Roles of Contractors in Process Safety

PresentationProcess safety starts at the conceptual phase and continues throughout the entire life cycle of an asset. From process selection to de-commissioning, various process safety elements govern the safety and reliability of the total system. Contractors play a crucial role in project execution including detailed design, technology selection, plant layout, commissioning, start-up, and further expansion, modification and maintenance activities. The interface/interaction of the contractor with the operator/owner often defines the importance of process safety throughout this life cycle. Undoubtedly, these are the most critical phases of a plant life cycle which could trigger an unexpected or uncontrolled situation leading to a catastrophic incident. This paper discusses the impact of the contractors’ role during major process safety events including the Phillips explosion in Pasadena (1989), Sonat vessel failure (1998), Texas City Refinery explosion (2005), T2 Laboratories explosion (2007) and a few others. Lessons from past incidents are highlighted and an in-depth analysis is conducted to identify essential process safety components for different groups of contractors and for the different phases of projects. Different aspects of process safety functional elements are presented and discussed for both greenfield and brownfield projects. A Comprehensive understanding of process safety and risk management is required by all levels of contractors to ensure risk-based decision making and hazard mitigation. Besides the process safety expertise needed by the contractors, the necessity of having a consistent and harmonized interaction between the operators/owners and the contractors is also emphasized

A parsimonious explanation for intersecting perinatal mortality curves: understanding the effect of plurality and of parity

BACKGROUND: Birth weight- and gestational age-specific perinatal mortality curves intersect when compared across categories of maternal smoking, plurality, race and other factors. No simple explanation exists for this paradoxical observation. METHODS: We used data on all live births, stillbirths and infant deaths in Canada (1991–1997) to compare perinatal mortality rates among singleton and twin births, and among singleton births to nulliparous and parous women. Birth weight- and gestational age-specific perinatal mortality rates were first calculated by dividing the number of perinatal deaths at any given birth weight or gestational age by the number of total births at that birth weight or gestational age (conventional calculation). Gestational age-specific perinatal mortality rates were also calculated using the number of fetuses at risk of perinatal death at any given gestational age. RESULTS: Conventional perinatal mortality rates among twin births were lower than those among singletons at lower birth weights and earlier gestation ages, while the reverse was true at higher birth weights and later gestational ages. When perinatal mortality rates were based on fetuses at risk, however, twin births had consistently higher mortality rates than singletons at all gestational ages. A similar pattern emerged in contrasts of gestational age-specific perinatal mortality among singleton births to nulliparous and parous women. Increases in gestational age-specific rates of growth-restriction with advancing gestational age presaged rising rates of gestational age-specific perinatal mortality in both contrasts. CONCLUSIONS: The proper conceptualization of perinatal risk eliminates the mortality crossover paradox and provides new insights into perinatal health issues

Durvalumab Plus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel Followed by Maintenance Durvalumab With or Without Olaparib as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Endometrial Cancer: The Phase III DUO-E Trial

PURPOSE Immunotherapy and chemotherapy combinations have shown activity in endometrial cancer, with greater benefit in mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient (dMMR) than MMR-proficient (pMMR) disease. Adding a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor may improve outcomes, especially in pMMR disease. METHODS This phase III, global, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomly assigned eligible patients with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer 1:1:1 to: carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab placebo followed by placebo maintenance (control arm); carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib placebo (durvalumab arm); or carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib (durvalumab + olaparib arm). The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) in the durvalumab arm versus control and the durvalumab + olaparib arm versus control. RESULTS Seven hundred eighteen patients were randomly assigned. In the intention-to-treat population, statistically significant PFS benefit was observed in the durvalumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.89]; P = .003) and durvalumab + olaparib arms (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.69]; P < .0001) versus control. Prespecified, exploratory subgroup analyses showed PFS benefit in dMMR (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.42 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.80]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control], 0.41 [95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75]) and pMMR subgroups (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.97]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control] 0.57; [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.73]); and in PD-L1-positive subgroups (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.83]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control], 0.42 [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.57]). Interim overall survival results (maturity approximately 28%) were supportive of the primary outcomes (durvalumab v control: HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.56 to 1.07]; P = .120; durvalumab + olaparib v control: HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.83]; P = .003). The safety profiles of the experimental arms were generally consistent with individual agents. CONCLUSION Carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab with or without olaparib demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful PFS benefit in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer

18F-FDG Dedicated Breast PET Complementary to Breast MRI for Evaluating Early Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

