Target Audience The target audience for this policy includes, but is not limited to, all faculty, trainees/students, and other members of MD Anderson’s workforce, including Facilities Management (FM) Project Managers, FM Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Staff, Contractors, and Stakeholders who request a Scheduled Utility Outage for: • New construction. • Renovation. • Maintenance.
Target Population The Grantee shall ensure that diversion programs and services provided under this grant are designed to serve juvenile offenders who are at risk of commitment to Department.
Study Population The study was based at the San Francisco KPNC Anal Cancer Screening Clinic. We enrolled men who were identified as positive for HIV through the Kaiser HIV registry, who were aged ≥ 18 years, who were not diag- nosed with anal cancer before enrollment, and who pro- vided informed consent. In total, 363 men were enrolled between August 2009 and June 2010. The study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review boards at KPNC and at the National Cancer Institute. All partici- pants were asked to complete a self-administered ques- tionnaire to collect risk factor information. Additional information regarding HIV status and medication, sexu- ally transmitted diseases, and histopathology results were abstracted from the KPNC clinical database. For 87 of the 271 subjects without biopsy-proven AIN2 or AIN3 at the time of enrollment, follow-up infor- mation concerning outcomes from additional clinic visits up to December 2011 was available and included in the analysis to correct for the possible imperfect sensitivity of high-resolution anoscopy (HRA).13,15 Clinical Examination, Evaluation, and Results During the clinical examination, 2 specimens were col- lected by inserting a wet flocked nylon swab16 into the anal canal up to the distal rectal vault and withdrawing with rotation and lateral pressure. Both specimens were trans- ferred to PreservCyt medium (Hologic, Bedford, Mass). A third specimen was collected for routine testing for Chla- mydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhea. After specimen collection, participants underwent a digital anorectal ex- amination followed by HRA. All lesions that appeared sus- picious on HRA were biopsied and sent for routine histopathological review by KPNC pathologists, and were subsequently graded as condyloma or AIN1 through AIN3. No cancers were observed in this study population. From the first specimen, a ThinPrep slide (Hologic) was prepared for routine Xxxxxxxxxxxx staining and xxxxx- xxxxx. Two pathologists (T.D. and D.T.) reviewed the slides independently. Cytology results were reported anal- ogous to the Bethesda classification17 for cervical cytology except when otherwise noted. The following categories were used: negative for intraepithelial lesion or malig- xxxxx (NILM); ASC-US; atypical squamous cells cannot rule out high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) (ASC-H); low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL); HSIL, favor AIN2 (HSIL-AIN2); and HSIL-AIN3. ASC-H, HSIL-AIN2, and HSIL-AIN3 were combined into a single high-grade cytology category for the current analysis. Biomarker Testing Using the residual specimen from the first collection, mtm Laboratories AG (Heidelberg, Germany) performed the p16INK4a/Ki-67 dual immunostaining (‘‘p16/Ki-67 staining’’) using their CINtec Plus cytology kit according to their specifications. A ThinPrep 2000 processor (Holo- gic) was used to prepare a slide, which then was stained according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The CINtec Plus cytology kit was then applied to the unstained cytol- ogy slide for p16/Ki-67 staining. On the second collected specimen, Roche Molecular Systems (Pleasanton, Calif) tested for HR-HPV, includ- ing separate detection of HPV-16, and HPV-18 DNA, using their cobas 4800 HPV test. To prepare DNA for the cobas test, automated sample extraction was per- formed as follows: 500 lL of the PreservCyt specimen was pipetted into a secondary tube (Falcon 5-mL polypropyl- ene round-bottom tube, which measured 12-mm-by-75- mm and was nonpyrogenic and sterile). The tube was capped, mixed by vortexing, uncapped, placed on the x-480 specimen rack, and loaded onto the x-480 sample extraction module of the cobas 4800 system. The x-480 extraction module then inputs 400 lL of this material into the specimen preparation process. The extracted DNA was then tested as previously described.16 NorChip AS (Klokkarstua, Norway) also tested the second specimen for HPV-16, -18, -31, -33, and -45 HPV E6/E7 mRNA using their PreTect HPV-Proofer assay according to their specifications. All testing was per- formed masked to the results of the other assays, clinical outcomes, and patient characteristics.
Claims Review Population A description of the Population subject to the Claims Review.
STATEWIDE ACHIEVEMENT TESTING When CONTRACTOR is an NPS, per implementation of Senate Bill 484, CONTRACTOR shall administer all Statewide assessments within the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (“CAASP”), Desired Results Developmental Profile (“DRDP”), California Alternative Assessment (“CAA”), achievement and abilities tests (using LEA-authorized assessment instruments), the Fitness Gram with the exception of the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (“ELPAC”) to be completed by the LEA, and as appropriate to the student, and mandated by XXX xxxxxxxx to LEA and state and federal guidelines. CONTRACTOR is subject to the alternative accountability system developed pursuant to Education Code section 52052, in the same manner as public schools. Each LEA student placed with CONTRACTOR by the LEA shall be tested by qualified staff of CONTRACTOR in accordance with that accountability program. XXX shall provide test administration training to CONTRACTOR’S qualified staff. CONTRACTOR shall attend LEA test training and comply with completion of all coding requirements as required by XXX.
System Impact Study An assessment by the Transmission Provider of (i) the adequacy of the Transmission System to accommodate a Completed Application, an Interconnection Request or an Upgrade Request, (ii) whether any additional costs may be incurred in order to provide such transmission service or to accommodate an Interconnection Request, and (iii) with respect to an Interconnection Request, an estimated date that an Interconnection Customer’s Customer Facility can be interconnected with the Transmission System and an estimate of the Interconnection Customer’s cost responsibility for the interconnection; and (iv) with respect to an Upgrade Request, the estimated cost of the requested system upgrades or expansion, or of the cost of the system upgrades or expansion, necessary to provide the requested incremental rights.
Review Protocol A narrative description of how the Claims Review was conducted and what was evaluated.