text:
FSHOF Enshrines 10 New Members
A sold out Amway Center in Orlando was the scene as the Florida Sports Hall of Fame (FSHOF) enshrined 10 new members to its ranks on Nov. 12, including Pat Williams—the man widely credited with bringing major league sports to Orlando.
"Without question, the Amway Center was the most fitting place to welcome this class that included both Pat Williams and former Magic player Nick Anderson," outgoing FSHOF President Barry Smith said. "Without Pat Williams there would be no Amway Center, there would be no Orlando Magic and in all reality there would be no professional sports in Orlando."
Williams, who spearheaded the effort in 1989 to convince the NBA that Orlando was indeed a viable expansion city, would then spend the next 30 years serving the organization in various roles — including General Manager and Vice President. He was voted one of the 50 most influential people in NBA history.
Anderson was the first draft pick in Orlando Magic history and fittingly was the first inductee of the night. He told the crowd of 800 that he was deeply honored and humbled by the honor. He also thanked Williams and other Magic officials for making Orlando his home.
The Hall then honored David Little, posthumously inducting the former Florida Gator All-American and Pittsburgh Steeler linebacker. His son, David Little Jr., accepted the honor. "My father was the backbone of our family," he said. "He guided us, protected us, and taught us."
Former Florida Citrus Sports Executive Director Chuck Rohe was inducted for his 20-plus years of service to that organization, where he elevated a relatively minor bowl game to a highly coveted post-season destination, earning the moniker "Best Bowl Trip in America."
Under Rohe, Florida Citrus Sports championed stadium expansion, brought NFL preseason and "big-time" neutral site games to Orlando, created a "Big 10- SEC" tie-in to the bowl game, and founded the Florida Citrus Sports Foundation, which benefits the disadvantaged and under-served youth of Central Florida.
Rohe thanked his staff for making the accomplishments possible and noted his famous office motto of "If better is possible, then good is never good enough."
Former Tampa Bay Rowdies and UCF (then Florida Technological University) soccer star Winston DuBose recalled that he jokingly asked Smith "If he had the right number" when he was notified of his selection.
Winston said he was proud to be considered one of the early pioneers of lifting the popularity of American professional soccer when recalling his days with the Rowdies and the United States National Soccer Team.
LPGA legend and Lake Nona resident Annika Sorenstam used her induction time to speak on the importance of sports in society and how it teaches "how to handle failure."
She noted how that as a shy young player she would sometimes miss putts and lose on purpose because she wanted to avoid the attention winners received, but would later learn the importance of always doing one's best.
She added that she was able to accomplish everything she ever wanted to do in professional golf as a player and that led to her retirement at a relatively young age. "I wanted to start a family and I wanted to work on my foundation to help young players around the world," Sorenstam said.
One of only 47 NCAA baseball coaches to win 1000 games, Stetson's Pete Dunn entered the FSHOF, where he joined college baseball coaching legends Ron Fraser and Mike Martin.
Dunn said he was honored to join "two of the greatest coaches in college baseball history." He also spoke of how proud he was that Stetson has produced "Cy Young winners and all-stars like Corey Kluber and Jacob deGrom."
Former Florida Southern College Volleyball coach Lois Webb won more than 700 games in her storied career but also coached basketball and golf and later served as that school's athletic director.
She noted that former Athletic Director Hal Smeltzy, another member of the FSHOF, was hugely interested in increasing athletic opportunities for women but the school lacked financial resources. "When Hal asked me to also coach basketball and later golf in addition to volleyball, it was a daunting task but I felt that If I didn't do it, who would?" Webb said.
Heisman trophy winner Chris Weinke told the crowd of his decision to turn down a scholarship at Florida State in order to sign a professional baseball contract. "I'm not stupid. I looked around and saw a team with Casey Weldon, Brad Johnson, Charlie Ward and Kenny Felder on it and didn't see a lot of playing time at quarterback, but when I signed, Coach Bowden promised to hold a scholarship open for me and I was so thankful he did. It was the best thing that ever happened to me."
Weinke would enroll at FSU as a 26-year-old freshman, would become a three-year starter, lead FSU to a national championship as a junior and win the Heisman as a senior.
Two-time World Series Champion and Altamonte Springs native Jason Varitek accepted his induction by insisting that his Little League coach Jay Williams and his college coach Jim Morris join him on the stage, thanking both for their helping him "to never accept mediocrity."
Varitek added that he considered Florida to be his home and "this Award is about being a Floridian"
Prior to the enshrinement, the Hall honored Central Florida youth coach Joe Russell as the organization's eighth recipient of the "Hewell Family Fame for Fitness Award for his four decades of service to youth sports and also posthumously presented Bert Lacey with its inaugural Founder's Award.
Next year's class will be announced next summer and the enshrinement ceremony and ancillary events will be held in south Florida.
Categories: Events, News. Save This Post.
Member Enshrinement Videos


