Given a passage with a context and an answer, construct a question on the basis of the information present in the passage. Construct the question in such a way that (i) it is unambiguous, (ii) it is answerable from the passage, (iii) its answer is unique (iv) it answer uses text phrases from the passage. Avoid creating questions that (i) can't be answered correctly without actually understanding the passage and (ii) uses the same words or phrases given in the passage.

Q: Context: Objective analysis of surgical skill is necessary. A novel method of assessment using simple error analysis in synthetic models is examined for construct validity.', 'Two examination protocols were devised using synthetic models. These contained either a purpose made error or were representative of good surgical practice. Protocol one contained models of skin closure and minor operations. Protocol two in addition more complex procedures. Face validity was established by the approval of senior surgeons. Junior surgeons were recruited to undertake the assessment. A p value of less than 0.05 was deemed to be significant.', 'Eighty-nine surgeons were recruited. Both protocol one and two were able to discriminate between groups at statistically significant levels.
Answer: Construct validity has been established by showing that error analysis is able to distinguish surgeons with varying levels of experience.

A: Is the surgical error examination a novel method for objective technical knowledge assessment?
****
Q: Context: Alefacept, human LFA-3/IgG1 fusion protein, is a novel biological agent currently being developed for the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis. Alefacept selectively reduces the memory-effector T cells that have been implicated in the pathogenesis of the disease; as a result, alefacept is classified as a therapy that induces remission (so-called 'remittive' therapy). In a previously published randomized, placebo-controlled phase II study of intravenous alefacept in 229 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis, clinical improvement was observed during dosing as well as in the postdosing follow-up period.", 'To assess the remission period following alefacept therapy.', "The time before re-treatment was required was measured in patients who were 'clear' or 'almost clear' of disease according to a physician global assessment at the end of the follow-up phase.", 'In these patients, responses were sustained for a median of 10 months, and for up to 18 months. No patient reported disease rebound after cessation of alefacept.
Answer: Alefacept is a biological agent for the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis that provides disease-free intervals and time off drug therapy.

A: Does alefacept therapy produce remission for patients with chronic plaque psoriasis?
****
Q: Context: The International Atomic Energy Agency sponsored a large, multinational, prospective study to further define PET for risk stratification of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and to test the hypothesis that international biological diversity or diversity of healthcare systems may influence the kinetics of treatment response as assessed by interim PET (I-PET).', 'Cancer centers in Brazil, Chile, Hungary, India, Italy, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand followed a common protocol based on treatment with R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, hydroxyadriamycin, vincristine, prednisolone with rituximab), with I-PET after 2-3 cycles of chemotherapy and at the end of chemotherapy scored visually.', 'Two-year survivals for all 327 patients (median follow-up, 35 mo) were 79% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74%-83%) for event-free survival (EFS) and 86% (95% CI, 81%-89%) for overall survival (OS). Two hundred ten patients (64%) were I-PET-negative, and 117 (36%) were I-PET-positive. Two-year EFS was 90% (95% CI, 85%-93%) for I-PET-negative and 58% (95% CI, 48%-66%) for I-PET-positive, with a hazard ratio of 5.31 (95% CI, 3.29-8.56). Two-year OS was 93% (95% CI, 88%-96%) for I-PET-negative and 72% (95% CI, 63%-80%) for I-PET-positive, with a hazard ratio of 3.86 (95% CI, 2.12-7.03). On sequential monitoring, 192 of 312 (62%) patients had complete response at both I-PET and end-of-chemotherapy PET, with an EFS of 97% (95% CI, 92%-98%); 110 of these with favorable clinical indicators had an EFS of 98% (95% CI, 92%-100%). In contrast, the 107 I-PET-positive cases segregated into 2 groups: 58 (54%) achieved PET-negative complete remission at the end of chemotherapy (EFS, 86%; 95% CI, 73%-93%); 46% remained PET-positive (EFS, 35%; 95% CI, 22%-48%). Heterogeneity analysis found no significant difference between countries for outcomes stratified by I-PET.
Answer: This large international cohort delivers 3 novel findings: treatment response assessed by I-PET is comparable across disparate healthcare systems, secondly a negative I-PET findings together with good clinical status identifies a group with an EFS of 98%, and thirdly a single I-PET scan does not differentiate chemoresistant lymphoma from complete response and cannot be used to guide risk-adapted therapy.

A:
Does prospective international cohort study demonstrate inability of interim PET to predict treatment failure in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma?
****