Search

BACKGROUND: The early COVID-19 literature suggested that people with cancer may be more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 or develop COVID-19 than people without cancer, due to increased health services contact and/or immunocompromise. While some studies were criticised due to small patient numbers and methodological limitations, they created or reinforced concerns of clinicians and people with cancer. These risks are also important in COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation decisions. We performed a systematic review to critically assess and summarise the early literature. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic search of Medline/Embase/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases including peer-reviewed journal articles, letters/commentaries, and non-peer-reviewed pre-print articles for 1 January-1 July 2020. The primary endpoints were diagnosis of COVID-19 and positive SARS-CoV-2 test. We assessed risk of bias using a tool adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Twelve studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. All four studies of COVID-19 incidence (including 24,181,727 individuals, 125,649 with pre-existing cancer) reported that people with cancer had higher COVID-19 incidence rates. Eight studies reported SARS-CoV-2 test positivity for > 472,000 individuals, 48,370 with pre-existing cancer. Seven of these studies comparing people with any and without cancer, were pooled using random effects [pooled odds ratio 0.91, 95 %CI: 0.57-1.47; unadjusted for age, sex, or comorbidities]. Two studies suggested people with active or haematological cancer had lower risk of a positive test. All 12 studies had high risk of bias; none included universal or random COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 testing. CONCLUSIONS: The early literature on susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer is characterised by pervasive biases and limited data. To provide high-quality evidence to inform decision-making, studies of risk of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer should control

© 2019 Hughes et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Objective To assess the use of diet and the use of exercise for prostate cancer (and/or its treatments’ side effects) by long-term survivors and whether such use is associated with selected socio-demographic, clinical, health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) and psychological factors. Design, setting and participants Population-based cohort study in New South Wales, Australia of prostate cancer survivors aged <70 years at diagnosis and who returned a 10-year follow-up questionnaire. Methods Validated instruments assessed patient’s HRQOL and psychological well-being. Poisson regression was used to estimate adjusted relative proportions (RRs) of prostate cancer survivor groups who were currently eating differently (‘using diet’) or exercise differently (‘using exercise’) to help with their prostate cancer. Results 996 (61.0% of 1634) participants completed the 10-year questionnaire of whom 118 (11.8%; 95%CI[9.8–13.9]) were using diet and 78 (7.8%; 95%CI[6.2–9.5]) were using exercise to help with their prostate cancer. Men were more likely to use diet or use exercise for prostate cancer if they were younger (p-trend = 0.020 for diet, p-trend = 0.045 for exercise), more educated (p-trend<0.001, p-trend = 0.011), support group participants (p-nominal<0.001, p-nominal = 0.005), had higher Gleason score at diagnosis (p-trend<0.001, p-trend = 0.002) and had knowledge of cancer spread (p-nominal = 0.002, p-nominal = 0.001). Use of diet was also associated with receipt of androgen deprivation therapy (RR = 1.59; 95%CI[1.04–2.45]), a greater fear of cancer recurrence (p-trend = 0.010), cognitive avoidance (p-trend = 0.025) and greater perceived control of cancer course (p-trend = 0.014). Use of exercise was also associated wi

© 2019 Hughes et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Objective To assess the use of diet and the use of exercise for prostate cancer (and/or its treatments’ side effects) by long-term survivors and whether such use is associated with selected socio-demographic, clinical, health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) and psychological factors. Design, setting and participants Population-based cohort study in New South Wales, Australia of prostate cancer survivors aged <70 years at diagnosis and who returned a 10-year follow-up questionnaire. Methods Validated instruments assessed patient’s HRQOL and psychological well-being. Poisson regression was used to estimate adjusted relative proportions (RRs) of prostate cancer survivor groups who were currently eating differently (‘using diet’) or exercise differently (‘using exercise’) to help with their prostate cancer. Results 996 (61.0% of 1634) participants completed the 10-year questionnaire of whom 118 (11.8%; 95%CI[9.8–13.9]) were using diet and 78 (7.8%; 95%CI[6.2–9.5]) were using exercise to help with their prostate cancer. Men were more likely to use diet or use exercise for prostate cancer if they were younger (p-trend = 0.020 for diet, p-trend = 0.045 for exercise), more educated (p-trend<0.001, p-trend = 0.011), support group participants (p-nominal<0.001, p-nominal = 0.005), had higher Gleason score at diagnosis (p-trend<0.001, p-trend = 0.002) and had knowledge of cancer spread (p-nominal = 0.002, p-nominal = 0.001). Use of diet was also associated with receipt of androgen deprivation therapy (RR = 1.59; 95%CI[1.04–2.45]), a greater fear of cancer recurrence (p-trend = 0.010), cognitive avoidance (p-trend = 0.025) and greater perceived control of cancer course (p-trend = 0.014). Use of exercise was also associated wi