Mentors is a turn-based strategic RPG set in a medieval fantasy world ruled by magic and swords. Players can control a group of adventurers, with which they will have to try to restore balance in the world.
The Mentors combat system is very simple. Each of our characters can move a certain number of squares and make an attack. Our warrior can attack in close combat, while both the archer and the sorceress can only attack from a distance. Once we have finished the attacks, it will be the turn of the enemy.
Between battle and battle, which have an average duration of about five minutes, we can visit villages, move freely around the map, accept new missions, and so on. We will also be able to equip our heroes with new weapons and armor, and of course improve their attributes and abilities.
Mentors is a great SRPG, which offers an extensive and fun single player story mode, and has a good graphic section. A solid title that will test our strategic skills.
More from Us: Toy Box: puzzles all in one For PC (Windows & MAC).
Here we will show you today How can you Download and Install Role Playing Game Mentors: Turn Based RPG Strategy on PC running any OS including Windows and MAC variants, however, if you are interested in other apps, visit our site about Android Apps on PC and locate your favorite ones, without further ado, let us continue.
Now search for "Mentors: Turn Based RPG Strategy" using the Play Store.
Click Mentors: Turn Based RPG Strategy icon to open it, follow the on-screen instructions to play it.
You can also download Mentors: Turn Based RPG Strategy APK and installs via APK in the BlueStacks Android emulator.
You can also use Andy OS to install Mentors: Turn Based RPG Strategy for PC.
That's All for the guide on Mentors: Turn Based RPG Strategy For PC (Windows & MAC), follow our Blog on social media for more Creative and juicy Apps and Games. For Android and iOS please follow the links below to Download the Apps on respective OS.
You may also be interested in: WWE For PC (Windows & MAC).


Traditional Russian tea caravans began to die out in the 1880's, after work on the Trans-Siberian Railway had begun and the first leg was complete. The Trans-Siberian Railway was a great asset to the ongoing tea trade between Russia and China, in which merchants would have to suffer through long treks that could take up to a year and a half. This reduced the overall importation time to under a fortnight in length, making it the prime method of transport.
Russian tea caravans were made completely defunct by the railway by 1925, and during Chinese tea's decline in the 1900's, alternate sources were sought out, including those from London and Odessa.
Much like in the British Isles, Russia gained a taste for drinking its tea with milk and sugar. A trend in the 1900's was to hold a cube of sugar between one's teeth and to drink the tea through it. Lemon is also commonly served with tea.
Despite centuries of traditionally using only black tea, recent statistics in Russia are showing an increase in the consumption of green tea, whilst black tea consumption remains stable.
With the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympic Games under way, there is much to be said about Russia. Many don't realise, however, that Russia has a long history of drinking tea – even longer than Britain, believe it or not – and the country itself still greatly appreciates a good cup of tea to this very day.
A good 100 years before Britain got its first taste of steeped heaven, Russia was importing tea from China. The rest of Europe would have to wait as Russia developed a bustling and thriving culture of serving tea.
During the 19th century, tea had become so strongly associated with the people of Russia that despite the fact tea was produced in China, certain types of black tea were known as "Russian" teas anyway. Russian Caravan is a traditional black tea and is known for its smoky character. It received its name due to its method of importation; generally via caravans led by camels. Black tea is still the most popular tea in Russia, however many residents are now drinking green tea as well.
Perhaps the biggest reason for Russia's rich culture in tea is its climate; cold days high up in the Northern Hemisphere chill to the bone, but tea is one of the best and tastiest ways to warm up from the inside. Tea has had a profound affect on the Russian way of life since it was introduced in 1638; the Chinese Emperor from West Mongolia first presented the Russian Czar with tea as a gift, however it was refused. The Czar saw no apparent use for "a load of dead leaves", however eventually accepted upon the Emperor's insistence. And thus Russia's tea culture began.
Getting to Russia from China, however, was no simple matter. It was a difficult slog from start to finish, and the harsh conditions importers faced meant that many turned down the offer despite demand. Russian aristocrats were therefore the first to serve the drink and make it acceptable within Russian culture, as its limited supply resulted in skyrocketing prices that few could afford.
When Russia marked sovereignty over Siberia in 1689, however, a tea trade route was created which made it easier for traders. Catherine the Great was the real pioneer in tea importation, however; by the time she had died in 1796, she had ordered the importation of so much tea that class and expense was no longer an issue. Even low-class workers could afford and enjoy the serenity that came with a good cup of loose-leaf tea.
We hope you've enjoyed this post on tea in Russia! Throughout the Olympic Games we will be creating a number of other Russia-themed posts, including more Russian tea history and all about the samovar.


