28.?46.47.29.30.48.31.49.32.50.?33.34.?51.35.52.Curr Osteoporos Rep (2015) 13:140?45 prostate cancer individuals with bone metastases. J Manag Care Pharm. 2011;17:621?three. 53. Gartrell BA, Coleman RE, Fizazi K, et al. Toxicities following remedy with bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappaB ligand inhibitors in sufferers with advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65:278?six. 54. Allen MR, Burr DB. The pathogenesis of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis in the jaw: so many hypotheses, so few information. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67:61?0. 55. Khan A, Morrison A, Hanley D, et al. Diagnosis and management of osteonecrosis with the jaw: a systematic review and international consensus. J Bone Miner Res. 2014. Essential systematic review discussing osteonecrosis with the jaw soon after therapy with antiresorptive agents. 56.145 Demeestere I, Brice P, Peccatori FA, et al. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist for j.addbeh.2012.ten.012 the prevention of chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure in sufferers with lymphoma: 1-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:903?. 57. Yang B, Shi W, Yang J, et al. Concurrent therapy with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for chemotherapyinduced ovarian harm in premenopausal women with breast cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Breast. 2013;22:150?. 58. Song G, Gao H, Yuan Z. Impact of OPC-8212 site leuprolide acetate on ovarian function soon after cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin-based chemotherapy in premenopausal sufferers with breast cancer: final results from a phase II randomized trial. Med Oncol. 2013;30:667.Security and Safety The paradigm of new technologies as social experiments (henceforth NTaSE) bargains with accountable deployment of technologies that may have undesirable side-effects. The idea is the fact that it truly is not possible to recognize all possible complications in the design and style stage, and that it might as a result be necessary to topic society to a deployment experiment with uncertain outcomes. Thus far, the uncertain outcomes addressed within the NTaSE-paradigm have already been mostly safety-related (nuclear waste and accidents, overall health effects of nanoparticles, genetically modified crops and so on.). Security implies that prospective harm is triggered by the style plus accidental events within the atmosphere, which include natural disasters and human jir.2012.0142 blunders. What the paradigm has not covered so far are so-called adversarial risks. These are risks which can be not triggered by probabilistic organic events or accidents, even human failures, but rather by the determined, strategic behaviour of an adversarial agent. This is frequently labelled security as opposed to security. Essentially the most obvious example inside the NTaSE literature of a technology having a safety component is nuclear technology: adversaries who get hold of nuclear material may perhaps use it for weapons. Not too long ago, Lehtveer and Hedenus (2015) discussed this extensively with regards to nuclear proliferation. Where the NTaSE-literature has discussed nuclear technologies, it has focused on accidents (security), and has not addressed this adversarial point of view (security). One example is, Krohn and Weingart (1987) explicitly concentrate on the “accident as implicit experiment”, analysing the Chernobyl Meltdown, and inside the similar vein, Van de Poel (2011) analyses the Fukushima accident. Ultimately, Taebi et al. (2012) address 4 characteristics of nuclear power that complicate standard risk assessment (low probabilities with large consequences, uncertainty and i.