![]() Though it may appear that only one IO operation occurred, in reality, the file system had to perform multiple IO operations to successfully service the initial IO. IO amplification refers to the broad set of circumstances where one IO operation triggers other, unintentional IO operations. In the past couple weeks, we’ve seen some confusion regarding the recommended cluster sizes for ReFS and NTFS, so this blog will hopefully disambiguate previous recommendations while helping to provide the reasoning behind why some cluster sizes are recommended for certain scenarios.īefore jumping into cluster size recommendations, it’ll be important to understand what IO amplification is and why minimizing IO amplification is important when choosing cluster sizes: Both ReFS and NTFS support multiple cluster sizes, as different sized clusters can offer different performance benefits, depending on the deployment. Because ReFS and NTFS don’t reference files at a byte granularity, the cluster size is the smallest unit of size that each file system can reference when accessing storage. Also known as the allocation unit size, cluster size represents the smallest amount of disk space that can be allocated to hold a file. Microsoft’s file systems organize storage devices based on cluster size. Clinical trial information: NCT02632409.First published on TECHNET on Jan 13, 2017 These results further support adjuvant NIVO as a standard-of-care treatment for pts with high-risk MIBC after radical resection ± neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The DFS benefit was observed in all prespecified subgroups. Improvement in DFS was observed with NIVO over PBO in pts with MIBC after radical resection regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17% and 6% of pts in the NIVO and PBO arms, respectively. Improvement in NUTRFS and DMFS with NIVO vs PBO was also observed (Table). DFS was improved with NIVO vs PBO across subgroups according to age, sex, ECOG performance status, nodal status, and PD-L1 expression status. DFS probability at 12 months in all MIBC pts was 66% with NIVO and 45% with PBO. With a minimum follow-up of 11.0 months, a DFS benefit was observed with NIVO vs PBO in these pts, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression (Table). Of 709 randomized pts in the trial, 560 had MIBC (NIVO, n = 279 PBO, n = 281). This exploratory analysis focused on the subgroup of pts with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) after radical resection. Non–urothelial tract recurrence-free survival (NUTRFS) was a secondary endpoint, and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) was an exploratory endpoint. Primary endpoints were DFS in ITT pts and in pts with PD-L1 ≥ 1%. ![]() Pts had radical resection ± neoadjuvant chemotherapy and were at high risk of recurrence on final pathologic staging. Pts were randomized 1:1 to NIVO 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks or PBO for ≤ 1 year of adjuvant treatment and stratified by nodal status, prior neoadjuvant cisplatin, and tumor PD-L1 expression. We report results for the subgroup of pts with bladder cancer, the most predominant type of urothelial carcinoma.ĬheckMate 274 is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial of adjuvant NIVO vs PBO in high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (bladder, ureter, renal pelvis) after radical resection. In the CheckMate 274 trial, disease-free survival (DFS) was significantly improved with nivolumab (NIVO) vs placebo (PBO) both in intent-to-treat (ITT) patients (pts) (hazard ratio, 0.70 98.22% confidence interval, 0.55–0.90 P < 0.001) and in pts with tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 1% (HR, 0.55 98.72% CI, 0.35–0.85 P < 0.001).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |