism, especially under conditions of persistent and radical diversity. The programme is, however, less receptive to challenges to do with the relative decline of the power of modern states

Philosophy of action

The philosophical study of human action begins with Plato and Aristotle. Their influence in late antiquity and the Middle Ages yielded sophisticated theories of action and motivation, notably in the works of Augustine and Aquinas.1 But the ideas that were dominant in 1945 have their roots in the early modern period, when advances in physics and mathematics reshaped philosophy

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

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

Table_1_Survival, response rates, and post-transplant outcomes in patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia aged 60-75 treated with high intensity chemotherapy vs. lower intensity targeted therapy.docx

The United States Food and Drug Administration has approved several oral, targeted therapies for the treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) in recent years. These agents are approved in patients with relapsed/refractory disease or as frontline therapy in patients who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy based on age, performance status, or comorbidities. They are also being increasingly utilized frontline in patients of all ages and fitness levels through clinical trials and off label prescribing, but comparative treatment outcomes associated with intensive versus targeted therapy have not been extensively studied. We conducted a single center, retrospective analysis to address the impact of treatment intensity on survival in patients with AML aged 60-75 at diagnosis. This study included 127 patients, 73 of whom received high intensity chemotherapy at any point during treatment (any HiC) and 54 of whom received only low intensity targeted therapy (LITT only). Overall survival (OS) from treatment initiation did not differ significantly between the any HiC and LITT only groups (hazard ratio (HR) for death, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.09; P=0.11). The only three variables that were independently associated with superior OS were lower European Leukemia Net (ELN) risk classification, TP53 unmutated status, and receipt of transplant. Our data suggest that baseline genomic features and receipt of transplant are more important than treatment intensity in predicting survival in this patient population. They also highlight the vital role of transplant in older patients with AML regardless of treatment intensity utilized for remission induction. Larger studies are needed to further address this question, including prospective randomized trials.</p

?There's definitely something wrong but we just don't know what it is? : A qualitative study exploring rowers' understanding of low back pain

Objectives: Low back pain is highly prevalent in rowing and can be associated with significant disability and premature retirement. A previous qualitative study in rowers revealed a culture of concealment of pain and injury due to fear of judgement by coaches or teammates. The aim of this study was to explore rowers' perspectives in relation to diagnosis, contributory factors, and management of low back pain. Design: Qualitative secondary analysis. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of interview data previously collected from 25 rowers (12 in Australia and 13 in Ireland). A reflexive thematic analysis approach was used. Results: We identified three themes: 1) Rowers attribute low back pain to structural/physical factors. Most rowers referred to structural pathologies or physical impairments when asked about their diagnosis. Some participants were reassured if imaging results helped to explain their pain, but others were frustrated if findings on imaging did not correlate with their symptoms. 2) Rowing is viewed as a risky sport for low back pain. Risk factors proposed by the rowers were primarily physical and included ergometer training, individual technique, and repetitive loading. 3) Rowers focus on physical strategies for the management and prevention of low back pain. In particular, rowers considered stretching and core-strengthening exercise to be important components of treatment. Conclusions: Rowers' understanding of low back pain was predominantly biomedical and focused on physical impairments. Further education of rowers, coaches and healthcare professionals in relation to the contribution of psychosocial factors may be helpful for rowers experiencing low back pain. (c) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Sports Medicine Australia. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Peer reviewe