Aiming to bring together international researchers from academia, industry and government in the field of 3D geoinformation, the annual 3D GeoInfo Conference offers an interdisciplinary forum to researchers in the fields of data collection, advanced modelling approaches, data analysis and visualisation. The 14th 3D GeoInfo Conference 2019 was held on 26 and 27 September 2019 at the Asian Civilisations Museum in Singapore, organised by the National University of Singapore, School of Design and Environment, and the Singapore Land Authority, in collaboration with ISPRS WG IV/10. This volume of the ISPRS Archives contains the 17 papers that were accepted for presentation at the conference following an extended-abstract double-blind peer review from the Scientific Committee of the 3D GeoInfo Conference. Among others, they cover subjects of 3D mapping and digital twins, machine learning and urban analysis, and the integration of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and GIS. Another 19 presented papers are published in the ISPRS Annals. We hope that the papers in this special issue will inspire decision-makers, academics, engineers, computer scientists, land surveyors, urban planners, and students interested in the 3D geoinformation domain. We would like to thank all the authors, the Scientific Committee, and the entire Organising Committee for their valuable contribution towards this special issue. Additionally, we would like to thank Giorgio Agugiaro, chair of WG IV/10, for his support of the conference and Jielin Chen and Palak Mehta for their help with checking the formatting of the papers.
Aiming to bring together international researchers from academia, industry and government in the field of 3D geoinformation, the annual 3D GeoInfo Conference offers an interdisciplinary forum to researchers in the fields of data collection, advanced modelling approaches, data analysis and visualisation. The 14th 3D GeoInfo Conference 2019 was held on 26 and 27 September 2019 at the Asian Civilisations Museum in Singapore, organised by the National University of Singapore, School of Design and Environment, and the Singapore Land Authority, in collaboration with ISPRS WG IV/10. This volume of the ISPRS Archives contains the 17 papers that were accepted for presentation at the conference following an extended-abstract double-blind peer review from the Scientific Committee of the 3D GeoInfo Conference. Among others, they cover subjects of 3D mapping and digital twins, machine learning and urban analysis, and the integration of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and GIS. Another 19 presented papers are published in the ISPRS Annals. We hope that the papers in this special issue will inspire decision-makers, academics, engineers, computer scientists, land surveyors, urban planners, and students interested in the 3D geoinformation domain. We would like to thank all the authors, the Scientific Committee, and the entire Organising Committee for their valuable contribution towards this special issue. Additionally, we would like to thank Giorgio Agugiaro, chair of WG IV/10, for his support of the conference and Jielin Chen and Palak Mehta for their help with checking the formatting of the papers.
Aiming to bring together international researchers from academia, industry and government in the field of 3D geoinformation, the annual 3D GeoInfo Conference offers an interdisciplinary forum to researchers in the fields of data collection, advanced modelling approaches, data analysis and visualisation. The 14th 3D GeoInfo Conference 2019 was held on 26 and 27 September 2019 at the Asian Civilisations Museum in Singapore, organised by the National University of Singapore, School of Design and Environment, and the Singapore Land Authority, in collaboration with ISPRS WG IV/10. This volume of the ISPRS Annals contains the 19 papers that were accepted for presentation at the conference following a fullpaper double-blind peer review from the Scientific Committee of the 3D GeoInfo Conference. Among others, they cover subjects of urban reconstruction, 3D mapping and digital twins, machine learning and urban analysis, and the integration of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and GIS. Another 17 presented papers are published in the ISPRS Archives. We hope that the papers in this special issue will inspire decision-makers, academics, engineers, computer scientists, land surveyors, urban planners, and students interested in the 3D geoinformation domain. We would like to thank all the authors, the Scientific Committee, and the entire Organising Committee for their valuable contribution towards this special issue. Additionally, we would like to thank Giorgio Agugiaro, chair of WG IV/10, for his support of the conference and Jielin Chen and Palak Mehta for their help with checking the formatting of the papers.
