The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Outcomes of Early Versus Late Tracheostomy in Patients With COVID-19: A Multinational Cohort Study

Objectives:. Timing of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 has attracted substantial attention. Initial guidelines recommended delaying or avoiding tracheostomy due to the potential for particle aerosolization and theoretical risk to providers. However, early tracheostomy could improve patient outcomes and alleviate resource shortages. This study compares outcomes in a diverse population of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy either “early” (within 14 d of intubation) or “late” (more than 14 d after intubation). Design:. International multi-institute retrospective cohort study. Setting:. Thirteen hospitals in Bolivia, Brazil, Spain, and the United States. Patients:. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 undergoing early or late tracheostomy between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Interventions:. Not applicable. Measurements and Main Results:. A total of 549 patients from 13 hospitals in four countries were included in the final analysis. Multivariable regression analysis showed that early tracheostomy was associated with a 12-day decrease in time on mechanical ventilation (95% CI, −16 to −8; p < 0.001). Further, ICU and hospital lengths of stay in patients undergoing early tracheostomy were 15 days (95% CI, −23 to −9 d; p < 0.001) and 22 days (95% CI, −31 to −12 d) shorter, respectively. In contrast, early tracheostomy patients experienced lower risk-adjusted survival at 30-day post-admission (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.8−5.2). Differences in 90-day post-admission survival were not identified. Conclusions:. COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy within 14 days of intubation have reduced ventilator dependence as well as reduced lengths of stay. However, early tracheostomy patients experienced lower 30-day survival. Future efforts should identify patients most likely to benefit from early tracheostomy while accounting for location-specific capacity

Cost-Effectiveness of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) in Preventing HIV-1 Infections in Rural Zambia: A Modeling Study

Contains fulltext : 118224.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with tenofovir and emtricitabine effectively prevents new HIV infections. The optimal scenario for implementing PrEP where most infections are averted at the lowest cost is unknown. We determined the impact of different PrEP strategies on averting new infections, prevalence, drug resistance and cost-effectiveness in Macha, a rural setting in Zambia. METHODS: A deterministic mathematical model of HIV transmission was constructed using data from the Macha epidemic (antenatal prevalence 7.7%). Antiretroviral therapy is started at CD4<350 cells/mm(3). We compared the number of infections averted, cost-effectiveness, and potential emergence of drug resistance of two ends of the prioritization spectrum: prioritizing PrEP to half of the most sexually active individuals (5-15% of the total population), versus randomly putting 40-60% of the total population on PrEP. RESULTS: Prioritizing PrEP to individuals with the highest sexual activity resulted in more infections averted than a non-prioritized strategy over ten years (31% and 23% reduction in new infections respectively), and also a lower HIV prevalence after ten years (5.7%, 6.4% respectively). The strategy was very cost-effective at $323 per quality adjusted life year gained and appeared to be both less costly and more effective than the non-prioritized strategy. The prevalence of drug resistance due to PrEP was as high as 11.6% when all assumed breakthrough infections resulted in resistance, and as low as 1.3% when 10% of breakthrough infections resulted in resistance in both our prioritized and non-prioritized scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Even in settings with low test rates and treatment retention, the use of PrEP can still be a useful strategy in averting infections. Our model has shown that PrEP is a cost-effective strategy for reducing HIV incidence, even when adherence is suboptimal and prioritization is imperfect

Outcomes of Early Versus Late Tracheostomy in Patients With COVID-19: A Multinational Cohort Study.

UNLABELLED: Timing of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 has attracted substantial attention. Initial guidelines recommended delaying or avoiding tracheostomy due to the potential for particle aerosolization and theoretical risk to providers. However, early tracheostomy could improve patient outcomes and alleviate resource shortages. This study compares outcomes in a diverse population of hospitalized COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy either early (within 14 d of intubation) or late (more than 14 d after intubation). DESIGN: International multi-institute retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Thirteen hospitals in Bolivia, Brazil, Spain, and the United States. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 undergoing early or late tracheostomy between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 549 patients from 13 hospitals in four countries were included in the final analysis. Multivariable regression analysis showed that early tracheostomy was associated with a 12-day decrease in time on mechanical ventilation (95% CI, -16 to -8; p \u3c 0.001). Further, ICU and hospital lengths of stay in patients undergoing early tracheostomy were 15 days (95% CI, -23 to -9 d; p \u3c 0.001) and 22 days (95% CI, -31 to -12 d) shorter, respectively. In contrast, early tracheostomy patients experienced lower risk-adjusted survival at 30-day post-admission (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.8-5.2). Differences in 90-day post-admission survival were not identified. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy within 14 days of intubation have reduced ventilator dependence as well as reduced lengths of stay. However, early tracheostomy patients experienced lower 30-day survival. Future efforts should identify patients most likely to benefit from early tracheostomy while accounting for location-specific capacity

COS Ambassadors

A collection of materials and resources for COS ambassadors

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field