You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


Wolters Kluwer Health
may email you for journal alerts and information, but is committed
to maintaining your privacy and will not share your personal information without
your express consent. For more information, please refer to our Privacy Policy.

Trastuzumab Eligibility, Response Rates Similar Regardless of HER2-Overexpression Guidelines Used

New guidelines for HER2 positivity do not change eligibility criteria for the use of trastuzumab, researchers reported at the CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Additionally, patients are just as likely to respond to trastuzumab if the original guidelines are used or if the new guidelines are applied retrospectively, according to the results of the oral poster presentation.

“What this tells us is, don't worry too much about the new guidelines,” said session moderator Jose Baselga, MD, Chairman of the Medical Oncology Service and Director of the Division of Medical Oncology, Hematology, and Radiation Oncology at Vall d'Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.

In 2007, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) recommended new guidelines to define HER2 overexpression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH).

Specifically, as chief investigator Edith A. Perez, MD, Director of the Breast Cancer Program and Professor of Medicine in the Division of Hematology/Oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, FL, explained, the new guidelines called for uniform intense membrane staining of more than 30% of invasive tumor cells on IHC, and a HER2-to-chromosome 17 centromere (CEP17) ratio of greater than 2.2 on FISH.

The original FDA-approved HER2-positivity criteria used for enrollment in the pivotal North Center Cancer Treatment Group N9831 trial conducted from 2000 to 2005 that helped lead to the approval of trastuzumab used uniform intense membrane staining of more than 10% of invasive tumor cells on IHC and a HER2-to-CEP1 ratio of 2 or more on FISH.

The purpose of the new study was to investigate the impact of the ASCO/CAP guidelines on patient eligibility and disease-free survival rates, compared with the originally used FDA-approved definitions.

Study Design

The analysis, she reported, included 2,904 patients enrolled in the N9831 Phase III adjuvant trastuzumab trial. IHC was centrally performed at the Mayo Clinic using the DAKO HercepTest and was re-analyzed to determine the percentage of tumor cells with 0, 1+, 2+, and 3+ staining intensities. Central FISH was performed at the Mayo Clinic using the Vysis kit.

The disease-free survival rates were compared between patients randomized to receive standard chemotherapy either with or without concurrent trastuzumab in the trial within the IHC/FISH subgroups using a Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by hormone receptor and nodal status.

The results showed that only 83 patients (3.7%) would have been classified as having HER2 overexpression on IHC using the more inclusive FDA-approved guidelines, compared with the ASCO/CAP guidelines.

Using FISH, only 1.4% of patients eligible under the FDA-approved definition would not meet the more restrictive ASCO/CAP guidelines for HER2 positivity, Dr. Perez reported.

Patients also benefited similarly regardless of which set of guidelines were used. When the new ASCO/CAP guidelines for HER2 positivity were applied to the data retrospectively, HER2-positive patients given concurrent trastuzumab plus chemotherapy were 41% less likely to suffer a recurrence, compared with those given trastuzumab alone.

Using the original FDA-approved guidelines, HER2-positive patients given trastuzumab were 40% less likely to have a recurrence than were those given chemotherapy alone.

Original Definition Works

Summing up the poster for the audience, Dr. Baselga said, “The question this study asked is whether the new guidelines change eligibility and disease-free survival for trastuzumab. The take-home message, is that the majority of them do stain [on IHC] at greater than 30%. Only a small number of patients do not meet the new definition. When you look at the two criteria on the graphs, the lines overlap.

“Importantly, the data suggest [that use of] adjuvant trastuzumab may be based on the original definition.”

In response to a question from the audience about the impact of the findings on HER2-normal patients, Dr. Baselga said that while the numbers are very small, patients who are negative on IHC and FISH still respond better when trastuzumab is given than when it is not—“but we need collaborative data, because by themselves, all the studies have too few [HER2-negative] patients.”

The study was funded by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Genentech, and the National Institutes of Health.