Search

The boundary of real property is the fundamental element for securing rights attached to land. Countries, even with a long-standing cadastral tradition, often face the challenge of interpreting the course of a parcel boundary on the ground based on the available evidence, as data quality is very heterogeneous. Various cadastral principles and procedures have been developed for the determination of parcel boundaries in the field, which may also be associated with resolving boundary disputes. This article documents and compares the principles and procedures applied in the determination of property boundaries in selected civil law countries based on a novel conceptual model developed for that purpose. The notion of ‘boundary determination’ used in this article refers to demarcating and surveying land parcel boundaries during the initial cadastral survey and cadastral update procedures. The selected countries include Denmark and Sweden, which apply Nordic civil law; Slovenia and Turkey, which apply German civil law; and Spain, which applies Napoleonic civil law. The demarcation principles and processes applied in the different cadastral systems, the parties involved, and the evidence taken into consideration in these processes are described and compared. The main aim is to contribute to the documentation of the reasoning applied to the property boundary determination in the selected civil law countries., Green Open Access added to TU Delft Institutional Repository 'You share, we take care!' - Taverne project https://www.openaccess.nl/en/you-share-we-take-care Otherwise as indicated in the copyright section: the publisher is the copyright holder of this work and the author uses the Dutch legislation to make this work public., GIS Technologie

[EN] Background: In advanced-stage (IIIB or IV) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), combination chemotherapy has demonstrated response rates of 20% and a 1-year survival rate of 30%. We conducted a multicentre, open-label, nonrandomised phase II trial to determine the efficacy and tolerability of sequential monotherapy with gemcitabine followed by paclitaxel in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced NSCLC. Materials and methods: Between December 2002 and July 2004, the Spanish Lung Cancer Group (SLCG) conducted a study in which 34 patients with advanced (stage IIIB or IV) NSCLC received 1200 mg/m2 of i.v. gemcitabine on days 1, 8 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for a total of 3 cycles followed by 100 mg/m2 of weekly i.v. paclitaxel for a maximum of 8 weeks. If objective response or stable disease was achieved, 70 mg/m2 of weekly i.v. paclitaxel was maintained until disease progression was evident or toxic effects were intolerable. Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) analysis was performed. Baseline levels of serum VEGF, EGFR, telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) and K-ras mutations were analysed. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate. Results: The median age of the 34 patients who were enrolled was 67 years (range 46-77), but later 8 patients were excluded; 78.8% were men, 81.8% had performance status 1 and also 81.8% had metastatic disease at diagnosis. The objective response rate was 28% (95% CI, 14.2-47.8); the median overall survival was 7.2 months (95% CI, 2.1-12.3) and the median time to progression (TTP) was 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.5-5.3). Grade 3 or 4 drug-related haematological toxicities were observed in 6 patients. Patients with lower baseline serum VEGF levels had significantly longer survival. Conclusions: Sequential therapy with gemcitabine followed by paclitaxel was well tolerated with a low proportion of grade 3 or 4 adverse events, the absence of unexpected toxicity and with an improvement in quality of life. Unfortunately, the response