| 1. |
- Kollhoff, A., et al.
(författare)
-
The first widespread solar energetic particle event observed by Solar Orbiter on 2020 November 29
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Astronomy and Astrophysics. - : EDP Sciences. - 0004-6361 .- 1432-0746. ; 656
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Context. On 2020 November 29, the first widespread solar energetic particle (SEP) event of solar cycle 25 was observed at four widely separated locations in the inner (≲1 AU) heliosphere. Relativistic electrons as well as protons with energies > 50 MeV were observed by Solar Orbiter (SolO), Parker Solar Probe, the Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO)-A and multiple near-Earth spacecraft. The SEP event was associated with an M4.4 class X-ray flare and accompanied by a coronal mass ejection and an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) wave as well as a type II radio burst and multiple type III radio bursts.Aims. We present multi-spacecraft particle observations and place them in context with source observations from remote sensing instruments and discuss how such observations may further our understanding of particle acceleration and transport in this widespread event.Methods. Velocity dispersion analysis (VDA) and time shift analysis (TSA) were used to infer the particle release times at the Sun. Solar wind plasma and magnetic field measurements were examined to identify structures that influence the properties of the energetic particles such as their intensity. Pitch angle distributions and first-order anisotropies were analyzed in order to characterize the particle propagation in the interplanetary medium.Results. We find that during the 2020 November 29 SEP event, particles spread over more than 230° in longitude close to 1 AU. The particle onset delays observed at the different spacecraft are larger as the flare–footpoint angle increases and are consistent with those from previous STEREO observations. Comparing the timing when the EUV wave intersects the estimated magnetic footpoints of each spacecraft with particle release times from TSA and VDA, we conclude that a simple scenario where the particle release is only determined by the EUV wave propagation is unlikely for this event. Observations of anisotropic particle distributions at SolO, Wind, and STEREO-A do not rule out that particles are injected over a wide longitudinal range close to the Sun. However, the low values of the first-order anisotropy observed by near-Earth spacecraft suggest that diffusive propagation processes are likely involved.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Bernhard, Jürg, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical benefit and quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine versus gemcitabine alone : a randomized multicenter phase III clinical trial--SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 26:22, s. 3695-3701
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral Cap 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks or until progression. CBR criteria and QOL indicators were assessed over this period. CBR was defined as improvement from baseline for >or= 4 consecutive weeks in pain (pain intensity or analgesic consumption) and Karnofsky performance status, stability in one but improvement in the other, or stability in pain and performance status but improvement in weight. RESULTS: Of 319 patients, 19% treated with GemCap and 20% treated with Gem experienced a CBR, with a median duration of 9.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively (P < .02); 54% of patients treated with GemCap and 60% treated with Gem had no CBR (remaining patients were not assessable). There was no treatment difference in QOL (n = 311). QOL indicators were improving under chemotherapy (P < .05). These changes differed by the time to failure, with a worsening 1 to 2 months before treatment failure (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: There is no indication of a difference in CBR or QOL between GemCap and Gem. Regardless of their initial condition, some patients experience an improvement in QOL on chemotherapy, followed by a worsening before treatment failure.
|
|
| 4. |
- Herrmann, Richard, et al.
(författare)
-
Gemcitabine plus capecitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer : a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research and the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 25:16, s. 2212-2217
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: This phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (GemCap) versus single-agent Gem in advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral capecitabine 650 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1 to 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks). Patients were stratified according to center, Kamofsky performance score (KPS), presence of pain, and disease extent. Results: A total of 319 patients were enrolled between June 2001 and June 2004. Median overall survival (OS) time, the primary end point, was 8.4 and 7.2 months in the GemCap and Gem arms, respectively (P = .234). Post hoc analysis in patients with good KPS (score of 90 to 100) showed a significant prolongation of median OS time in the GemCap arm compared with the Gem arm (10.1 v 7.4 months, respectively; P = .014). The overall frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar in each arm. Neutropenia was the most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse event in both arms. Conclusion: GemCap failed to improve OS at a statistically significant level compared with standard Gem treatment. The safety of GemCap and Gem was similar. In the subgroup of patients with good performance status, median OS was improved significantly. GemCap is a practical regimen that may be considered as an alternative to single-agent Gem for the treatment of advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer patients with a good performance status.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
