Search

The United States government established a national goal of 50% plug-in vehicle penetration of the new light-duty vehicle fleet by 2030. Achievement of this goal is required to satisfy the country’s commitments to greenhouse-gas control under the 2015 Paris climate accords. Based on a market analysis of historical sales patterns, current and planned plug-in vehicle offerings, and sales forecasts for 2030, this article concludes that the US is unlikely to meet the 2030 goal without rapid commercialization of affordable plug-in vehicles, where affordable is defined as a price less than $45,000 per vehicle. Public policies are reviewed, in part based on European experience, that can accelerate the commercialization of affordable plug-in vehicles in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Long-term hormone therapy has been the standard of care for advanced prostate cancer since the 1940s. STAMPEDE is a randomised controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent prostate cancer who are starting first-line long-term hormone therapy. We report primary survival results for three research comparisons testing the addition of zoledronic acid, docetaxel, or their combination to standard of care versus standard of care alone.METHODS: Standard of care was hormone therapy for at least 2 years; radiotherapy was encouraged for men with N0M0 disease to November, 2011, then mandated; radiotherapy was optional for men with node-positive non-metastatic (N+M0) disease. Stratified randomisation (via minimisation) allocated men 2:1:1:1 to standard of care only (SOC-only; control), standard of care plus zoledronic acid (SOC + ZA), standard of care plus docetaxel (SOC + Doc), or standard of care with both zoledronic acid and docetaxel (SOC + ZA + Doc). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) was given for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly until 2 years, and docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) for six 3-weekly cycles with prednisolone 10 mg daily. There was no blinding to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Pairwise comparisons of research versus control had 90% power at 2·5% one-sided α for hazard ratio (HR) 0·75, requiring roughly 400 control arm deaths. Statistical analyses were undertaken with standard log-rank-type methods for time-to-event data, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ControlledTrials.com (ISRCTN78818544).FINDINGS: 2962 men were randomly assigned to four groups between Oct 5, 2005, and March 31, 2013. Median age was 65 years (IQR 60-71). 1817 (61%) men had M+ disease, 448 (15%) had N+/X M0, and 697 (24%) had N0M0. 165 (6%) men were previously treated with local therapy, and median prostate-specific antigen was 65 ng/mL (IQR 23-184). Median follow-up was 43 months (IQR 30-60). There were 415 deaths in the control group (347 [84%] prostate cancer). Median overall survival was 71 months (IQR 32 to not reached) for SOC-only, not reached (32 to not reached) for SOC + ZA (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·79-1·11; p=0·450), 81 months (41 to not reached) for SOC + Doc (0·78, 0·66-0·93; p=0·006), and 76 months (39 to not reached) for SOC + ZA + Doc (0·82, 0·69-0·97; p=0·022). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect (for any of the treatments) across prespecified subsets. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported for 399 (32%) patients receiving SOC, 197 (32%) receiving SOC + ZA, 288 (52%) receiving SOC + Doc, and 269 (52%) receiving SOC + ZA + Doc.INTERPRETATION: Zoledronic acid showed no evidence of survival improvement and should not be part of standard of care for this population. Docetaxel chemotherapy, given at the time of long-term hormone therapy initiation, showed evidence of improved survival accompanied by an increase in adverse events. Docetaxel treatment should become part of standard of care for adequately fit men commencing long-term hormone therapy.FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Astellas, NIHR Clinical Research Network, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research.

SummaryBackgroundThe aim of this trial was to compare dose-escalated conformal radiotherapy with control-dose conformal radiotherapy in patients with localised prostate cancer. Preliminary findings reported after 5 years of follow-up showed that escalated-dose conformal radiotherapy improved biochemical progression-free survival. Based on the sample size calculation, we planned to analyse overall survival when 190 deaths occurred; this target has now been reached, after a median 10 years of follow-up.MethodsRT01 was a phase 3, open-label, international, randomised controlled trial enrolling men with histologically confirmed T1b–T3a, N0, M0 prostate cancer with prostate specific antigen of less than 50 ng/mL. Patients were randomly assigned centrally in a 1:1 ratio, using a computer-based minimisation algorithm stratifying by risk of seminal vesicle invasion and centre to either the control group (64 Gy in 32 fractions, the standard dose at the time the trial was designed) or the escalated-dose group (74 Gy in 37 fractions). Neither patients nor investigators were masked to assignment. All patients received neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy for 3–6 months before the start of conformal radiotherapy, which continued until the end of conformal radiotherapy. The coprimary outcome measures were biochemical progression-free survival and overall survival. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. Treatment-related side-effects have been reported previously. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN47772397.FindingsBetween Jan 7, 1998, and Dec 20, 2001, 862 men were registered and 843 subsequently randomly assigned: 422 to the escalated-dose group and 421 to the control group. As of Aug 2, 2011, 236 deaths had occurred: 118 in each group. Median follow-up was 10·0 years (IQR 9·1–10·8). Overall survival at 10 years was 71% (95% CI 66–75) in each group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99, 95% CI 0·77–1·28; p=0·96). Biochemical progression or progressive disease occurred in 391 patients (221 [57%] in the control group and 170 [43%] in the escalated-dose group). At 10 years, biochemical progression-free survival was 43% (95% CI 38–48) in the control group and 55% (50–61) in the escalated-dose group (HR 0·69, 95% CI 0·56–0·84; p=0·0003).InterpretationAt a median follow-up of 10 years, escalated-dose conformal radiotherapy with neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy showed an advantage in biochemical progression-free survival, but this advantage did not translate into an improvement in overall survival. These efficacy data for escalated-dose treatment must be weighed against the increase in acute and late toxicities associated with the escalated dose and emphasise the importance of use of appropriate modern radiotherapy methods to reduce side-effects.FundingUK Medical Research Council.

With this concept note, IRGC intends to help improve the understanding and governance of emerging risks that have impacts on human health and safety, the environment, the economy and society at large. It draws from a roundtable discussion in 2009 about why and how risks emerge, and looking in particular at sources, drivers and governance issues.

With this report, IRGC aims to raise awareness among professionals about the fact that risks emerge from a common “fertile ground” that is cultivated by twelve generic “contributing factors”. IRGC defines and illustrates these generic factors, which are applicable across multiple domains. An understanding of these factors will provide practitioners with insights to help anticipate these risks and better manage them at the early phase. While the origins of emerging risks often require a basic understanding of the physical and life sciences, several of the factors identified in this report have a psychological, social or economic dimension.

This report presents a study commissioned by the European Parliament to compare regulatory standards in the EU and the US in four key sectors (food safety, automobiles, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals), chosen for their relevance both to consumer protection and transatlantic trade, and focusing on whether different approaches to risk regulation may lead to different levels of protection. How risks are regulated in the US and the EU can affect domestic outcomes (such as the benefits and costs of protecting consumers, health and environment), and can also foster or limit the opportunities for international trade.