Petroleum pipeline monitoring using an internet of things (IoT) platform.

In this study, we present the use of an internet of things (IoT) analytics platform service to mimic real-time pipeline monitoring and determine the location of damage on a pipeline. Pressure pulses, based on the principle of vibration in pipes are used for pipeline monitoring in this study. The principle of time delay between pulse arrivals at sensor positions is also adopted in this study. An Arduino and a Wi-Fi module were combined, programmed and used to produce a wireless communication device which communicates with the ThingSpeak internet of things (IoT) analytics platform. A total of five channels were created on the platform to collect data from the five sensors that were used in the experimental test rig that made use of wireless communication device. Signal data was collected once every 15 s and all the channels were updated every 2 min. ThingSpeak provided instant visualizations of data posted by the wireless communication device. Online analysis and processing of the data was performed as it came in. A second test rig was built that made use of a data logger for processing of data. The measured velocity of pulse propagation using the data logger and air as transport fluid was 355 m/s. The computed estimates of event location for the 50 measurements taken ranged between 4.243 m and 4.246 m. This had a scatter of just 3 mm against the actual measured event location of 4.23 m. The experimental results obtained showed that the performance of the wireless communication device compared satisfactorily with the data logger and is capable of detecting the location of damage on real pipelines when used for real time monitoring. Using this communication device and an analytics platform, real-time monitoring of pipelines can be carried out from any location in the world on any internet-enabled device.

A definition for aggressive disease in patients with HER-2 negative metastatic breast cancer: an expert consensus of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM)

Purpose. To converge on an expert opinion to define aggressive disease in patients with HER2-negative mBC using a modified Delphi methodology. Methods. A panel of 21 breast cancer experts from the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology agreed upon a survey which comprised 47 questions that were grouped into three sections: relevance for defining aggressive disease, aggressive disease criteria and therapeutic goals. Answers were rated using a 9-point Likert scale of relevance or agreement. Results. Among the 88 oncologists that were invited to participate, 81 answered the first round (92%), 70 answered the second round (80%), and 67 answered the third round (76%) of the survey. There was strong agreement regarding the fact that identifying patients with aggressive disease needs to be adequately addressed to help practitioners to decide the best treatment options for patients with HER2-negative mBC. The factors that were considered to be strongly relevant to classifying patients with aggressive HER2-negative mBC were a high tumor burden, a disease-free interval of less than 12-24 months after surgery, the presence of progressive disease during adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy and having a triple-negative phenotype. The main therapeutic goals were controlling symptoms, improving quality of life and increasing the time to progression and overall survival. Conclusions. High tumor burden, time to recurrence after prior therapy and having a triple-negative phenotype were the prognostic factors for which the greatest consensus was found for identifying patients with aggressive HER2-negative mBC. Identifying patients with aggressive disease leads to different therapeutic approaches (AU)

No disponible

A definition for aggressive disease in patients with HER-2 negative metastatic breast cancer: an expert consensus of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM).

PURPOSE: To converge on an expert opinion to define aggressive disease in patients with HER2-negative mBC using a modified Delphi methodology. METHODS: A panel of 21 breast cancer experts from the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology agreed upon a survey which comprised 47 questions that were grouped into three sections: relevance for defining aggressive disease, aggressive disease criteria and therapeutic goals. Answers were rated using a 9-point Likert scale of relevance or agreement. RESULTS: Among the 88 oncologists that were invited to participate, 81 answered the first round (92%), 70 answered the second round (80%), and 67 answered the third round (76%) of the survey. There was strong agreement regarding the fact that identifying patients with aggressive disease needs to be adequately addressed to help practitioners to decide the best treatment options for patients with HER2-negative mBC. The factors that were considered to be strongly relevant to classifying patients with aggressive HER2-negative mBC were a high tumor burden, a disease-free interval of less than 12-24 months after surgery, the presence of progressive disease during adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy and having a triple-negative phenotype. The main therapeutic goals were controlling symptoms, improving quality of life and increasing the time to progression and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: High tumor burden, time to recurrence after prior therapy and having a triple-negative phenotype were the prognostic factors for which the greatest consensus was found for identifying patients with aggressive HER2-negative mBC. Identifying patients with aggressive disease leads to different therapeutic approaches.