Is a change in patient-reported dysphagia after induction chemotherapy in locally advanced esophageal cancer a predictive factor for pathological response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation?

GOALS OF WORK: In patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, only those responding to the treatment ultimately benefit from preoperative chemoradiation. We investigated whether changes in subjective dysphagia or eating restrictions after two cycles of induction chemotherapy can predict histopathological tumor response observed after chemoradiation. In addition, we examined general long-term quality of life (QoL) and, in particular, eating restrictions after esophagectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with resectable, locally advanced squamous cell- or adenocarcinoma of the esophagus were treated with two cycles of chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation and surgery. They were asked to complete the EORTC oesophageal-specific QoL module (EORTC QLQ-OES24), and linear analogue self-assessment QoL indicators, before and during neoadjuvant therapy and quarterly until 1 year postoperatively. A median change of at least eight points was considered as clinically meaningful. MAIN RESULTS: Clinically meaningful improvements in the median scores for dysphagia and eating restrictions were found during induction chemotherapy. These improvements were not associated with a histopathological response observed after chemoradiation, but enhanced treatment compliance. Postoperatively, dysphagia scores remained low at 1 year, while eating restrictions persisted more frequently in patients with extended transthoracic resection compared to those with limited transhiatal resection. CONCLUSIONS: The improvement of dysphagia and eating restrictions after induction chemotherapy did not predict tumor response observed after chemoradiation. One year after esophagectomy, dysphagia was a minor problem, and global QoL was rather good. Eating restrictions persisted depending on the surgical technique used.

Resource-allocation capabilities of commercial project management software. An experimental analysis

When project managers determine schedules for resource-constrained projects, they commonly use commercial project management software packages. Which resource-allocation methods are implemented in these packages is proprietary information. The resource-allocation problem is in general computationally difficult to solve to optimality. Hence, the question arises if and how various project management software packages differ in quality with respect to their resource-allocation capabilities. None of the few existing papers on this subject uses a sizeable data set and recent versions of common software packages. We experimentally analyze the resource-allocation capabilities of Acos Plus.1, AdeptTracker Professional, CS Project Professional, Microsoft Office Project 2007, Primavera P6, Sciforma PS8, and Turbo Project Professional. Our analysis is based on 1560 instances of the precedence- and resource-constrained project scheduling problem RCPSP. The experiment shows that using the resource-allocation feature of these packages may lead to a project duration increase of almost 115% above the best known feasible schedule. The increase gets larger with increasing resource scarcity and with increasing number of activities. We investigate the impact of different complexity scenarios and priority rules on the project duration obtained by the software packages. We provide a decision table to support managers in selecting a software package and a priority rule.