The Physics of the B Factories

This work is on the Physics of the B Factories. Part A of this book contains a brief description of the SLAC and KEK B Factories as well as their detectors, BaBar and Belle, and data taking related issues. Part B discusses tools and methods used by the experiments in order to obtain results. The results themselves can be found in Part C

Retinoblastoma with and without Extraocular Tumor Extension: A Global Comparative Study of 3435 Patients

PURPOSE: To study the treatment and outcomes of children with retinoblastoma (RB) with extraocular tumor extension (RB-EOE) and compare them with RB without extraocular tumor extension (RB-w/o-EOE). DESIGN: Multicenter intercontinental collaborative prospective study from 2017 to 2020. RB-EOE cases included those with overt orbital tumor extension in treatment-naive patients. Cases with microscopic orbital extension detected postenucleation were excluded from the study. PARTICIPANTS: \ud A total of 319 children with RB-EOE and 3116 children with RB-w/o-EOE. INTERVENTION: Chemotherapy, enucleation, exenteration, radiotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Systemic metastasis and death. RESULTS: Of the 3435 RB patients included in this study, 309 (9%) were from low-income countries (LIC), 1448 (42%) from lower-middle income, 1012 (29%) from upper-middle income, and 666 (19%) patients from high-income countries. There was an inverse relationship between the percentage of RB-EOE and national income level, with 96 (31%) patients from LIC, 197 (6%) lower-middle income, 20 (2%) upper-middle income, and 6 (1%) patients from high-income countries (P = 0.0001). The outcomes were statistically significant for RB-EOE compared with RB-w/o-EOE: systemic metastasis (32% vs. 4% respectively; P = 0.0001) and metastasis-related death (63% vs. 6% respectively; P = 0.0001). Multimodal treatment was the most common form of treatment (n = 177; 54%) for RB-EOE, with most cases undergoing a combination of intravenous chemotherapy and enucleation (n = 97; 30%). Adjuvant external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) after surgery (enucleation/orbital exenteration) was given in only 68 (21%) cases. Kaplan–Meier analysis for systemic metastasis and metastasis-related death in RB-EOE was 28% and 57% at 1 year, 29% and 60% at 2 years, and 29% and 61% at 3 years, respectively. Cox regression analysis revealed that the risk of death from RB-EOE was greater in patients aged >4 years than <2 years (hazard ratio, 2.912; P < 0.001) and for unimodal (surgery or intravenous chemotherapy) and bimodal (surgery and intravenous chemotherapy) treatment than trimodal treatment (surgery, intravenous chemotherapy, and EBRT) (hazard ratio, 2.023; P = 0.004 and hazard ratio, 1.819; P = 0.027, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Retinoblastoma with extraocular tumor extension is associated with a higher risk of metastasis and death. Patients with RB-EOE are likely to benefit from trimodal treatment (intravenous chemotherapy, surgery, and EBRT) rather than treatment protocols excluding EBRT. Financial Disclosure(s) The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article

What’s wrong with evolutionary biology?

There have been periodic claims that evolutionary biology needs urgent reform, and this article tries to account for the volume and persistence of this discontent. It is argued that a few inescapable properties of the field make it prone to criticisms of predictable kinds, whether or not the criticisms have any merit. For example, the variety of living things and the complexity of evolution make it easy to generate data that seem revolutionary (e.g. exceptions to well-established generalizations, or neglected factors in evolution), and lead to disappointment with existing explanatory frameworks (with their high levels of abstraction, and limited predictive power). It is then argued that special discontent stems from misunderstandings and dislike of one well-known but atypical research programme: the study of adaptive function, in the tradition of behavioural ecology. To achieve its goals, this research needs distinct tools, often including imaginary agency, and a partial description of the evolutionary process. This invites mistaken charges of narrowness and oversimplification (which come, not least, from researchers in other subfields), and these chime with anxieties about human agency and overall purpose. The article ends by discussing several ways in which calls to reform evolutionary biology actively hinder progress in the field