Initial pressings come with a slipcover and a Movies Anywhere digital copy. All extras in HD.
Also available in a Best Buy exclusive steelbook.
Initial pressings come with an embossed, spot-gloss enhanced slipcover. All extras in HD.
Also available in a Zavvi exclusive steelbook.
Blu-ray ALL America- Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment - No cuts as such. 2011 Re-release Version, however the clouds in one scene have been restored (88:23).
Blu-ray ALL United Kingdom- Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment - No cuts as such. 2011 Re-release Version, however the clouds in one scene have been restored (88:23).


Professional licensing boards/agencies in Texas review each complaint they receive, determine whether they have jurisdiction, and examine any evidence that may support allegations that a licensed professional violated the board's/agency's rules or relevant law. Almost every board/agency will also give you the opportunity to provide a written response to the complaint.
When facing disciplinary action by a licensing board/agency, your career and livelihood can be put on the chopping block. As such, it is important to know your rights during an investigation. Contact an experienced professional license defense attorney today and find out how we can help you.
What is an Agreed Order?
Once an Agreed Order is executed, your licensing board present it to the proper Committee or the entire Board/Agency for consideration. Once approved, the Agreed Order becomes final and you are bound by its terms.
Should I Sign an Agreed Order?
It is crucial to understand the consequences of signing an Agreed Order. Doing so will remain on your professional license record and could have a profound impact on your career.
If you are a licensed professional under investigation by a licensing board, you should never sign an Agreed Order without first consulting with an experienced professional license defense attorney. Once an Agreed Order is signed, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to undo.
If you decide not to sign an agreed order, your case may be brought before the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), where you will have the opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
An attorney at Bertolino LLP can examine the facts surrounding your case. Our firm represents licensed professionals across the entire State of Texas. If you are facing disciplinary action from a licensing board, contact us today to schedule a case evaluation, or simply call 512-717-5432.


text:
/*
 * To change this license header, choose License Headers in Project Properties.
 * To change this template file, choose Tools | Templates
 * and open the template in the editor.
 */
package com.farincorporated.frameutils.client.rendering;

import com.farincorporated.frameutils.FramezAddon;
import com.farincorporated.frameutils.tile.TileFrameTranslater;
import java.awt.Color;
import net.minecraft.client.renderer.RenderGlobal;
import net.minecraft.item.ItemStack;
import net.minecraft.tileentity.TileEntity;
import net.minecraft.util.ResourceLocation;
import net.minecraftforge.client.IItemRenderer;
import net.minecraftforge.client.model.AdvancedModelLoader;
import net.minecraftforge.client.model.obj.WavefrontObject;
import org.lwjgl.opengl.GL11;

/**
 *
 * @author coolestbean
 */
public class FrameTranslaterRenderer extends FramezTileEntityRenderer implements IItemRenderer{

    ResourceLocation fieldtexture;
    ResourceLocation objModelLocation;
    WavefrontObject modelpiston;
    double scale;

    public FrameTranslaterRenderer() {
        fieldtexture = new ResourceLocation(FramezAddon.MODID, "textures/blocks/fieldtexture.png");
        objModelLocation = new ResourceLocation(FramezAddon.MODID, "models/framefield.obj");
        this.modelpiston = (WavefrontObject) AdvancedModelLoader.loadModel(objModelLocation);
        this.scale = 0.5;
    }

    protected double[] directionRotate(int meta){
        switch(meta){
            //Down
            case 0: return new double[] {180, 1, 0, 0};
            //North
            case 2: return new double[] {-90, 1, 0, 0};
            //South
            case 3: return new double[] {90, 1, 0, 0};
            //West
            case 4: return new double[] {90, 0, 0, 1};
            //East
            case 5: return new double[] {-90, 0, 0, 1};
            default: return new double[] {0,0,0,0};
        }
    }

    private void renderTranslater(ResourceLocation framemap){
        GL11.glPushMatrix();
        this.bindTexture(framemap);
        modelpiston.renderPart("innerframe");
        GL11.glPopMatrix();

        GL11.glPushMatrix();
        this.bindTexture(this.fieldtexture);
        modelpiston.renderPart("top");
        GL11.glPopMatrix();

        GL11.glPushMatrix();
        this.bindTexture(framemap);
        modelpiston.renderPart("outterframe");
        GL11.glPopMatrix();

        GL11.glPushMatrix();
        this.bindTexture(this.fieldtexture);
        modelpiston.renderPart("machine");
        GL11.glPopMatrix();
    }