Aiming to bring together international researchers from academia, industry and government in the field of 3D geoinformation, the annual 3D GeoInfo Conference offers an interdisciplinary forum to researchers in the fields of data collection, advanced modelling approaches, data analysis and visualisation. The 14th 3D GeoInfo Conference 2019 was held on 26 and 27 September 2019 at the Asian Civilisations Museum in Singapore, organised by the National University of Singapore, School of Design and Environment, and the Singapore Land Authority, in collaboration with ISPRS WG IV/10. This volume of the ISPRS Annals contains the 19 papers that were accepted for presentation at the conference following a fullpaper double-blind peer review from the Scientific Committee of the 3D GeoInfo Conference. Among others, they cover subjects of urban reconstruction, 3D mapping and digital twins, machine learning and urban analysis, and the integration of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and GIS. Another 17 presented papers are published in the ISPRS Archives. We hope that the papers in this special issue will inspire decision-makers, academics, engineers, computer scientists, land surveyors, urban planners, and students interested in the 3D geoinformation domain. We would like to thank all the authors, the Scientific Committee, and the entire Organising Committee for their valuable contribution towards this special issue. Additionally, we would like to thank Giorgio Agugiaro, chair of WG IV/10, for his support of the conference and Jielin Chen and Palak Mehta for their help with checking the formatting of the papers.
To optimise the use of limited available land, land-scarce cities such as Singapore are increasingly looking towards the underground in search of more space. A good understanding of what already exists underground is essential for the planning of underground spaces. In particular, utility services make up a significant part of what exists underground. To meet planning needs, the Singapore government has initiated efforts towards bringing records of existing utility networks together in a single database and share its contents to support planning, design, and construction of underground developments. However, these records can not be relied on to support these critical processes: They are not guaranteed to represent today's state of the underground, are not accurate or of unknown accuracy, are inconsistently modelled, and may indicate as-design information instead of as-built information. This lack of reliability leads to an increase in cost and a loss in efficiency caused by the need to repeatedly survey to locate existing utility services on-site, and can have potentially disastrous outcomes when an excavation would damage existing services. Technological advances in utility surveying and mapping devices such as Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) and gyroscopic pipeline mapping devices offer the potential of accurately mapping utilities in three dimensions (3D) at a large scale and high speed. However, a better understanding of the benefits and limitations of these technologies in a practical context is needed, as well as their suitability for mapping to support applications such as urban planning and land administration. The Digital Underground project is a collaboration between Singapore-ETH Centre, Singapore Land Authority and the City of Zürich that aims to develop a roadmap towards a reliable 3D utility map of Singapore. To enable the development of utility mapping standards and guidelines, the 3D mapping workflow for underground utilities is studied extensively based on market research, literature study, and case studies. This work presents the beginnings of a framework for 3D mapping of underground utilities as one of the initial results of the Digital Underground project as it is in progress. From these experiences, it can be concluded that, together with existing data, data captured using various surveying methods can indeed contribute to the establishment and maintenance of a consolidated and reliable utility map. To this end, a multi-sensor, multi-data 3D mapping workflow is proposed to integrate data captured using different surveying techniques during different moments in the development lifecycle of utilities. Based on this framework, this work also identifies areas for improvement and critical gaps to be bridged that will ultimately form part of the roadmap.
