Prognostic value of the diagnostic criteria distinguishing endometrial stromal sarcoma, low grade from undifferentiated endometrial sarcoma, 2 entities within the invasive endometrial stromal neoplasia family

The World Health Organization (WHO 2003) recognizes 3 endometrial stromal neoplasms: noninvasive endometrial stromal nodule and the 2 invasive neoplasms, endometrial stromal sarcoma (ESS), low grade and undifferentiated endometrial sarcoma (UES). It is important to note that the WHO 2003 does not define moderate atypia (an important differentiating diagnostic criterion for ESS, low grade and UES), nor does it discuss its significance. Moreover, studies on reproducibility and additional prognostic value of other diagnostic features in large are lacking. Using strict definitions, we analyzed the agreement between routine and expert-review necrosis and nuclear atypia in 91 invasive endometrial stromal neoplasias (IESN). The overall 5-year and 10-year recurrence-free survival rate estimates of the 91 IESN patients were 82% and 75%, respectively. Necrosis was well reproducible, and nuclear atypia was reasonably well reproducible. The 10-year recurrence-free survival rates for necrosis absent/inconspicuous versus prominent were 89% and 45% (P<0.001) and those for review-confirmed none/mild, moderate, severe atypia were 90%, 30%, and <20% (P<0.00001). Therefore, cases with moderate/severe atypia should be grouped together. Nuclear atypia and necrosis had independent prognostic values (Cox regression). Once these features were taken into account, no other feature had an independent additional prognostic value, including mitotic count. Using "none/mild atypia, necrosis absent/inconspicuous" as ESS, low grade versus "moderate/severe atypia present or necrosis present" as UES resulted in 68 ESS, low grade and 23 UES cases with disease-specific overall mortality-free survival of 99% versus 48% (P<0.00001, hazard ratio=45.4). When strictly defined microscopic criteria are used, the WHO 2003 diagnoses of ESS, low grade and UES are well reproducible and prognostically strong. © 2012 International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.

Evaluation of the Does Reduction Potential Using a Breast Positioning Technique for Organ-based Tube Current Modulated CT Examinations

Purpose: The purpose of this work was to investigate the breast dose saving potential of a breast positioning technique (BP) for thoracic CT examinations with organ-based tube current modulation (OTCM).

Methods: The study included 13 female patient models (XCAT, age range: 27-65 y.o., weight range: 52 to 105.8 kg). Each model was modified to simulate three breast sizes in standard supine geometry. The modeled breasts were further deformed, emulating a BP that would constrain the breasts within 120° anterior tube current (mA) reduction zone. The tube current value of the CT examination was modeled using an attenuation-based program, which reduces the radiation dose to 20% in the anterior region with a corresponding increase to the posterior region. A validated Monte Carlo program was used to estimate organ doses with a typical clinical system (SOMATOM Definition Flash, Siemens Healthcare). The simulated organ doses and organ doses normalized by CTDIvol were compared between attenuation-based tube current modulation (ATCM), OTCM, and OTCM with BP (OTCMBP).

Results: On average, compared to ATCM, OTCM reduced the breast dose by 19.3±4.5%, whereas OTCMBP reduced breast dose by 36.6±6.9% (an additional 21.3±7.3%). The dose saving of OTCMBP was more significant for larger breasts (on average 32, 38, and 44% reduction for 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5 kg breasts, respectively). Compared to ATCM, OTCMBP also reduced thymus and heart dose by 12.1 ± 6.3% and 13.1 ± 5.4%, respectively.

Conclusions: In thoracic CT examinations, OTCM with a breast positioning technique can markedly reduce unnecessary exposure to the radiosensitive organs in the anterior chest wall, specifically breast tissue. The breast dose reduction is more notable for women with larger breasts.

Poverty and Place in the Context of the American South

In the United States, poverty has been historically higher and disproportionately concentrated in the American South. Despite this fact, much of the conventional poverty literature in the United States has focused on urban poverty in cities, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest. Relatively less American poverty research has focused on the enduring economic distress in the South, which Wimberley (2008:899) calls “a neglected regional crisis of historic and contemporary urgency.” Accordingly, this dissertation contributes to the inequality literature by focusing much needed attention on poverty in the South.

Each empirical chapter focuses on a different aspect of poverty in the South. Chapter 2 examines why poverty is higher in the South relative to the Non-South. Chapter 3 focuses on poverty predictors within the South and whether there are differences in the sub-regions of the Deep South and Peripheral South. These two chapters compare the roles of family demography, economic structure, racial/ethnic composition and heterogeneity, and power resources in shaping poverty. Chapter 4 examines whether poverty in the South has been shaped by historical racial regimes.

The Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) United States datasets (2000, 2004, 2007, 2010, and 2013) (derived from the U.S. Census Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement) provide all the individual-level data for this study. The LIS sample of 745,135 individuals is nested in rich economic, political, and racial state-level data compiled from multiple sources (e.g. U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Agriculture, University of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research, etc.). Analyses involve a combination of techniques including linear probability regression models to predict poverty and binary decomposition of poverty differences.

Chapter 2 results suggest that power resources, followed by economic structure, are most important in explaining the higher poverty in the South. This underscores the salience of political and economic contexts in shaping poverty across place. Chapter 3 results indicate that individual-level economic factors are the largest predictors of poverty within the South, and even more so in the Deep South. Moreover, divergent results between the South, Deep South, and Peripheral South illustrate how the impact of poverty predictors can vary in different contexts. Chapter 4 results show significant bivariate associations between historical race regimes and poverty among Southern states, although regression models fail to yield significant effects. Conversely, historical race regimes do have a small, but significant effect in explaining the Black-White poverty gap. Results also suggest that employment and education are key to understanding poverty among Blacks and the Black-White poverty gap. Collectively, these chapters underscore why place is so important for understanding poverty and inequality. They also illustrate the salience of micro and macro characteristics of place for helping create, maintain, and reproduce systems of inequality across place.