A notice by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) was published on December 14, 2014 regarding the revised “Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and th...A notice by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) was published on December 14, 2014 regarding the revised “Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews”. The review of this 2014 draft guidance suggested increased analysis, work, review and approvals required by the State Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) working with and on behalf of local public agencies (LPAs) in order to authorize and obligate roadway projects funded with federal-aid money. All federal-aid-funded roadway projects require a NEPA analysis to be done on the action (project) and an environmental clearance document to be obtained prior to finalizing the design. The 2014 draft guidance may complicate an already lengthy and often critical path activity for roadway projects requiring NEPA documentation.展开更多
Background： Forest biomass is helpful to assess its productivity and carbon （C） sequestration capacity. Several disturbance activities in tropical forests have reduced the biomass and net primary production （NPP）...Background： Forest biomass is helpful to assess its productivity and carbon （C） sequestration capacity. Several disturbance activities in tropical forests have reduced the biomass and net primary production （NPP） leading to climate change. Therefore, an accurateestimation of forest biomass and C cycling in context of disturbances is required for implementing REDD （Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation） policy. Methods： Biomass and NPP of trees and shrubs were estimated by using allometric equations while herbaceous biomass was estimated by harvest method. Fine root biomass was determined from soil monolith. The C stock in vegetation was calculated by multiplying C concentration to dry weight. Results： Total stand biomass （Mg.ha-1） in undisturbed forest stand （US） was 960.4 while in disturbed forest stand （DS） it was 449.1. The biomass （Mg.ha-1） of trees, shrubs and herbs in US was 948.0, 4.4 and 1.4, respectively, while in DS they were 438.4, 6.1 and 1.2, respectively. Total NPP （Mg.ha-l.yr-1） was 26.58 （equivalent to 12.26 Mg C.ha-1.yr-1） in US and 14.91 （6.88 Mg C.ha-1.yr-1） in DS. Total C input into soil through litter plus root turnover was 6.78 and 3.35 Mg.ha-1.yr-1 in US and DS, respectively. Conclusions： Several disturbance activities resulted in the significant loss in stand biomass （53 %）, NPP （44 %）, and C sequestration capacity of tropical forest vegetation is far greater than that returned to the soil n eastern Nepal. The net uptake of carbon by the by the turnover of fine root and litter. Therefore, both stands of present forest act as carbon accumulating systems. Moreover, disturbance reflects higher C emissions which can be reduced by better management.展开更多
Objective:Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting(CINV)are common with doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide(AC)chemotherapy.Recommended antiemetic regimens incorporate neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist(NK1 RA),5-hydroxytrypta...Objective:Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting(CINV)are common with doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide(AC)chemotherapy.Recommended antiemetic regimens incorporate neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist(NK1 RA),5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonist(5 HT3 RA),corticosteroid,and dopamine antagonists.This post-hoc analysis compared results of 3 prospective antiemetic studies conducted among Chinese breast cancer patients who received(neo)adjuvant AC,in order to identify optimal antiemetic prophylaxis.Methods:A total of 304 patients were included:Group 1,ondansetron/dexamethasone(D1);Group 2,aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone(D1);Group 3,aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone(D1–3);Group 4,aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone(D1–3)/olanzapine;and Group 5,netupitant/palonosetron/dexamethasone(D1–3).Antiemetic efficacies of Groups 3,4,and 5 during cycle 1 of AC were individually compared with Group 1.In addition,emesis outcomes of patients in Groups 3 and 5,and those of Groups 2 and 3,were compared.Results:When comparing efficacies of a historical doublet(5 HT3 RA/dexamethasone)with triplet antiemetic regimens(NK1 RA/5 HT3 RA/dexamethasone)with/without olanzapine,complete response(CR)percentages and quality of life(QOL)in overall phase of cycle 1 AC were compared between Group 1 and the other groups:Group 1 vs.3,41.9%vs.38.3%(P=0.6849);Group 1 vs.4,41.9%vs.65.0%(P=0.0107);and Group 1 vs.5,41.9%vs.60.0%(P=0.0460).Groups 4 and 5 achieved a better QOL.When comparing netupitant-based(Group 3)with aprepitant-based(Group 5)triplet antiemetics,CR percentages were 38.3%vs.60.0%,respectively(P=0.0176);Group 5 achieved a better QOL.When comparing 1 day(Group 2)vs.3 day(Group 3)dexamethasone,CR percentages were 46.8%and 38.3%,respectively(P=0.3459);Group 3 had a worse QOL.Conclusions:Aprepitant-containing triplets were non-superior to doublet antiemetics.Netupitant-containing triplets and adding olanzapine to aprepitant-containing triplets were superior to doublets.Netupitant/palonosetron/dexamethasone was superior to aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone.Protracted administration of dexamethasone provided limited additional benefit.展开更多
文摘A notice by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) was published on December 14, 2014 regarding the revised “Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews”. The review of this 2014 draft guidance suggested increased analysis, work, review and approvals required by the State Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) working with and on behalf of local public agencies (LPAs) in order to authorize and obligate roadway projects funded with federal-aid money. All federal-aid-funded roadway projects require a NEPA analysis to be done on the action (project) and an environmental clearance document to be obtained prior to finalizing the design. The 2014 draft guidance may complicate an already lengthy and often critical path activity for roadway projects requiring NEPA documentation.