    @Override
    public void renderTileEntityAt(TileEntity ti, double x, double y, double z, float timesincelasttick) {
        TileFrameTranslater tile = (TileFrameTranslater) ti;
        ResourceLocation framemap = super.getFrame(tile.getMaterialType());
        GL11.glDisable(GL11.GL_CULL_FACE);
        GL11.glColor3d(1.0, 1.0, 1.0);
        GL11.glPushMatrix();
        GL11.glTranslated(x + 0.5, y + 0.5, z + 0.5);
        GL11.glScaled(scale, scale, scale);
        double[] dir = this.directionRotate(tile.getFace());
        GL11.glRotated(dir[0], dir[1], dir[2], dir[3]);
        this.renderTranslater(framemap);
        GL11.glPopMatrix();
    }

    @Override
    public boolean handleRenderType(ItemStack item, ItemRenderType type) {
        return true;
    }

    @Override
    public boolean shouldUseRenderHelper(ItemRenderType type, ItemStack item, ItemRendererHelper helper) {
        return true;
    }

    @Override
    public void renderItem(ItemRenderType type, ItemStack item, Object... data) {
        GL11.glDisable(GL11.GL_CULL_FACE);
        GL11.glPushMatrix();
        GL11.glScaled(scale, scale, scale);
        this.renderTranslater(super.getFrame(item.hasTagCompound() ? item.getTagCompound().getString("frame_material") : "wood"));
        GL11.glPopMatrix();
    }

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Q: Let's justify the usefulness of the "very low quality" flag on answers I am evaluating the usefulness of the "very low quality" post flag.
from here I am assuming that

*

*It's not a flag to use to indicate the technical correctness of the answer.

*It's not a flag to use when an answer is not a real answer.

*It's not a flag to use when it's a link-only answer.

*It's not a flag to use when it's a spam.

*It confuses lots of new users who use it to indicate the correctness of the answer - which gives our busy moderators more work ( as those flags are rejected ).
It seems like the only reasons to use VLQ flag is when

*

*the answer is not understandable at all ( may be in a different language, or very very poor English )

*it's impossible to improve it through editing ( ie. answer makes no sense at all and guessing what the author meant to say would possibly introduce a radical change )

*as Jeff explains
Now, have I missed any important reason for having the VLQ flag on answers?
In my opinion, this reason for flagging is redundant because most of the time we can use either spam, not an answer, or custom flag.
I am not proposing a removal of it but rather like to hear your justification.
In case we decide the VLQ is redundant we can post a feature request asking to remove/replace it with another type of flag.
Please do not tag status-by-design as I am aware of that. My only intentions are to discuss this matter.

A: I have a love-hate relationship with that flag, mostly hate. I rejoiced when Waffles got rid of it, and cried a bit inside when Jeff returned from vacation just to put it back. It is the single most ambiguous, broadly misused and pejoratively applied to indicate I don't like this because Tuesday flag that we have.
On the other hand, it does unearth some very smelly stuff that wasn't caught by any other flag, sometimes escaping down votes entirely. On answers, it's often used to point out things that should probably be marked as not an answer instead, but also:

dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

and

testtesttesttesttesttesttest

and

The answer to this is pretty easy you jus

sometimes

u do dis easy bro. u opnz de file menu, den prpties den dere.

There's also the occasional dump of unformatted code without explanation, rant that tangentially addresses the question (or, at least mentions it) and other things.
I'm not opposed to renaming it, if someone can think of a better, less ambiguous and broad name to call it. We don't necessarily need very low quality for answers, but we need something like it, perhaps more reasonably scoped by definition.
When we say use it to indicate that you found toxic waste, we need to be able to better define toxic waste in the context of written language. That's .. always been a subjective call. What I can say is, the flag wasn't properly used unless the moderator that serviced it either removed the post on sight, or made a Herculean edit to salvage it.
Then I think of changing it to "Should be deleted, unsalvageable" because that's essentially what it means, but I cringe at the ramifications of doing that. Would be an interesting test to change it to that for half the people flagging, just to see what happens.

A: For me, as mod on some smaller sites, it helps raise visibility of some posts which need work. These may not be handled otherwise, so it gives me a heads up.
Often they are from new users, so I can also give them a welcome and explain the ground rules (as none of then read the FAQ before posting)

A: One of the reasons we're so strict about VLQ is that it's being used for Audits.
It's still useful to keep around for answers, but it has a very high threshold (as you point out) it has to meet to being marked 'helpful' by a moderator.
Should it be this way?  Yes and no.  We need a way to alert moderators to things that should just be deleted because they are unsalvagable.  However, saying "Very Low Quality" seems to elicit confusion.
Perhaps changing "Very Low Quality" to:

Unsalvageable
This answer has severe formatting or content issues that can't be fixed by editing. It should be deleted.

