CART trials are going ahead

正For a long time,unresectable tumors were mainly controlled by chemotherapy,radiation therapy or kinase inhibitors,with which complete and durable remission was infrequent despite great advances achieved.Until recently,together with checkpoint inhibitors,chimeric antigen receptor modified T(CART)therapies have made immunotherapy percolated into the mainstream of cancer treatment due to astonishing clinical results.     

Odor recognition memory: two encoding trials are better than one

The primary purpose of this study was to determine the effect of one versus two encoding trials in the classical yes/no recognition memory paradigm using olfactory stimuli. A group of 24 young adults rated 18 standard microencapsulated odorant targets for familiarity (first encoding block) or pleasantness (second encoding block). Once-encoded targets were in only one block and twice-encoded targets were in both, with items counterbalanced across participants. Participants performed a 20-min nonverbal distractor task followed by a yes/no recognition test incorporating 18 additional odors as foils. Memory performance for twice-encoded targets was superior to that for once-encoded targets. For once-encoded targets, performance did not differ between those rated for familiarity versus those rated for pleasantness. Less pleasant odors produced overall better recognition, with a tendency for less familiar odors to produce overall better recognition. There was a tendency for the second encoding trial to have a larger effect for less pleasant or familiar odors than for more pleasant or familiar odors. The main conclusion is that recognition memory for odors is better for items encoded two times than for items encoded only once. Implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are discussed.     

Designs of superiority and noninferiority trials for binary responses are noninterchangeable

To better understand the design of noninferiority trials for binary data, we identify analogies and contrasts between this and the more familiar superiority trial design. We restrict attention to the problem of detecting a difference between experimental and control response rates in the setting where there is no difference (piE - piC = 0) under the noninferiority alternative hypothesis and under the superiority null, and a matching difference between groups under the complementary hypotheses (/piE - piC/ = delta). Our derivation of the constrained maximum likelihood estimates (MLEs) reveals that superiority and noninferiority trials have different nuisance parameters--the marginal response rate and the control-group response rate, respectively. Our empirical results show that when individuals are allocated to treatment groups in the ratio that minimizes the overall sample size, balanced allocation is optimal only for superiority trials when the error rates are equal; otherwise imbalanced allocation is optimal. Different allocation ratios between trial types lead to different variances, and thus to different sample sizes. Finally, since the value of the marginal response rate--a design parameter in noninferiority trials--typically cannot be obtained from preliminary or published studies, we suggest a means of identifying a value that can be used. We conclude that full documentation of the design of a trial requires specification not only of the design parameters but also of the allocation ratio and the nuisance parameter, the value of which is not obvious under unequal allocation.