OBJECTIVE: Trials in critical care have previously used unvalidated systems to classify cause of death. We aimed to provide initial validation of a method to classify cause of death in intensive care unit patients. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: One hundred case scenarios of patients who died in an ICU were presented online to raters, who were asked to select a proximate and an underlying cause of death for each, using the ICU Deaths Classification and Reason (ICU-DECLARE) system. We evaluated two methods of categorising proximate cause of death (designated Lists A and B) and one method of categorising underlying cause of death. Raters were ICU specialists and research coordinators from Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Inter-rater reliability, as measured by the Fleiss multirater kappa, and the median proportion of raters choosing the most likely diagnosis (defined as the most popular classification choice in each case). RESULTS: Across all raters and cases, for proximate cause of death List A, kappa was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.49-0.60), and for proximate cause of death List B, kappa was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.53-0.63). For the underlying cause of death, kappa was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.44-0.53). The median proportion of raters choosing the most likely diagnosis for proximate cause of death, List A, was 77.5% (interquartile range [IQR], 60.0%-93.8%), and the median proportion choosing the most likely diagnosis for proximate cause of death, List B, was 82.5% (IQR, 60.0%-92.5%). The median proportion choosing the most likely diagnosis for underlying cause was 65.0% (IQR, 50.0%-81.3%). Kappa and median agreement were similar between countries. ICU specialists showed higher kappa and median agreement than research coordinators. CONCLUSIONS: The ICU-DECLARE system allowed ICU doctors to classify the proximate cause of death of patients who died in the ICU with substantial reliability.

OBJECTIVE: Trials in critical care have previously used unvalidated systems to classify cause of death. We aimed to provide initial validation of a method to classify cause of death in intensive care unit patients. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: One hundred case scenarios of patients who died in an ICU were presented online to raters, who were asked to select a proximate and an underlying cause of death for each, using the ICU Deaths Classification and Reason (ICU-DECLARE) system. We evaluated two methods of categorising proximate cause of death (designated Lists A and B) and one method of categorising underlying cause of death. Raters were ICU specialists and research coordinators from Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Inter-rater reliability, as measured by the Fleiss multirater kappa, and the median proportion of raters choosing the most likely diagnosis (defined as the most popular classification choice in each case). RESULTS: Across all raters and cases, for proximate cause of death List A, kappa was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.49-0.60), and for proximate cause of death List B, kappa was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.53-0.63). For the underlying cause of death, kappa was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.44-0.53). The median proportion of raters choosing the most likely diagnosis for proximate cause of death, List A, was 77.5% (interquartile range [IQR], 60.0%-93.8%), and the median proportion choosing the most likely diagnosis for proximate cause of death, List B, was 82.5% (IQR, 60.0%-92.5%). The median proportion choosing the most likely diagnosis for underlying cause was 65.0% (IQR, 50.0%-81.3%). Kappa and median agreement were similar between countries. ICU specialists showed higher kappa and median agreement than research coordinators. CONCLUSIONS: The ICU-DECLARE system allowed ICU doctors to classify the proximate cause of death of patients who died in the ICU with substantial reliability.

This report defines the detailed operational requirements for the Vessel Traffic System(VTS) Processing/Display Subsystem and provides the current state of the software design. Both parts(i.e., requirements and design) of this report begin with an overview and an introduction to the methodology used. The balance of both parts is a detailed, technically oriented, function by function description of the specification and the design. Specifications are included for operator invoked functions which are used to enter and retrieve information, and to request subsystem services, as well as specifications for automatic processes which update vessel location, course and speed, and detect and report on potentially hazardous conditions. At the highest level of the design, the software for the VTS Processing/Display Subsystem has been decomposed into processes which operate concurrently and cooperate to perform the required functions. These processes will communicate and synchronize their activities by the exchange of explicit messages and answers. This approach provides flexibility in assigning processes to processors, which is a critical factor in providing a system that can manage a broad range of functional and load handling requirements., See also Rept. no. USCG-D-66-79 dated Jul 79, AD-A076 501, AD-A061 307 and AD-A075 053.

This report defines the detailed operational requirements for the Vessel Traffic System (VTS) Processing/Display Subsystem and provides the current state of the software design. Both parts (i.e., requirements and design) of this report begin with an overview and an introduction to the methodology used. The balance of both parts is a detailed, technically oriented, function by function description of the specification on the one hand and the design on the other. Specifications are included for operator invoked functions which are used to enter and retrieve information, and to request subsystem services; as well as specifications for automatic processes which update vessel location, course and speed, and detect and report on potentially hazardous conditions. At the highest level of the design, the software for the VTS Processing/Display Subsystem has been decomposed into processes which operate concurrently and cooperate to perform the required functions. These processes will communicate and synchronize their activities by the exchange of explicit messages and answers. This approach provides flexibility in assigning processes to processors, which is a critical factor in providing a system that can manage a broad range of functional and load handling requirements. (Author), See also report dated Jul 79, AD-A076 501.

Distributed processing concepts are applied to the design of a highly reliable, modular multiple computer system. A preliminary model of processing and data base requirements is presented for a range of potential Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) configurations. A survey of system architectures and the state-of-the-art in distributed processing is included. Classes of processors, interconnections and logical structures are considered. Display technology is surveyed. Based on the system models and technology surveys, four system architectures are selected which include: large minis and small mini/16bit micros; interconnection by shared bus and by a network of direct serial lines; and alternative logical structures. A preliminary design is presented for each candidate architecture. A set of evaluation criteria and an evaluation methodology is presented. The four candidate architectures are evaluated on the basis of simplicity, feasibility, modularity/flexibility, maintainability, expandability, reliability, cost and performance. Two architectures are recommended for further consideration. Both use relatively large minis interconnected by a shared bus. The lesser rated of the two maintains functional assignments of processors throughout the VTS configurations studied. The highest rated architecture allows functional assignments to be rearranged from one configuration to another, thus reducing the hardware required. (Author)