A: I think the biggest general-use case is for certain link-only answers that answer the question (as such are not "Not An Answer"), but aren't spam.
If VLQ didn't exist, you would have to use a custom mod flag, which would increase the workload for already overloaded mods.
Your assumption that it's not a flag to use when it's a link-only answer is incorrect.  In fact, Shog suggested using it in the past for link-only answers.

A: I had an example just the other day of a user who posted all of their code in the question and answer as an image because they said they were having issues with the code formatting. For the question, I was able to clearly see the code and retype it but the answer was long enough that the image became squished making it unreadable.
In this case, the user did answer his own question (so not NAA) and it wasn't spam or needed specific mod attention so VLQ made the most sense. So even though a mod was the one to respond to the user it at least gave someone other than a mod a chance to address the answer instead of leaving it only mods.
Having said all of this, this might have been my first time every using this flag. But based on the description it probably shouldn't be used frequently anyway because we are usually able to edit answers into a better shape. So just because it doesn't get used all that often doesn't mean it doesn't have its use.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


The football club were thrown into the mix by a fan who criticised Man Utd's partnership with Stonewall.
Bolton Wanderers have posted the perfect response to a homophobic football fan on Twitter.
The club found themselves at the centre of a dispute, when they were name dropped by someone criticising Man United's partnership with LGBT equality organisation, Stonewall.
When the disgruntled fan in question said he'd "rather support a Bolton Wanderers than a club that endorses immorality," Bolton came back with a classic response.
Their banter and support for the LGBT community wasn't lost on Twitter either, with people rushing to support them.


text:
C00-D49 Neoplasms
C51-C58 Malignant neoplasms of female genital organs
C53- Malignant neoplasm of cervix uteri
2022 ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code C53.9
Malignant neoplasm of cervix uteri, unspecified
C53.9 is a billable/specific ICD-10-CM code that can be used to indicate a diagnosis for reimbursement purposes.
The 2022 edition of ICD-10-CM C53.9 became effective on October 1, 2021.
This is the American ICD-10-CM version of C53.9 - other international versions of ICD-10 C53.9 may differ.
The following code(s) above C53.9 contain annotation back-references
that may be applicable to C53.9:
C00-D49
2022 ICD-10-CM Range C00-D49
Functional activity
All neoplasms are classified in this chapter, whether they are functionally active or not. An additional code from Chapter 4 may be used, to identify functional activity associated with any neoplasm.
Morphology [Histology]
Chapter 2 classifies neoplasms primarily by site (topography), with broad groupings for behavior, malignant, in situ, benign, etc. The Table of Neoplasms should be used to identify the correct topography code. In a few cases, such as for malignant melanoma and certain neuroendocrine tumors, the morphology (histologic type) is included in the category and codes.
Primary malignant neoplasms overlapping site boundaries
A primary malignant neoplasm that overlaps two or more contiguous (next to each other) sites should be classified to the subcategory/code .8 ('overlapping lesion'), unless the combination is specifically indexed elsewhere. For multiple neoplasms of the same site that are not contiguous, such as tumors in different quadrants of the same breast, codes for each site should be assigned.
Malignant neoplasm of ectopic tissue
