Search

The key factor that influences the progress and operational efficiency of a reserved land redevelopment program is the rationality of land value increment allocation. Scaling-up has become a type of spatial governance instrument. During land redevelopment, there are three types of scaling-up statuses: self-transformation as flexible scaling-up, land acquisition as rigid scaling-up, and land consolidation as medium scaling-up. This paper establishes a framework for research on land value increment allocation in land redevelopment from the perspective of rescaling, taking Guangzhou Haizhu Bay Transport Hub and its surroundings as a case study. Three redevelopment pattern types (self-transformation, land acquisition, and land consolidation) were observed based on the scope of scaling-up, the effectiveness of land value increment allocation, and progress of redevelopment programs under different scaling-up models. On a plot with single ownership, flexible scaling-up can be regarded as a financially oriented self-transformation. The non-transparent mechanism of land value increment allocation is likely to squeeze society-shared benefits derived from land appreciation of a "unit", which tends to make it difficult to promote self-transformation programs. Rigid scaling-up can be considered as land acquisition under government control. It focuses on land as a "unit" and financial balance, compiling land acquisition and banking proposals. The powers of multiple stakeholders are not equal during the processes of land acquisition. The non-transparent allocation mechanism of land value increments, led by the local government, is likely to induce new conflict from original landowners, leading to impediments of such programs. In medium scaling-up, land consolidation is based on interactions among the multiple stakeholders. It satisfies practical demands of land redevelopment programs by coordinating interrelationships between power and space. The "banking-transforming" land consolidation approach promotes cooperation on land redevelopment among the multiple stakeholders, and synergistic value-added effects can be attained. The establishment of transparent mechanisms aims to improve fairness and rationality in land value increment allocation, achieving balance between societal and financial benefits in a "unit", and guaranteeing its land supply. This paper proposes three rational paths for land value increment allocation in land redevelopment. From the point of power, it establishes a coordinated mechanism of land consolidation based on authoritativeness of upper governments. From the point of space, it constructs a carrier for a land consolidation "unit". On the aspect of land value increment allocation, it builds up a transparent mechanism with societal-financial benefit balance. In further study on land redevelopment, more attention should be paid to utilizing scaling-up instruments rationally, to transforming space reconstruction patterns, and to innovating transparent allocation mechanisms for land value increments. This application of rescaling theory provides a reference to practical programs for improving the efficiency of land redevelopment, and for promoting area integral high-quality development.

Introduction: Although the combination of venetoclax (VEN) and hypomethylating agents (HMAs) results in impressive efficacy in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), there is still a subset of patients who are refractory. We investigated the outcomes of AML patients with monocytic differentiation who were treated with frontline VEN/HMA. Methods: A total of 155 patients with newly diagnosed AML treated with frontline VEN/HMA were enrolled in the study. Monocyte‐like AML was identified by flow cytometry with typical expression of monocytic markers, and M5 was identified according to French, American, and British category. We compared the outcomes of patients with different characteristics. Results: The rate of complete remission (CR) and CR with incomplete recovery of blood counts (CRi), progression‐free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) in monocyte‐like AML were inferior to those in nonmonocyte‐like AML (CR/CRi rates, 26.7% vs. 80.0%, p < 0.001; median PFS, 2.1 vs. 8.8 months, p < 0.001; median OS, 9.2 vs. 19 months, p = 0.013). CR/CRi rate in M5 was lower than that in non‐M5 (60.7% vs. 75.5%, p = 0.049). Multivariate analyses showed that monocyte‐like AML was associated with lower odds of CR/CRi and higher risk of progression. Conclusion: Our study suggested that newly diagnosed AML with a monocytic immunophenotype had a poor prognosis with VEN/HMA treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Comparative investigations evaluating the efficacy of pomalidomide‐based (Pom‐based) versus daratumumab‐based (Dara‐based) therapies in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) remain scarce, both in randomized controlled trials and real‐world studies. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 140 RRMM patients treated with Pom‐based or Dara‐based or a combination of pomalidomide and daratumumab (DPd) regimens in a Chinese tertiary hospital between December 2018 and July 2023. Results: The overall response rates (ORR) for Pom‐based (n = 48), Dara‐based (n = 68), and DPd (n = 24) groups were 57.8%, 84.6%, and 75.0%, respectively (p = 0.007). At data cutoff on August 1, 2023, the median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 5.7 months (95% CI: 5.0–6.5) for the Pom‐based group, 10.5 months (5.2–15.8) for the Dara‐based group, and 6.7 months (4.0–9.3) for the DPd group (p = 0.056). Multivariate analysis identified treatment regimens (Dara‐based vs. Pom‐based, DPd vs. Pom‐based) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) as independent prognostic factors for PFS. In the subgroups of patients aged >65 years, with ECOG PS ≥2, lines of therapy ≥2, extramedullary disease or double‐refractory disease (refractory to both lenalidomide and proteasome inhibitors), the superiority of Dara‐based regimens over Pom‐based regimens was not evident. A higher incidence of infections was observed in patients receiving Dara‐based and DPd regimens (Pom‐based 39.6% vs. Dara‐based 64.7% vs. DPd 70.8%, p = 0.009). Conclusions: In real‐world settings, Pom‐based, Dara‐based, and DPd therapies exhibited favorable efficacy in patients with RRMM. Dara‐based therapy yielded superior clinical response and PFS compared to Pom‐based therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite concerns about an increased risk of adverse outcomes following coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) in multiple myeloma patients treated with anti‐CD38 Abs, the impact of COVID‐19 on this group of patients is unclear. We tried to evaluate the clinical outcomes of these patients. We collected data from 1036 patients with multiple myeloma and enrolled 509 cases with COVID‐19. We divided enrolled patients into daratumumab or nondaratumumab cohorts based on whether they had received daratumumab‐based treatment within 6 months of COVID‐19 infection. We applied a propensity score matching method to reduce the bias of baseline characteristics, and then compared the incidence of adverse outcomes between these two cohorts. A total of 117 patients were enrolled in the daratumumab cohort, and 392 patients in the nondaratumumab cohort. After propensity score matching, 204 patients were matched. The proportions of patients who developed COVID‐19 pneumonia (59.8% vs. 34.3%, p < 0.001), were hospitalized (33.3% vs. 11.8%, p < 0.001) and developed severe disease (23.5% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.001) were higher in the matched daratumumab cohort. By multivariate analysis, daratumumab exposure was an independent risk factor for severe disease. An ECOG performance status >2 and history of chronic kidney disease were independent risk factors for COVID‐19‐related mortality among patients who received daratumumab‐based therapy. This study suggested that multiple myeloma patients exposed to daratumumab were at a higher risk of adverse outcomes from COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]