To optimise the use of limited available land, land-scarce cities such as Singapore are increasingly looking towards the underground in search of more space. A good understanding of what already exists underground is essential for the planning of underground spaces. In particular, utility services make up a significant part of what exists underground. To meet planning needs, the Singapore government has initiated efforts towards bringing records of existing utility networks together in a single database and share its contents to support planning, design, and construction of underground developments. However, these records can not be relied on to support these critical processes: They are not guaranteed to represent today's state of the underground, are not accurate or of unknown accuracy, are inconsistently modelled, and may indicate as-design information instead of as-built information. This lack of reliability leads to an increase in cost and a loss in efficiency caused by the need to repeatedly survey to locate existing utility services on-site, and can have potentially disastrous outcomes when an excavation would damage existing services. Technological advances in utility surveying and mapping devices such as Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) and gyroscopic pipeline mapping devices offer the potential of accurately mapping utilities in three dimensions (3D) at a large scale and high speed. However, a better understanding of the benefits and limitations of these technologies in a practical context is needed, as well as their suitability for mapping to support applications such as urban planning and land administration. The Digital Underground project is a collaboration between Singapore-ETH Centre, Singapore Land Authority and the City of Zürich that aims to develop a roadmap towards a reliable 3D utility map of Singapore. To enable the development of utility mapping standards and guidelines, the 3D mapping workflow for underground utilities is studied extensively based on market research, literature study, and case studies. This work presents the beginnings of a framework for 3D mapping of underground utilities as one of the initial results of the Digital Underground project as it is in progress. From these experiences, it can be concluded that, together with existing data, data captured using various surveying methods can indeed contribute to the establishment and maintenance of a consolidated and reliable utility map. To this end, a multi-sensor, multi-data 3D mapping workflow is proposed to integrate data captured using different surveying techniques during different moments in the development lifecycle of utilities. Based on this framework, this work also identifies areas for improvement and critical gaps to be bridged that will ultimately form part of the roadmap.
In: Horwich , A , Babjuk , M , Bellmunt , J , Bruins , H M , de Reijke , T M , de Santis , M , Gillessen , S , James , N , Maclennan , S , Palou , J , Powles , T , Ribal , M J , Shariat , S F , van der Kwast , T , Xylinas , E , Agarwal , N , Arends , T , Bamias , A , Birtle , A , Black , P C , Bochner , B H , Bolla , M , Boormans , J L , Bossi , A , Briganti , A , Brummelhuis , I , Burger , M , Castellano , D , Cathomas , R , Chiti , A , Choudhury , A , Compérat , E , Crabb , S , Culine , S , de Bari , B , DeBlok , W , de Visschere , P J L , Decaestecker , K , Dimitropoulos , K , Dominguez-Escrig , J L , Fanti , S , Fonteyne , V , Frydenberg , M , Futterer , J J , Gakis , G , Geavlete , B , Gontero , P , Grubmüller , B , Hafeez , S , Hansel , D E , Hartmann , A , Hayne , D , Henry , A M , Hernandez , V , Herr , H , Herrmann , K , Hoskin , P , Huguet , J , Jereczek-Fossa , B A , Jones , R , Kamat , A M , Khoo , V , Kiltie , A E , Krege , S , Ladoire , S , Lara , P C , Leliveld , A , Linares-Espinós , E , Løgager , V , Lorch , A , Loriot , Y , Meijer , R , Carmen Mir , M , Moschini , M , Mostafid , H , Müller , A C , Müller , C R , N'Dow , J , Necchi , A , Neuzillet , Y , Oddens , J R , Oldenburg , J , Osanto , S , Oyen , W J G , Pacheco-Figueiredo , L , Pappot , H , Patel , M I , Pieters , B R , Plass , K , Remzi , M , Retz , M , Richenberg , J , Rink , M , Roghmann , F , Rosenberg , J E , Rouprêt , M , Rouvière , O , Salembier , C , Salminen , A , Sargos , P , Sengupta , S , Sherif , A , Smeenk , R J , Smits , A , Stenzl , A , Thalmann , G N , Tombal , B , Turkbey , B , Vahr Lauridsen , S , Valdagni , R , van der Heijden , A G , van Poppel , H , Vartolomei , M D , Veskimäe , E , Vilaseca , A , Vives Rivera , F A , Wiegel , T , Wiklund , P , Williams , A , Zigeuner , R & Witjes , J A 2019 , ' EAU–ESMO consensus statements on the management of advanced and variant bladder cancer—an international collaborative multi-stakeholder effort: under the auspices of the EAU and ESMO Guidelines Committees ' , Annals of Oncology , vol. 30 , no. 11 , pp. 1697-1727 . https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz296
Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1–3 (disagree), 4–6 (equivocal), 7–9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). Results and limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach.
BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference. SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach.