Malignant neoplasms of ectopic tissue are to be coded to the site mentioned, e.g., ectopic pancreatic malignant neoplasms are coded to pancreas, unspecified (C25.9).
C51-C58
2022 ICD-10-CM Range C51-C58
Malignant neoplasms of female genital organs
malignant neoplasm of skin of female genital organs
ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code C53
Malignant neoplasm of cervix uteri
carcinoma in situ of cervix uteri (D06.-)
Adenocarcinoma of cervix
Cancer of the uterine cervix
Cancer of the uterine cervix, adenocarcinoma
Cancer of the uterine cervix, invasive
Cancer of the uterine cervix, squamous cell
Carcinoma of uterine cervix, invasive
Malignant tumor of cervix
Primary adenocarcinoma of uterine cervix
Primary malignant neoplasm of uterine cervix
Squamous cell carcinoma of cervix
Primary or metastatic malignant neoplasm involving the cervix.
The cervix is the lower part of the uterus, the place where a baby grows during pregnancy. Cervical cancer is caused by a virus called hpv. The virus spreads through sexual contact. Most women's bodies are able to fight hpv infection. But sometimes the virus leads to cancer. You're at higher risk if you smoke, have many children, use birth control pills for a long time, or have hiv infection. Cervical cancer may not cause any symptoms at first. Later, you may have pelvic pain or bleeding from the vagina. It usually takes several years for normal cells in the cervix to turn into cancer cells. Your health care provider can find abnormal cells by doing a pap test - examining cells from the cervix under a microscope. If there are abnormal cells, you will need a biopsy. By getting regular pap tests and pelvic exams you can find and treat any problems before they turn into cancer.treatment may include surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or a combination. The choice of treatment depends on the size of the tumor, whether the cancer has spread and whether you would like to become pregnant someday.vaccines can protect against several types of hpv, including some that can cause cancer. nih: national cancer institute
ICD-10-CM C53.9 is grouped within Diagnostic Related Group(s) (MS-DRG v39.0):
736 Uterine and adnexa procedures for ovarian or adnexal malignancy with mcc
737 Uterine and adnexa procedures for ovarian or adnexal malignancy with cc
738 Uterine and adnexa procedures for ovarian or adnexal malignancy without cc/mcc
739 Uterine and adnexa procedures for non-ovarian and non-adnexal malignancy with mcc
740 Uterine and adnexa procedures for non-ovarian and non-adnexal malignancy with cc
741 Uterine and adnexa procedures for non-ovarian and non-adnexal malignancy without cc/mcc
754 Malignancy, female reproductive system with mcc
755 Malignancy, female reproductive system with cc
756 Malignancy, female reproductive system without cc/mcc
Convert C53.9 to ICD-9-CM
Diagnosis Index entries containing back-references to C53.9:
Carcinoma (malignant) - see also Neoplasm, by site, malignant
microinvasive
unspecified site C53.9
ICD-10-CM Codes Adjacent To C53.9
C51.0 Malignant neoplasm of labium majus
C51.1 Malignant neoplasm of labium minus
C51.2 Malignant neoplasm of clitoris
C51.8 Malignant neoplasm of overlapping sites of vulva
C51.9 Malignant neoplasm of vulva, unspecified
C52 Malignant neoplasm of vagina
C53 Malignant neoplasm of cervix uteri
C53.0 Malignant neoplasm of endocervix
C53.1 Malignant neoplasm of exocervix
C53.8 Malignant neoplasm of overlapping sites of cervix uteri
C53.9 Malignant neoplasm of cervix uteri, unspecified
C54 Malignant neoplasm of corpus uteri
C54.0 Malignant neoplasm of isthmus uteri
C54.1 Malignant neoplasm of endometrium
C54.2 Malignant neoplasm of myometrium
C54.3 Malignant neoplasm of fundus uteri
C54.8 Malignant neoplasm of overlapping sites of corpus uteri
C54.9 Malignant neoplasm of corpus uteri, unspecified
C55 Malignant neoplasm of uterus, part unspecified
C56 Malignant neoplasm of ovary
C56.1 Malignant neoplasm of right ovary

