See an invited perspective on this article on page 1043.This multicenter phase II study investigated a selective radiotherapy dose increase to tumor areas with significant 18 F-misonidazole ( 18 F-FMISO) uptake in patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Methods: Eligible patients had locally advanced NSCLC and no contraindication to concomitant chemoradiotherapy. The 18 F-FMISO uptake on PET/CT was assessed by trained experts. If there was no uptake, 66 Gy were delivered. In 18 F-FMISO-positive patients, the contours of the hypoxic area were transferred to the radiation oncologist. It was necessary for the radiotherapy dose to be as high as possible while fulfilling dose-limiting constraints for the spinal cord and lungs. The primary endpoint was tumor response (complete response plus partial response) at 3 mo. The secondary endpoints were toxicity, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival at 1 y. The target sample size was set to demonstrate a response rate of 40% or more (bilateral a 5 0.05, power 1-b 5 0.95). Results: Seventy-nine patients were preincluded, 54 were included, and 34 were 18 F-FMISO-positive, 24 of whom received escalated doses of up to 86 Gy. The response rate at 3 mo was 31 of 54 (57%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 43%-71%) using RECIST 1.1 (17/34 responders in the 18 F-FMISO-positive group).

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

L'article 3135 du Code civil du Québec codifie un principe issu de la common law, le forum non conveniens. Cette théorie permet exceptionnellement à un tribunal, saisi d'un litige international, de décliner sa compétence dans certaines circonstances. Ce nouveau pouvoir discrétionnaire accordé aux juges québécois semble poser de nombreux problèmes d'application. Les auteurs constatent que depuis deux ans les plaideurs l'invoquent fréquemment et que les magistrats ont de la difficulté à en établir les balises. Après un rappel des sources historiques et du développement moderne du forum non conveniens, les auteurs analysent les récentes affaires québécoises où l'exception de l'article 3135 du Code civil du Québec a été discutée. Notant une contradiction entre les termes mêmes de la disposition et l'application qui en est faite, les auteurs estiment que cette vague jurisprudentielle met en péril la mise en œuvre du Livre X consacré au droit international privé. Ils soumettent donc des conditions pour encadrer strictement cette exception. Si l'article 3135 du Code civil du Québec continuait à être appliqué de façon aussi laxiste que c'est le cas actuellement, les auteurs croient que seule une intervention du législateur pourrait mettre fin à cette dérive.Section 3135 of the Civil Code of Québec codifies a principle of common law, the forum non conveniens. Sometimes, according to this theory, a judge, in an international litigation, may exceptionally decline jurisdiction. Many difficulties arise from this new discretionary power given to the quebecer judges. The authors note that since the Is' of January 1994, attorneys plead it frequently and that judges use it without many limits. The authors review the historical sources and the new development of the forum non conveniens and then, analyze the case where section 3135 has been invoked. They see a contradiction between the words of the provision and its application and believe that such a jurisprudence could jeopardyze the implementation of the Book Ten of the Civil Code. So, they put forward some ways to strictly apply the exception. The authors also suggest a legislative intervention if section 3135 would continue to be applied in the same way as it is now