Search

Microbial pesticides consist of active beneficial microorganisms or any natural products of microbial provenance that have a promising role in pest management. The development of a microbial pesticide needs isolation and screening of effective biocontrol strains and data for trials under field and greenhouse. Commercial application of a microbial pesticide requires large-scale production, formulation with suitable additives to increase the shelf-life of the product, and proper storage. Thrust in the research of microbe-based pesticides can be seen with the large number of patents, but only a very small proportion of them reach markets. The reason behind the hurdle in marketing is the stringent regulatory framework due to biosafety or environmental concerns increasing overall costs, causing a trail in its commercialization. Post-genomic technologies like CRISPR/Cas9 have reformed genome editing technologies and have increased the possibilities of developing the new edited biopesticides. The new microbial pesticide products will require additional regulatory challenges to define low-risk contenders so as to facilitate easy commercialization and fling in the market.

Among a wide range of possible technological advancement of nanotechnology in agriculture, there has been particular interest in developing novel nanoagrochemicals in the form of “nanopesticides” and “nanofertilizers.” A critical analysis of nanoproducts against conventional ones is essential to assess the associated benefits and risks. There are no nano-specified rules and regulations for using nanoproducts in most of the countries. This has significantly delayed the process of commercialization and progress in future research. It is important to integrate scientific, regulatory, public and industrial view points, and design research priorities, laboratories, standards and certification centers for its commercial application. The proposed changes and recommendations would help in developing regulatory framework for nanoproducts.

Purpose: Despite increasing use, proton therapy (PT) remains a relatively limited resource. The purpose of this study was to assess clinical and demographic differences in PT use for prostate cancer compared to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) at a single institution. Methods and materials: All patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer (N = 633) who underwent definitive radiation therapy between 2010 and 2015 were divided into PT (n = 508) and IMRT (n = 125) comparison groups and compared using χ2 and independent sample t tests. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the associations between PT use and demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics. Results: The PT and IMRT cohorts varied by age, race, poverty, distance, treatment year, and treating physician. Patients who underwent IMRT were more likely to be older (mean age, 66 vs. 68 years), black (51% vs. 75%), and living in poverty or close to the facility (mean distance between residence and facility, 90 vs. 21 miles; P < .05). Prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, and International Index of Erectile Function were significantly higher in the IMRT cohort (P < .05), but insurance type, risk group, tumor stage, Gleason score, and patient-reported urinary and bowel scores did not differ significantly (P > .05). Patients who underwent PT were more likely to receive hypofractionated therapy and less likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy (P < .01). On multivariable analysis, black (odds ratio [OR], 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.57) and other race (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.90); distance (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.06-1.24); treatment years 2011 (OR, 4.87; 95% CI, 2.23-10.6), 2012 (OR, 8.27; 95% CI, 3.43-19.9), and 2014 (OR, 4.44; 95% CI, 1.94-10.2) relative to 2010; and a single treating physician (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.81) relative to the reference physician with the highest rate of use were associated with PT use, whereas clinical factors such as prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, International Index of Erectile Function, and androgen deprivation therapy were not. Conclusion: Sociodemographic disparities exist in PT use for prostate cancer at an urban academic institution. Further investigation of potential barriers to access is warranted to ensure equitable distribution across all demographic groups.