Purpose To compare quantitative measures of tumor metabolism and perfusion using fluorine 18 (18F) fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) dedicated breast PET (dbPET) and breast dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI during early treatment with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Materials and Methods Prospectively collected DCE MRI and 18F-FDG dbPET examinations were analyzed at baseline (T0) and after 3 weeks (T1) of NAC in 20 participants with 22 invasive breast cancers. FDG dbPET-derived standardized uptake value (SUV), metabolic tumor volume, and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) and MRI-derived percent enhancement (PE), signal enhancement ratio (SER), and functional tumor volume (FTV) were calculated at both time points. Differences between FDG dbPET and MRI parameters were evaluated after stratifying by receptor status, Ki-67 index, and residual cancer burden. Parameters were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results High Ki-67 tumors had higher baseline SUVmean (difference, 5.1; P = .01) and SUVpeak (difference, 5.5; P = .04). At T1, decreases were observed in FDG dbPET measures (pseudo-median difference T0 minus T1 value [95% CI]) of SUVmax (-6.2 [-10.2, -2.6]; P &lt; .001), SUVmean (-2.6 [-4.9, -1.3]; P &lt; .001), SUVpeak (-4.2 [-6.9, -2.3]; P &lt; .001), and TLG (-29.1 mL3 [-71.4, -6.8]; P = .005) and MRI measures of SERpeak (-1.0 [-1.3, -0.2]; P = .02) and FTV (-11.6 mL3 [-22.2, -1.7]; P = .009). Relative to nonresponsive tumors, responsive tumors showed a difference (95% CI) in percent change in SUVmax of -34.3% (-55.9%, 1.5%; P = .06) and in PEpeak of -42.4% (95% CI: -110.5%, 8.5%; P = .08). Conclusion 18F-FDG dbPET was sensitive to early changes during NAC and provided complementary information to DCE MRI that may be useful for treatment response evaluation. Keywords: Breast, PET, Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MRI Clinical trial registration no. NCT01042379 Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024

Assessment, endoscopy, and treatment in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis during the COVID-19 pandemic (PROTECT-ASUC): a multicentre, observational, case-control study

BackgroundThere is a paucity of evidence to support safe and effective management of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to identify alterations to established conventional evidence-based management of acute severe ulcerative colitis during the early COVID-19 pandemic, the effect on outcomes, and any associations with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes. MethodsThe PROTECT-ASUC study was a multicentre, observational, case-control study in 60 acute secondary care hospitals throughout the UK. We included adults (≥18 years) with either ulcerative colitis or inflammatory bowel disease unclassified, who presented with acute severe ulcerative colitis and fulfilled the Truelove and Witts criteria. Cases and controls were identified as either admitted or managed in emergency ambulatory care settings between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020 (COVID-19 pandemic period cohort), or between Jan 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019 (historical control cohort), respectively. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis receiving rescue therapy (including primary induction) or colectomy. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04411784. FindingsWe included 782 patients (398 in the pandemic period cohort and 384 in the historical control cohort) who met the Truelove and Witts criteria for acute severe ulcerative colitis. The proportion of patients receiving rescue therapy (including primary induction) or surgery was higher during the pandemic period than in the historical period (217 [55%] of 393 patients vs 159 [42%] of 380 patients; p=0·00024) and the time to rescue therapy was shorter in the pandemic cohort than in the historical cohort (p=0·0026). This difference was driven by a greater use of rescue and primary induction therapies with biologicals, ciclosporin, or tofacitinib in the COVID-19 pandemic period cohort than in the historical control period cohort (177 [46%] of 387 patients in the COVID-19 cohort vs 134 [36%] of 373 patients in the historical cohort; p=0·0064). During the pandemic, more patients received ambulatory (outpatient) intravenous steroids (51 [13%] of 385 patients vs 19 [5%] of 360 patients; p=0·00023). Fewer patients received thiopurines (29 [7%] of 398 patients vs 46 [12%] of 384; p=0·029) and 5-aminosalicylic acids (67 [17%] of 398 patients vs 98 [26%] of 384; p=0·0037) during the pandemic than in the historical control period. Colectomy rates were similar between the pandemic and historical control groups (64 [16%] of 389 vs 50 [13%] of 375; p=0·26); however, laparoscopic surgery was less frequently performed during the pandemic period (34 [53%] of 64] vs 38 [76%] of 50; p=0·018). Five (2%) of 253 patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during hospital treatment. Two (2%) of 103 patients re-tested for SARS-CoV-2 during the 3-month follow-up were positive 5 days and 12 days, respectively, after discharge from index admission. Both recovered without serious outcomes. InterpretationThe COVID-19 pandemic altered practice patterns of gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons in the management of acute severe ulcerative colitis but was associated with similar outcomes to a historical cohort. Despite continued use of high-dose corticosteroids and biologicals, the incidence of COVID-19 within 3 months was low and not associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes