TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you are given a passage which has a question and the context. You have to generate an answer to the question based on the information present in the context.
PROBLEM: Context: To find permanent prostate implant (PPI) pre-plan dosimetric parameters that predict post-implant D90 ≥ 140 Gy.', 'Pre-plans were evaluated for 504 patients undergoing PPI with (125)I seeds for low or intermediate risk prostate cancer. Baseline patient and disease factors, numbers of seeds, ratios of number of seeds to available positions (occupancy proportion), and distances between the 100% isodose line and edge of the prostate (margin) planned for the whole prostate (WP), superior (S), inferior (I), anterior (A), and posterior (P) halves, SA, SP, IA, and IP quarters, and superior (ST), inferior (IT), and middle (MT) thirds, and anterior (AT) and posterior (PT) middle one-sixth segments were analyzed by post-implant D90 subset (≥ 140 Gy vs. < 140 Gy).', '20% had post-implant D90 < 140 Gy (mean: 128.0 Gy, range: 97.5-139.2) vs. ≥ 140 Gy (mean: 154.4 Gy, range: 140.0-193.5). The D90 ≥ 140 Gy subset had larger AT and IA segment mean numbers of seeds (p = 0.01, 0.046), larger WP, S, A, SA, ST, AT, and MT segment mean margins (p = 0.01, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001, 0.03, 0.005, 0.02), and lower PT segment occupancy proportion (p = 0.004). On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of post-implant D90 ≥ 140 Gy were increased SA mean margin, no pre-implant 5-α-reductase inhibitor, higher pre-plan D90, decreased P occupancy proportion, no pre-implant hormone therapy, and decreased SP mean margin.\Question: Do pre-plan parameters predict post-implant D90 ≥ 140 Gy for ( 125 ) I permanent prostate implants?

SOLUTION: Higher occupancy proportion and larger margins anteriorly and reduced occupancy proportion, and smaller margins posteriorly on PPI pre-plans predict post-implant D90 ≥ 140 Gy.

PROBLEM: Context: Trauma centers are currently benchmarked on mortality outcomes alone. However, pay-for-performance measures may financially penalize centers based on complications. Our objective was to determine whether the results would be similar to the current standard method of mortality-based benchmarking if trauma centers were profiled on complications.', 'We analyzed data from the National Trauma Data Bank from 2007 to 2010. Patients 16 years or older with blunt or penetrating injuries and an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 9 or higher were included. Risk-adjusted observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality ratios for each center were generated and used to rank each facility as high, average, or low performing. We similarly ranked facilities on O/E morbidity ratios defined as occurrence of any major complication. Concordance between hospital performance rankings was evaluated using a weighted κ statistic. Correlation between morbidity- and mortality-based O/E ratios was assessed using Pearson coefficients. Sensitivity analyses were performed to mitigate the competing risk of death for the morbidity analyses.', 'A total of 449,743 patients from 248 facilities were analyzed. The unadjusted morbidity and mortality rates were 10.0% and 6.9%, respectively. No correlation was found between morbidity- and mortality-based O/E ratios (r = -0.01). Only 40% of the centers had similar performance rankings for both mortality and morbidity. Of the 31 high performers for mortality, only 11 centers were also high performers for morbidity. A total of 78 centers were ranked as average, and 11 ranked as low performers on both outcomes. Comparison of hospital performance status using mortality and morbidity outcomes demonstrated poor concordance (weighted κ = 0.03, p = 0.22).\Question: Does benchmarking trauma centers on mortality alone reflect quality of care : implications for pay-for-performance?

SOLUTION: Mortality-based external benchmarking does not identify centers with high complication rates. This creates a dichotomy between current trauma center profiling standards and measures used for pay-for-performance. A benchmarking mechanism that reflects all measures of quality is needed.

PROBLEM: Context: CXCL12 and CXCR4 signaling plays critical roles in development, homeostasis, and tumor metastasis. Previously, we have shown that epigenetic silencing of CXCL12 in colorectal and mammary carcinomas promotes metastasis. Anoikis is an essential process of colonic epithelial turnover and limits the metastatic progression of carcinoma. We sought to determine the role for anoikis in limiting tumor metastasis following reexpression of CXCL12 in human colorectal carcinoma cells.', 'Tumor formation and metastasis of colonic carcinoma cells was monitored using in vivo bioluminescence imaging. Anoikis was defined by using caspase-3/7, focal adhesion kinase (FAK) and p130Cas cleavage, DNA fragmentation, and cell survival assays. Phosphorylation of extracellular-regulated kinase-1/2 (ERK1/2) was monitored by immunoblot and immunohistochemistry, and activity was inhibited by using U0126.', 'Constitutive expression of CXCL12 in human colorectal carcinoma cells reduced orthotopic tumor formation and inhibited metastasis in severe combined immunodeficient mice. Further, CXCL12 expression induced apoptosis specifically in nonadherent colorectal carcinoma cells. Apoptotic cell death was preceded by hypophosphorylation and cleavage of FAK and p130Cas, leading to increased cellular detachment in culture, and depended on alterations in the extracellular matrix. Similar to in vivo colonic epithelium, CXCL12-induced anoikis of carcinoma cells depended on basal ERK1/2 activation.\Question: Does constitutive CXCL12 expression induce anoikis in colorectal carcinoma cells?

SOLUTION:
These data significantly expand the current paradigm of chemokine signaling in carcinogenesis by showing that endogenous CXCL12, in marked contrast to exogenous ligand, inhibits tumor metastasis through increased anoikis. Altered ERK1/2 signaling provides a mechanism for the dichotomy between the physiologic and pathophysiologic roles of CXCL12-CXCR4 signaling in the intestinal epithelium.