文摘Background： Forest biomass is helpful to assess its productivity and carbon （C） sequestration capacity. Several disturbance activities in tropical forests have reduced the biomass and net primary production （NPP） leading to climate change. Therefore, an accurateestimation of forest biomass and C cycling in context of disturbances is required for implementing REDD （Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation） policy. Methods： Biomass and NPP of trees and shrubs were estimated by using allometric equations while herbaceous biomass was estimated by harvest method. Fine root biomass was determined from soil monolith. The C stock in vegetation was calculated by multiplying C concentration to dry weight. Results： Total stand biomass （Mg.ha-1） in undisturbed forest stand （US） was 960.4 while in disturbed forest stand （DS） it was 449.1. The biomass （Mg.ha-1） of trees, shrubs and herbs in US was 948.0, 4.4 and 1.4, respectively, while in DS they were 438.4, 6.1 and 1.2, respectively. Total NPP （Mg.ha-l.yr-1） was 26.58 （equivalent to 12.26 Mg C.ha-1.yr-1） in US and 14.91 （6.88 Mg C.ha-1.yr-1） in DS. Total C input into soil through litter plus root turnover was 6.78 and 3.35 Mg.ha-1.yr-1 in US and DS, respectively. Conclusions： Several disturbance activities resulted in the significant loss in stand biomass （53 %）, NPP （44 %）, and C sequestration capacity of tropical forest vegetation is far greater than that returned to the soil n eastern Nepal. The net uptake of carbon by the by the turnover of fine root and litter. Therefore, both stands of present forest act as carbon accumulating systems. Moreover, disturbance reflects higher C emissions which can be reduced by better management.
基金supported by an education grant from Madam Diana Hon Fun Kong Donation for Cancer Research(Grant No.7104870)。
文摘Objective:Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting(CINV)are common with doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide(AC)chemotherapy.Recommended antiemetic regimens incorporate neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist(NK1 RA),5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonist(5 HT3 RA),corticosteroid,and dopamine antagonists.This post-hoc analysis compared results of 3 prospective antiemetic studies conducted among Chinese breast cancer patients who received(neo)adjuvant AC,in order to identify optimal antiemetic prophylaxis.Methods:A total of 304 patients were included:Group 1,ondansetron/dexamethasone(D1);Group 2,aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone(D1);Group 3,aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone(D1–3);Group 4,aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone(D1–3)/olanzapine;and Group 5,netupitant/palonosetron/dexamethasone(D1–3).Antiemetic efficacies of Groups 3,4,and 5 during cycle 1 of AC were individually compared with Group 1.In addition,emesis outcomes of patients in Groups 3 and 5,and those of Groups 2 and 3,were compared.Results:When comparing efficacies of a historical doublet(5 HT3 RA/dexamethasone)with triplet antiemetic regimens(NK1 RA/5 HT3 RA/dexamethasone)with/without olanzapine,complete response(CR)percentages and quality of life(QOL)in overall phase of cycle 1 AC were compared between Group 1 and the other groups:Group 1 vs.3,41.9%vs.38.3%(P=0.6849);Group 1 vs.4,41.9%vs.65.0%(P=0.0107);and Group 1 vs.5,41.9%vs.60.0%(P=0.0460).Groups 4 and 5 achieved a better QOL.When comparing netupitant-based(Group 3)with aprepitant-based(Group 5)triplet antiemetics,CR percentages were 38.3%vs.60.0%,respectively(P=0.0176);Group 5 achieved a better QOL.When comparing 1 day(Group 2)vs.3 day(Group 3)dexamethasone,CR percentages were 46.8%and 38.3%,respectively(P=0.3459);Group 3 had a worse QOL.Conclusions:Aprepitant-containing triplets were non-superior to doublet antiemetics.Netupitant-containing triplets and adding olanzapine to aprepitant-containing triplets were superior to doublets.Netupitant/palonosetron/dexamethasone was superior to aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone.Protracted administration of dexamethasone provided limited additional benefit.