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Lead-in phase to randomized trial of motexafin gadolinium and whole-brain radiation for patients with brain metastases: Centralized assessment of magnetic resonance imaging, neurocognitive, and neurologic end points
Minesh P. Mehta, William R. Shapiro, Michael J. Glantz, Roy A. Patchell, Michael A. Weitzner, Christina A. Meyers, Christopher J. Schultz, Wilson H. Roa, Mark Leibenhaut, Judith Ford, Walter Curran, See Phan, Jennifer A. Smith, Richard A. Miller, Markus F. Renschler
Penn State Cancer Institute
Purpose: Motexafin gadolinium is a redox mediator that selectively targets tumor cells, is detectable by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and enhances the effect of radiation therapy. This lead-in phase to a randomized trial served to evaluate radiologic, neurocognitive, and neurologic progression end points and to evaluate the safety and radiologic response of motexafin gadolinium administered concurrently with 30 Gy in 10-fraction whole-brain radiation therapy for the treatment of brain metastases. Patients and Methods: Motexafin gadolinium (5.0 mg/kg/d for 10 days) was administered before each radiation treatment in this prospective international trial. Patients were evaluated by MRI, neurologic examinations, and neurocognitive tests. Prospective criteria and centralized review procedures were established for radiologic, neurocognitive, and neurologic progression end points. Results: Twenty-five patients with brain metastases from lung (52%) and breast (24%) cancer, recursive partitioning analysis class 2 (96%), and an average of 11 brain metastases were enrolled. Neurocognitive function was highly impaired at presentation. Motexafin gadolinium was well tolerated. Freedom from neurologic progression was 77% at 1 year. Median survival was 5.0 months. In 29% of patients, the cause of death was brain metastasis progression. The radiologic response rate was 68%. Motexafin gadolinium's tumor selectivity was established with MRI. Conclusion: (1) Centralized neurologic progression scoring that incorporated neurocognitive tests was implemented successfully. (2) Motexafin gadolinium was well tolerated. (3) Local control, measured by radiologic response rate, neurologic progression, and death caused by progression of brain metastasis, seemed to be improved compared with historical results. A randomized phase III trial using these methods for evaluation of efficacy has just been completed.
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.07.500
10.1200/JCO.2002.07.500
Dive into the research topics of 'Lead-in phase to randomized trial of motexafin gadolinium and whole-brain radiation for patients with brain metastases: Centralized assessment of magnetic resonance imaging, neurocognitive, and neurologic end points'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
motexafin gadolinium Medicine & Life Sciences 100%
Radiation Medicine & Life Sciences 39%
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Medicine & Life Sciences 35%
Mental Status and Dementia Tests Medicine & Life Sciences 18%
Mehta, M. P., Shapiro, W. R., Glantz, M. J., Patchell, R. A., Weitzner, M. A., Meyers, C. A., Schultz, C. J., Roa, W. H., Leibenhaut, M., Ford, J., Curran, W., Phan, S., Smith, J. A., Miller, R. A., & Renschler, M. F. (2002). Lead-in phase to randomized trial of motexafin gadolinium and whole-brain radiation for patients with brain metastases: Centralized assessment of magnetic resonance imaging, neurocognitive, and neurologic end points. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 20(16), 3445-3453. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.07.500
Mehta, Minesh P. ; Shapiro, William R. ; Glantz, Michael J. et al. / Lead-in phase to randomized trial of motexafin gadolinium and whole-brain radiation for patients with brain metastases : Centralized assessment of magnetic resonance imaging, neurocognitive, and neurologic end points. In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2002 ; Vol. 20, No. 16. pp. 3445-3453.
@article{c1e151bb68a74881b111b05faa7332c5,
title = "Lead-in phase to randomized trial of motexafin gadolinium and whole-brain radiation for patients with brain metastases: Centralized assessment of magnetic resonance imaging, neurocognitive, and neurologic end points",
abstract = "Purpose: Motexafin gadolinium is a redox mediator that selectively targets tumor cells, is detectable by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and enhances the effect of radiation therapy. This lead-in phase to a randomized trial served to evaluate radiologic, neurocognitive, and neurologic progression end points and to evaluate the safety and radiologic response of motexafin gadolinium administered concurrently with 30 Gy in 10-fraction whole-brain radiation therapy for the treatment of brain metastases. Patients and Methods: Motexafin gadolinium (5.0 mg/kg/d for 10 days) was administered before each radiation treatment in this prospective international trial. Patients were evaluated by MRI, neurologic examinations, and neurocognitive tests. Prospective criteria and centralized review procedures were established for radiologic, neurocognitive, and neurologic progression end points. Results: Twenty-five patients with brain metastases from lung (52%) and breast (24%) cancer, recursive partitioning analysis class 2 (96%), and an average of 11 brain metastases were enrolled. Neurocognitive function was highly impaired at presentation. Motexafin gadolinium was well tolerated. Freedom from neurologic progression was 77% at 1 year. Median survival was 5.0 months. In 29% of patients, the cause of death was brain metastasis progression. The radiologic response rate was 68%. Motexafin gadolinium's tumor selectivity was established with MRI. Conclusion: (1) Centralized neurologic progression scoring that incorporated neurocognitive tests was implemented successfully. (2) Motexafin gadolinium was well tolerated. (3) Local control, measured by radiologic response rate, neurologic progression, and death caused by progression of brain metastasis, seemed to be improved compared with historical results. A randomized phase III trial using these methods for evaluation of efficacy has just been completed.",
