Supporting 'design for reuse' with modular design

Engineering design reuse refers to the utilization of any knowledge gained from the design activity to support future design. As such, engineering design reuse approaches are concerned with the support, exploration, and enhancement of design knowledge prior, during, and after a design activity. Modular design is a product structuring principle whereby products are developed with distinct modules for rapid product development, efficient upgrades, and possible reuse (of the physical modules). The benefits of modular design center on a greater capacity for structuring component parts to better manage the relation between market requirements and the designed product. This study explores the capabilities of modular design principles to provide improved support for the engineering design reuse concept. The correlations between modular design and 'reuse' are highlighted, with the aim of identifying its potential to aid the little-supported process of design for reuse. In fulfilment of this objective the authors not only identify the requirements of design for reuse, but also propose how modular design principles can be extended to support design for reuse

Identifying component modules

A computer-based system for modelling component dependencies and identifying component modules is presented. A variation of the Dependency Structure Matrix (DSM) representation was used to model component dependencies. The system utilises a two-stage approach towards facilitating the identification of a hierarchical modular structure. The first stage calculates a value for a clustering criterion that may be used to group component dependencies together. A Genetic Algorithm is described to optimise the order of the components within the DSM with the focus of minimising the value of the clustering criterion to identify the most significant component groupings (modules) within the product structure. The second stage utilises a 'Module Strength Indicator' (MSI) function to determine a value representative of the degree of modularity of the component groupings. The application of this function to the DSM produces a 'Module Structure Matrix' (MSM) depicting the relative modularity of available component groupings within it. The approach enabled the identification of hierarchical modularity in the product structure without the requirement for any additional domain specific knowledge within the system. The system supports design by providing mechanisms to explicitly represent and utilise component and dependency knowledge to facilitate the nontrivial task of determining near-optimal component modules and representing product modularity

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen for the prevention of locoregional and contralateral breast cancer in postmenopausal women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ (IBIS-II DCIS): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

Background Third-generation aromatase inhibitors are more effective than tamoxifen for preventing recurrence in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive invasive breast cancer. However, it is not known whether anastrozole is more effective than tamoxifen for women with hormone-receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Here, we compare the efficacy of anastrozole with that of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Methods In a double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial, we recruited women who had been diagnosed with locally excised, hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Eligible women were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by central computer allocation to receive 1 mg oral anastrozole or 20 mg oral tamoxifen every day for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by major centre or hub and was done in blocks (six, eight, or ten). All trial personnel, participants, and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation and only the trial statistician had access to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was all recurrence, including recurrent DCIS and new contralateral tumours. All analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis (in all women who were randomised and did not revoke consent for their data to be included) and proportional hazard models were used to compute hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN37546358. Results Between March 3, 2003, and Feb 8, 2012, we enrolled 2980 postmenopausal women from 236 centres in 14 countries and randomly assigned them to receive anastrozole (1449 analysed) or tamoxifen (1489 analysed). Median follow-up was 7·2 years (IQR 5·6–8·9), and 144 breast cancer recurrences were recorded. We noted no statistically significant difference in overall recurrence (67 recurrences for anastrozole vs 77 for tamoxifen; HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·64–1·23]). The non-inferiority of anastrozole was established (upper 95% CI <1·25), but its superiority to tamoxifen was not (p=0·49). A total of 69 deaths were recorded (33 for anastrozole vs 36 for tamoxifen; HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·58–1·50], p=0·78), and no specific cause was more common in one group than the other. The number of women reporting any adverse event was similar between anastrozole (1323 women, 91%) and tamoxifen (1379 women, 93%); the side-effect profiles of the two drugs differed, with more fractures, musculoskeletal events, hypercholesterolaemia, and strokes with anastrozole and more muscle spasm, gynaecological cancers and symptoms, vasomotor symptoms, and deep vein thromboses with tamoxifen. Conclusions No clear efficacy differences were seen between the two treatments. Anastrozole offers another treatment option for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS, which may be be more appropriate for some women with contraindications for tamoxifen. Longer follow-up will be necessary to fully evaluate treatment differences