Reconstructing India's Identity in World Politics: An Emerging Convergence between Public Diplomacy and Constructivism
In: Sociology and Anthropology, Volume 2, Issue 6, p. 227-231
ISSN: 2331-6187
12 results
Sort by:
In: Sociology and Anthropology, Volume 2, Issue 6, p. 227-231
ISSN: 2331-6187
In: World development: the multi-disciplinary international journal devoted to the study and promotion of world development, Volume 38, Issue 4, p. 606-619
In November 2006, the government of the state of Karnataka in India announced its decision to start teaching English as a school subject from class 1 onwards in all primary schools in the state, instead of from class 5 as hitherto.
BASE
In: Indian journal of public administration, Volume 58, Issue 2, p. 173-183
ISSN: 2457-0222
In: The Indian journal of public administration: quarterly journal of the Indian Institute of Public Administration, Volume 58, Issue 2, p. 173-184
ISSN: 0019-5561
In: Defence science journal: a journal devotet to science & technology in defence, Volume 48, Issue 2, p. 163-166
ISSN: 0011-748X
In: Defence science journal: DSJ, Volume 48, Issue 2, p. 163-166
ISSN: 0011-748X
In: Journal of neurological surgery. Part A, Central European neurosurgery = Zentralblatt für Neurochirurgie, Volume 81, Issue 4, p. 348-354
ISSN: 2193-6323
Abstract
Background Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is an aggressive intracranial malignancy that confers a poor prognosis despite maximum surgical resection and chemoradiotherapy. Survival decreases further with deep-seated lesions. Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) is an emerging minimally invasive technique for tumor ablation shown to reduce tumor burden effectively, particularly in deep-seated locations less amenable to gross total resection. We describe our initial technical experience of using the combination of LITT followed by surgical resection in patients with GBMs that exhibit both an easily accessible and deep-seated component.
Materials and Methods Patients with GBM who received concurrent LITT and surgical resection at our institution were identified. Patient demographic and clinical information was procured from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center electronic medical record along with preoperative, postoperative, and 1-month follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Results Four patients (n = 2 male, n = 2 female) with IDH-wild type GBM who received combined LITT and surgical resection were identified and analyzed retrospectively. All patients received chemoradiotherapy before presentation. All but one patient (75%) received resection before presentation. Median age was 54 years (range: 44–56 years). Median length of hospital stay was 6.5 days (range: 2–47 days). Median extent of combined ablation/resection was 90.4%. One of the four patients experienced complications in the perioperative or immediate follow-up periods. Local recurrence was observed in one patient during the follow-up period.
Conclusion Malignant gliomas in deep-seated locations or in close proximity to white matter structures are challenging to manage. LITT followed by surgical resection may provide an alternative for tumor debulking that minimizes potential morbidities and extent of residual tumor. Further studies comparing this approach with standard resection techniques are warranted.
In: Journal of neurological surgery. Part A, Central European neurosurgery = Zentralblatt für Neurochirurgie, Volume 82, Issue 4, p. 375-380
ISSN: 2193-6323
Abstract
Introduction Preserving the integrity of the corticospinal tract (CST) while maximizing the extent of tumor resection is one of the key principles of brain tumor surgery to prevent new neurologic deficits. Our goal was to determine the impact of the use of perioperative diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) fiber-tracking protocols for location of the CSTs, in conjunction with intraoperative direct electrical stimulation (DES) on patient neurologic outcomes. The role of combining DES and CST shift in intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (iMRI) to enhance extent of resection (EOR) has not been studied previously.
Methods A total of 53 patients underwent resection of tumors adjacent to the motor gyrus and the underlying CST between June 5, 2009, and April 16, 2013. All cases were performed in the iMRI (BrainSuite 1.5 T). Preoperative DTI mapping and intraoperative cortical and subcortical DES including postoperative DTI mapping were performed in all patients. There were 32 men and 21 women with 40 high-grade gliomas (76%), 4 low-grade gliomas (8%), and 9 (17%) metastases. Thirty-four patients (64%) were newly diagnosed, and 19 (36%) had a previous resection. There were 31 (59%) right-sided and 22 (42%) left-sided tumors. Eighteen patients (34%) had a re-resection after the first intraoperative scan. Most patients had motor-only mapping, and one patient had both speech and motor mapping. Relative to the resection margin, the CST after the first iMRI was designated as having an outward shift (OS), inward shift (IS), or no shift (NS).
Results A gross total resection (GTR) was achieved in 41 patients (77%), subtotal resection in 4 (7.5%), and a partial resection in 8 (15%). Eighteen patients had a re-resection, and the mean EOR increased from 84% to 95% (p = 0.002). Of the 18 patients, 7 had an IS, 8 an OS, and in 3 NS was noted. More patients in the OS group had a GTR compared with the IS or NS groups (p = 0.004). Patients were divided into four groups based on the proximity of the tumor to the CST as measured from the preoperative scan. Group 1 (32%) included patients whose tumors were 0 to 5 mm from the CST based on preoperative scans; group 2 (28%), 6 to 10 mm; group 3 (13%), 11 to 15 mm; and group 4 (26%), 16 to 20 mm, respectively. Patients in group 4 had fewer neurologic complications compared with other groups at 1 and 3 months postoperatively (p = 0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively) despite achieving a similar degree of resection (p = 0.61). Furthermore, the current of intraoperative DES was correlated to the distance of the tumor to the CST, and the regression equation showed a close linear relationship between the two parameters.
Conclusions Combining information about intraoperative CST and DES in the iMRI can enhance resection in brain tumors (77% had a GTR). The relative relationship between the positions of the CST to the resection cavity can be a dynamic process that could further influence the surgeon's decision about the stimulation parameters and EOR. Also, the patients with an OS of the CST relative to the resection cavity had a GTR comparable with the other groups.
Background: Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods: This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings: Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation: Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE