Psychoacoustic sampling as a reliable, non-invasive method to monitor orthopteran species diversity in tropical forests

We evaluated trained listener-based acoustic sampling as a reliable and non-invasive method for rapid assessment of ensiferan species diversity in tropical evergreen forests. This was done by evaluating the reliability of identification of species and numbers of calling individuals using psychoacoustic experiments in the laboratory and by comparing psychoacoustic sampling in the field with ambient noise recordings made at the same time. The reliability of correct species identification by the trained listener was 100% for 16 out of 20 species tested in the laboratory. The reliability of identifying the numbers of individuals correctly was 100% for 13 out of 20 species. The human listener performed slightly better than the instrument in detecting low frequency and broadband calls in the field, whereas the recorder detected high frequency calls with greater probability. To address the problem of pseudoreplication during spot sampling in the field, we monitored the movement of calling individuals using focal animal sampling. The average distance moved by calling individuals for 17 out of 20 species was less than 1.5 m in half an hour. We suggest that trained listener-based sampling is preferable for crickets and low frequency katydids, whereas broadband recorders are preferable for katydid species with high frequency calls for accurate estimation of ensiferan species richness and relative abundance in an area.

On the maximal rate of non-square STBCs from complex orthogonal designs

A Linear Processing Complex Orthogonal Design (LPCOD) is a p x n matrix epsilon, (p >= n) in k complex indeterminates x(1), x(2),..., x(k) such that (i) the entries of epsilon are complex linear combinations of 0, +/- x(i), i = 1,..., k and their conjugates, (ii) epsilon(H)epsilon = D, where epsilon(H) is the Hermitian (conjugate transpose) of epsilon and D is a diagonal matrix with the (i, i)-th diagonal element of the form l(1)((i))vertical bar x(1)vertical bar(2) + l(2)((i))vertical bar x(2)vertical bar(2)+...+ l(k)((i))vertical bar x(k)vertical bar(2) where l(j)((i)), i = 1, 2,..., n, j = 1, 2,...,k are strictly positive real numbers and the condition l(1)((i)) = l(2)((i)) = ... = l(k)((i)), called the equal-weights condition, holds for all values of i. For square designs it is known. that whenever a LPCOD exists without the equal-weights condition satisfied then there exists another LPCOD with identical parameters with l(1)((i)) = l(2)((i)) = ... = l(k)((i)) = 1. This implies that the maximum possible rate for square LPCODs without the equal-weights condition is the same as that or square LPCODs with equal-weights condition. In this paper, this result is extended to a subclass of non-square LPCODs. It is shown that, a set of sufficient conditions is identified such that whenever a non-square (p > n) LPCOD satisfies these sufficient conditions and do not satisfy the equal-weights condition, then there exists another LPCOD with the same parameters n, k and p in the same complex indeterminates with l(1)((i)) = l(2)((i)) = ... = l(k)((i)) = 1.

Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660. Findings Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3–33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6–12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1–11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57–0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9–15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1–13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58–0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. Interpretation Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population.

Clinician perspective on molecular profiling of non-small-cell lung cancer

The article by Meric-Bernstam et al1 that was recently published in Journal of Clinical Oncology raises important questions about the clinical application of large-scale genomic testing. We congratulate the authors for this ambitious study, which successfully profiled 2,000 consecutive patients with advanced cancer. The next-generation sequencing (NGS) platform was used for 1,749 of 2,000 patients (87.5%). Of 789 patients with potentially actionable mutations, 83 (11%, or 4% of screened population) were enrolled in a genomically matched clinical study. As the editorial2 accompanying the article by Meric-Bernstam et al1 pointed out, the 4% figure, albeit disappointing, may be an underestimate because cancers such as lung adenocarcinoma and melanoma, for which ≥ 50% of patients have actionable mutations, were under-represented. ...

Cilengitide combined with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients: Results of an open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study (CERTO)

Background: This multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study evaluated cilengitide in combination with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy, compared with cetuximab and chemotherapy alone, as first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy alone (control), or combined with cilengitide 2000 mg 1×/week i.v. (CIL-once) or 2×/week i.v. (CIL-twice). A protocol amendment limited enrolment to patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) histoscore ≥200 and closed the CIL-twice arm for practical feasibility issues. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; independent read); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), safety, and biomarker analyses. A comparison between the CIL-once and control arms is reported, both for the total cohorts, as well as for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200. Results: There were 85 patients in the CIL-once group and 84 in the control group. The PFS (independent read) was 6.2 versus 5.0 months for CIL-once versus control [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; P = 0.085]; for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200, PFS was 6.8 versus 5.6 months, respectively (HR 0.57; P = 0.0446). Median OS was 13.6 for CIL-once versus 9.7 months for control (HR 0.81; P = 0.265). In patients with EGFR ≥200, OS was 13.2 versus 11.8 months, respectively (HR 0.95; P = 0.855). No major differences in adverse events between CIL-once and control were reported; nausea (59% versus 56%, respectively) and neutropenia (54% versus 46%, respectively) were the most frequent. There was no increased incidence of thromboembolic events or haemorrhage in cilengitide-treated patients. αvβ3 and αvβ5 expression was neither a predictive nor a prognostic indicator. Conclusions: The addition of cilengitide to cetuximab/chemotherapy indicated potential clinical activity, with a trend for PFS difference in the independent-read analysis. However, the observed inconsistencies across end points suggest additional investigations are required to substantiate a potential role of other integrin inhibitors in NSCLC treatment.