Measurement of the inclusive and dijet cross-sections of b-jets in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector

The inclusive and dijet production cross-sections have been measured for jets containing b-hadrons (b-jets) in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of sqrt(s) = 7 TeV, using the ATLAS detector at the LHC. The measurements use data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 34 pb^-1. The b-jets are identified using either a lifetime-based method, where secondary decay vertices of b-hadrons in jets are reconstructed using information from the tracking detectors, or a muon-based method where the presence of a muon is used to identify semileptonic decays of b-hadrons inside jets. The inclusive b-jet cross-section is measured as a function of transverse momentum in the range 20 < pT < 400 GeV and rapidity in the range |y| < 2.1. The bbbar-dijet cross-section is measured as a function of the dijet invariant mass in the range 110 < m_jj < 760 GeV, the azimuthal angle difference between the two jets and the angular variable chi in two dijet mass regions. The results are compared with next-to-leading-order QCD predictions. Good agreement is observed between the measured cross-sections and the predictions obtained using POWHEG + Pythia. MC@NLO + Herwig shows good agreement with the measured bbbar-dijet cross-section. However, it does not reproduce the measured inclusive cross-section well, particularly for central b-jets with large transverse momenta.Comment: 10 pages plus author list (21 pages total), 8 figures, 1 table, final version published in European Physical Journal

Australia's National Bowel Cancer Screening Program: does it work for Indigenous Australians?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite a lower incidence of bowel cancer overall, Indigenous Australians are more likely to be diagnosed at an advanced stage when prognosis is poor. Bowel cancer screening is an effective means of reducing incidence and mortality from bowel cancer through early identification and prompt treatment. In 2006, Australia began rolling out a population-based National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) using the Faecal Occult Blood Test. Initial evaluation of the program revealed substantial disparities in bowel cancer screening uptake with Indigenous Australians significantly less likely to participate in screening than the non-Indigenous population.</p> <p>This paper critically reviews characteristics of the program which may contribute to the discrepancy in screening uptake, and includes an analysis of organisational, structural, and socio-cultural barriers that play a part in the poorer participation of Indigenous and other disadvantaged and minority groups.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A search was undertaken of peer-reviewed journal articles, government reports, and other grey literature using electronic databases and citation snowballing. Articles were critically evaluated for relevance to themes that addressed the research questions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The NBCSP is not reaching many Indigenous Australians in the target group, with factors contributing to sub-optimal participation including how participants are selected, the way the screening kit is distributed, the nature of the test and comprehensiveness of its contents, cultural perceptions of cancer and prevailing low levels of knowledge and awareness of bowel cancer and the importance of screening.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our findings suggest that the population-based approach to implementing bowel cancer screening to the Australian population unintentionally excludes vulnerable minorities, particularly Indigenous and other culturally and linguistically diverse groups. This potentially contributes to exacerbating the already widening disparities in cancer outcomes that exist among Indigenous Australians. Modifications to the program are recommended to facilitate access and participation by Indigenous and other minority populations. Further research is also needed to understand the needs and social and cultural sensitivities of these groups around cancer screening and inform alternative approaches to bowel cancer screening.</p

Cancer care coordinators in stage III colon cancer: a cost-utility analysis

BACKGROUND: There is momentum internationally to improve coordination of complex care pathways. Robust evaluations of such interventions are scarce. This paper evaluates the cost-utility of cancer care coordinators for stage III colon cancer patients, who generally require surgery followed by chemotherapy. METHODS: We compared a hospital-based nurse cancer care coordinator (CCC) with ‘business-as-usual’ (no dedicated coordination service) in stage III colon cancer patients in New Zealand. A discrete event microsimulation model was constructed to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs from a health system perspective. We used New Zealand data on colon cancer incidence, survival, and mortality as baseline input parameters for the model. We specified intervention input parameters using available literature and expert estimates. For example, that a CCC would improve the coverage of chemotherapy by 33 % (ranging from 9 to 65 %), reduce the time to surgery by 20 % (3 to 48 %), reduce the time to chemotherapy by 20 % (3 to 48 %), and reduce patient anxiety (reduction in disability weight of 33 %, ranging from 0 to 55 %). RESULTS: Much of the direct cost of a nurse CCC was balanced by savings in business-as-usual care coordination. Much of the health gain was through increased coverage of chemotherapy with a CCC (especially older patients), and reduced time to chemotherapy. Compared to ‘business-as-usual’, the cost per QALY of the CCC programme was $NZ 18,900 (≈$US 15,600; 95 % UI: $NZ 13,400 to 24,600). By age, the CCC intervention was more cost-effective for colon cancer patients < 65 years ($NZ 9,400 per QALY). By ethnicity, the health gains were larger for Māori, but so too were the costs, meaning the cost-effectiveness was roughly comparable between ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Such a nurse-led CCC intervention in New Zealand has acceptable cost-effectiveness for stage III colon cancer, meaning it probably merits funding. Each CCC programme will differ in its likely health gains and costs, making generalisation from this evaluation to other CCC interventions difficult. However, this evaluation suggests that CCC interventions that increase coverage of, and reduce time to, effective treatments may be cost-effective. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0970-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users