author = "Mehta, {Minesh P.} and Shapiro, {William R.} and Glantz, {Michael J.} and Patchell, {Roy A.} and Weitzner, {Michael A.} and Meyers, {Christina A.} and Schultz, {Christopher J.} and Roa, {Wilson H.} and Mark Leibenhaut and Judith Ford and Walter Curran and See Phan and Smith, {Jennifer A.} and Miller, {Richard A.} and Renschler, {Markus F.}",
doi = "10.1200/JCO.2002.07.500",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Oncology",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
Mehta, MP, Shapiro, WR, Glantz, MJ, Patchell, RA, Weitzner, MA, Meyers, CA, Schultz, CJ, Roa, WH, Leibenhaut, M, Ford, J, Curran, W, Phan, S, Smith, JA, Miller, RA & Renschler, MF 2002, 'Lead-in phase to randomized trial of motexafin gadolinium and whole-brain radiation for patients with brain metastases: Centralized assessment of magnetic resonance imaging, neurocognitive, and neurologic end points', Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 20, no. 16, pp. 3445-3453. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.07.500
Lead-in phase to randomized trial of motexafin gadolinium and whole-brain radiation for patients with brain metastases : Centralized assessment of magnetic resonance imaging, neurocognitive, and neurologic end points. / Mehta, Minesh P.; Shapiro, William R.; Glantz, Michael J. et al.
In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 20, No. 16, 15.08.2002, p. 3445-3453.
T1 - Lead-in phase to randomized trial of motexafin gadolinium and whole-brain radiation for patients with brain metastases
T2 - Centralized assessment of magnetic resonance imaging, neurocognitive, and neurologic end points
AU - Mehta, Minesh P.
AU - Shapiro, William R.
AU - Glantz, Michael J.
AU - Patchell, Roy A.
AU - Weitzner, Michael A.
AU - Meyers, Christina A.
AU - Schultz, Christopher J.
AU - Roa, Wilson H.
AU - Leibenhaut, Mark
AU - Ford, Judith
AU - Curran, Walter
AU - Phan, See
AU - Smith, Jennifer A.
AU - Miller, Richard A.
AU - Renschler, Markus F.
N2 - Purpose: Motexafin gadolinium is a redox mediator that selectively targets tumor cells, is detectable by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and enhances the effect of radiation therapy. This lead-in phase to a randomized trial served to evaluate radiologic, neurocognitive, and neurologic progression end points and to evaluate the safety and radiologic response of motexafin gadolinium administered concurrently with 30 Gy in 10-fraction whole-brain radiation therapy for the treatment of brain metastases. Patients and Methods: Motexafin gadolinium (5.0 mg/kg/d for 10 days) was administered before each radiation treatment in this prospective international trial. Patients were evaluated by MRI, neurologic examinations, and neurocognitive tests. Prospective criteria and centralized review procedures were established for radiologic, neurocognitive, and neurologic progression end points. Results: Twenty-five patients with brain metastases from lung (52%) and breast (24%) cancer, recursive partitioning analysis class 2 (96%), and an average of 11 brain metastases were enrolled. Neurocognitive function was highly impaired at presentation. Motexafin gadolinium was well tolerated. Freedom from neurologic progression was 77% at 1 year. Median survival was 5.0 months. In 29% of patients, the cause of death was brain metastasis progression. The radiologic response rate was 68%. Motexafin gadolinium's tumor selectivity was established with MRI. Conclusion: (1) Centralized neurologic progression scoring that incorporated neurocognitive tests was implemented successfully. (2) Motexafin gadolinium was well tolerated. (3) Local control, measured by radiologic response rate, neurologic progression, and death caused by progression of brain metastasis, seemed to be improved compared with historical results. A randomized phase III trial using these methods for evaluation of efficacy has just been completed.
AB - Purpose: Motexafin gadolinium is a redox mediator that selectively targets tumor cells, is detectable by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and enhances the effect of radiation therapy. This lead-in phase to a randomized trial served to evaluate radiologic, neurocognitive, and neurologic progression end points and to evaluate the safety and radiologic response of motexafin gadolinium administered concurrently with 30 Gy in 10-fraction whole-brain radiation therapy for the treatment of brain metastases. Patients and Methods: Motexafin gadolinium (5.0 mg/kg/d for 10 days) was administered before each radiation treatment in this prospective international trial. Patients were evaluated by MRI, neurologic examinations, and neurocognitive tests. Prospective criteria and centralized review procedures were established for radiologic, neurocognitive, and neurologic progression end points. Results: Twenty-five patients with brain metastases from lung (52%) and breast (24%) cancer, recursive partitioning analysis class 2 (96%), and an average of 11 brain metastases were enrolled. Neurocognitive function was highly impaired at presentation. Motexafin gadolinium was well tolerated. Freedom from neurologic progression was 77% at 1 year. Median survival was 5.0 months. In 29% of patients, the cause of death was brain metastasis progression. The radiologic response rate was 68%. Motexafin gadolinium's tumor selectivity was established with MRI. Conclusion: (1) Centralized neurologic progression scoring that incorporated neurocognitive tests was implemented successfully. (2) Motexafin gadolinium was well tolerated. (3) Local control, measured by radiologic response rate, neurologic progression, and death caused by progression of brain metastasis, seemed to be improved compared with historical results. A randomized phase III trial using these methods for evaluation of efficacy has just been completed.
U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2002.07.500
DO - 10.1200/JCO.2002.07.500
JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology
JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology
Mehta MP, Shapiro WR, Glantz MJ, Patchell RA, Weitzner MA, Meyers CA et al. Lead-in phase to randomized trial of motexafin gadolinium and whole-brain radiation for patients with brain metastases: Centralized assessment of magnetic resonance imaging, neurocognitive, and neurologic end points. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2002 Aug 15;20(16):3445-3453. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.07.500