Yonsei University

About: Yonsei University is a education organization based out in Seoul, South Korea. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Cancer. The organization has 50162 authors who have published 106172 publications receiving 2279044 citations. The organization is also known as: Yonsei.

Deep Video Super-Resolution Network Using Dynamic Upsampling Filters Without Explicit Motion Compensation

Abstract: Video super-resolution (VSR) has become even more important recently to provide high resolution (HR) contents for ultra high definition displays. While many deep learning based VSR methods have been proposed, most of them rely heavily on the accuracy of motion estimation and compensation. We introduce a fundamentally different framework for VSR in this paper. We propose a novel end-to-end deep neural network that generates dynamic upsampling filters and a residual image, which are computed depending on the local spatio-temporal neighborhood of each pixel to avoid explicit motion compensation. With our approach, an HR image is reconstructed directly from the input image using the dynamic upsampling filters, and the fine details are added through the computed residual. Our network with the help of a new data augmentation technique can generate much sharper HR videos with temporal consistency, compared with the previous methods. We also provide analysis of our network through extensive experiments to show how the network deals with motions implicitly.

The Effect of Abemaciclib Plus Fulvestrant on Overall Survival in Hormone Receptor-Positive, ERBB2-Negative Breast Cancer That Progressed on Endocrine Therapy-MONARCH 2: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract: Importance Statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefits of CDK4 and CDK6 inhibitors in combination with fulvestrant for hormone receptor (HR)–positive, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) in patients regardless of menopausal status after prior endocrine therapy (ET) has not yet been demonstrated. Objective To compare the effect of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant on OS at the prespecified interim of MONARCH 2 (338 events) in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative advanced breast cancer that progressed during prior ET. Design, Setting, and Participants MONARCH 2 was a global, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for treatment of premenopausal or perimenopausal women (with ovarian suppression) and postmenopausal women with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative ABC that progressed during ET. Patients were enrolled between August 7, 2014, and December 29, 2015. Analyses for this report were conducted at the time of database lock on June 20, 2019. Interventions Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive abemaciclib or placebo, 150 mg, every 12 hours on a continuous schedule plus fulvestrant, 500 mg, per label. Randomization was stratified based on site of metastasis (visceral, bone only, or other) and resistance to prior ET (primary vs secondary). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Overall survival was a gated key secondary end point. The boundaryPvalue for the interim analysis was .02. Results Of 669 women enrolled, 446 (median [range] age, 59 [32-91] years) were randomized to the abemaciclib plus fulvestrant arm and 223 (median [range] age, 62 [32-87] years) were randomized to the placebo plus fulvestrant arm. At the prespecified interim, 338 deaths (77% of the planned 441 at the final analysis) were observed in the intent-to-treat population, with a median OS of 46.7 months for abemaciclib plus fulvestrant and 37.3 months for placebo plus fulvestrant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.757; 95% CI, 0.606-0.945;P = .01). Improvement in OS was consistent across all stratification factors. Among stratification factors, more pronounced effects were observed in patients with visceral disease (HR, 0.675; 95% CI, 0.511-0.891) and primary resistance to prior ET (HR, 0.686; 95% CI, 0.451-1.043). Time to second disease progression (median, 23.1 months vs 20.6 months), time to chemotherapy (median, 50.2 months vs 22.1 months), and chemotherapy-free survival (median, 25.5 months vs 18.2 months) were also statistically significantly improved in the abemaciclib arm vs placebo arm. No new safety signals were observed for abemaciclib. Conclusions and Relevance Treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful median OS improvement of 9.4 months for patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative ABC who progressed after prior ET regardless of menopausal status. Abemaciclib substantially delayed the receipt of subsequent chemotherapy. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT02107703

Efficacy and Safety of Pembrolizumab or Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy vs Chemotherapy Alone for Patients With First-line, Advanced Gastric Cancer: The KEYNOTE-062 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Abstract: Importance Safe and effective therapies for untreated, advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer remain an unmet need. Objective To evaluate the antitumor activity of pembrolizumab, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone in patients with untreated, advanced G/GEJ cancer with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) of 1 or greater. Design, Setting, and Participants The phase 3 KEYNOTE-062 randomized, controlled, partially blinded interventional trial enrolled 763 patients with untreated, locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic G/GEJ cancer with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater from 200 centers in 29 countries between September 18, 2015, and May 26, 2017. Interventions Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (cisplatin 80 mg/m2/d on day 1 plus fluorouracil 800 mg/m2/d on days 1 to 5 or capecitabine 1000 mg/m2twice daily), or chemotherapy plus placebo, every 3 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater or 10 or greater. Results A total of 763 patients were randomized to pembrolizumab (n = 256), pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (n = 257), or chemotherapy (n = 250). The median (range) age of all patients in the study cohort was 62 (20-87) years; 554 of 763 (72.6%) were men. At final analysis, after a median (range) follow-up of 29.4 (22.0-41.3) months, pembrolizumab was noninferior to chemotherapy for OS in patients with CPS of 1 or greater (median, 10.6 vs 11.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 99.2% CI, 0.69-1.18). Pembrolizumab monotherapy was not superior to chemotherapy in patients with CPS of 1 or greater. Pembrolizumab prolonged OS vs chemotherapy in patients with CPS of 10 or greater (median, 17.4 vs 10.8 months; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.97), but this difference was not statistically tested. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was not superior to chemotherapy for OS in patients with CPS of 1 or greater (12.5 vs 11.1 months; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70-1.03;P = .05) or CPS of 10 or greater (12.3 vs 10.8 months; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.62-1.17;P = .16) or for PFS in patients with CPS of 1 or greater (6.9 vs 6.4 months; HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02;P = .04). Grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse event rates for pembrolizumab, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and chemotherapy were 17%, 73%, and 69%, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance This phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that among patients with untreated, advanced G/GEJ cancer, pembrolizumab was noninferior to chemotherapy, with fewer adverse events observed. Pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was not superior to chemotherapy for the OS and PFS end points tested. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02494583

A meta-analysis of web-delivered tailored health behavior change interventions

Abstract: Web-based tailored intervention programs show considerable promise in effecting health-promoting behaviors and improving health outcomes across a variety of medical conditions and patient populations. This meta-analysis compares the effects of tailored versus nontailored web-based interventions on health behaviors and explores the influence of key moderators on treatment outcomes. Forty experimental and quasi-experimental studies (N =20,180) met criteria for inclusion and were analyzed using meta-analytic procedures. The findings indicated that web-based tailored interventions effected significantly greater improvement in health outcomes as compared with control conditions both at posttesting, d =.139 (95% CI = .111, .166, p <.001, k =40) and at follow-up, d =.158 (95% CI = .124, .192, p <.001, k =21). The authors found no evidence of publication bias. These results provided further support for the differential benefits of tailored web-based interventions over nontailored approaches. Analysis of participa...