NFAT regulates the expression of AIF-1 and IRT-1: Yin and yang splice variants of neointima formation and atherosclerosis.

Aims Alternative transcription and splicing of the allograft inflammatory factor-1 (AIF-1) gene results in the expression of two different proteins: AIF-1 and interferon responsive transcript-1 (IRT-1). Here we explore the impact of AIF-1 and IRT-1 on vascular smooth muscle cell (VSMC) activation and neointima formation, the mechanisms underlying their alternative splicing, and associations of AIF-1 and IRT-1 mRNA with parameters defining human atherosclerotic plaque phenotype.Methods and results Translation of AIF-1 and IRT-1 results in different products with contrasting cellular distribution and functions. Overexpression of AIF-1 stimulates migration and proliferation of human VSMCs, whereas IRT-1 exerts opposite effects. Adenoviral infection of angioplasty-injured rat carotid arteries with AdAIF-1 exacerbates intima hyperplasia, whereas infection with AdIRT-1 reduces neointima. Expression of these variants is modulated by changes in nuclear factor of activated T-cells (NFAT) activity. Pharmacological inhibition of NFAT or targeting of NFATc3 with siRNA lowers the AIF-1/IRT-1 ratio and favors an anti-proliferative outcome. NFAT acts as a repressor on the IRT-1 transcriptional start site, which is also sensitive to interferon-γ stimulation. Expression of AIF-1 mRNA in human carotid plaques associates with less extracellular matrix and a more pro-inflammatory plaque and plasma profile, features that may predispose to plaque rupture. In contrast, expression of IRT-1 mRNA associates with a less aggressive phenotype and less VSMCs at the most stenotic region of the plaque.Conclusions Inhibition of NFAT signaling, by shifting the AIF-1/IRT-1 ratio, may be an attractive target to regulate the VSMC response to injury and manipulate plaque stability in atherosclerosis

Contemporary results from the PelvEx collaborative: improvements in surgical outcomes for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

Aim: The PelvEx Collaborative collates global data on outcomes following exenterative surgery for locally advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LARC and LRRC, respectively). The aim of this study is to report contemporary data from within the collaborative and benchmark it against previous PelvEx publications. Method: Anonymized data from 45 units that performed pelvic exenteration for LARC or LRRC between 2017 and 2021 were reviewed. The primary endpoints were surgical outcomes, including resection margin status, radicality of surgery, rates of reconstruction and associated morbidity and/or mortality. Results: Of 2186 patients who underwent an exenteration for either LARC or LRRC, 1386 (63.4%) had LARC and 800 (36.6%) had LRRC. The proportion of males to females was 1232:954. Median age was 62 years (interquartile range 52-71 years) compared with a median age of 63 in both historical LARC and LRRC cohorts. Compared with the original reported PelvEx data (2004-2014), there has been an increase in negative margin (R0) rates from 79.8% to 84.8% and from 55.4% to 71.7% in the LARC and LRRC cohorts, respectively. Bone resection and flap reconstruction rates have increased accordingly in both cohorts (8.2%-19.6% and 22.6%-32% for LARC and 20.3%-41.9% and 17.4%-32.1% in LRRC, respectively). Despite this, major morbidity has not increased. Conclusion: In the modern era, patients undergoing pelvic exenteration for advanced rectal cancer are undergoing more radical surgery and are more likely to achieve a negative resection margin (R0) with no increase in major morbidity

Changing outcomes following pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

Background Pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is technically challenging but increasingly performed in specialist centres. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of exenteration over time. Methods This was a multicentre retrospective study of patients who underwent exenteration for LARC and LRRC between 2004 and 2015. Surgical outcomes, including rate of bone resection, flap reconstruction, margin status and transfusion rates, were examined. Outcomes between higher- and lower-volume centres were also evaluated. Results Some 2472 patients underwent pelvic exenteration for LARC and LRRC across 26 institutions. For LARC, rates of bone resection or flap reconstruction increased from 2004 to 2015, from 3.5 to 12.8 per cent, and from 12.0 to 29.4 per cent respectively. Fewer units of intraoperative blood were transfused over this interval (median 4 to 2 units; P = 0.040). Subgroup analysis showed that bone resection and flap reconstruction rates increased in lower- and higher-volume centres. R0 resection rates significantly increased in low-volume centres but not in high-volume centres over time (low-volume: from 62.5 to 80.0 per cent, P = 0.001; high-volume: from 83.5 to 88.4 per cent, P = 0.660). For LRRC, no significant trends over time were observed for bone resection or flap reconstruction rates. The median number of units of intraoperative blood transfused decreased from 5 to 2.5 units (P < 0.001). R0 resection rates did not increase in either low-volume (from 51.7 to 60.4 per cent; P = 0.610) or higher-volume (from 48.6 to 65.5 per cent; P = 0.100) centres. No significant differences in length of hospital stay, 30-day complication, reintervention or mortality rates were observed over time. Conclusion Radical resection, bone resection and flap reconstruction rates were performed more frequently over time, while transfusion requirements decreased

Perioperative management and anaesthetic considerations in pelvic exenterations using Delphi methodology: Results from the PelvEx Collaborative

Background: The multidisciplinary perioperative and anaesthetic management of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is essential for good surgical outcomes. No clear guidelines have been established, and there is wide variation in clinical practice internationally. This consensus statement consolidates clinical experience and best practice collectively, and systematically addresses key domains in the perioperative and anaesthetic management. Methods: The modified Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus from the PelvEx Collaborative. The process included one round of online questionnaire involving controlled feedback and structured participant response, two rounds of editing, and one round of web-based voting. It was held from December 2019 to February 2020. Consensus was defined as more than 80 per cent agreement, whereas less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. Results: The final consensus document contained 47 voted statements, across six key domains of perioperative and anaesthetic management in pelvic exenteration, comprising preoperative assessment and preparation, anaesthetic considerations, perioperative management, anticipating possible massive haemorrhage, stress response and postoperative critical care, and pain management. Consensus recommendations were developed, based on consensus agreement achieved on 34 statements. Conclusion: The perioperative and anaesthetic management of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is best accomplished by a dedicated multidisciplinary team with relevant domain expertise in the setting of a specialized tertiary unit. This consensus statement has addressed key domains within the framework of current perioperative and anaesthetic management among patients undergoing pelvic exenteration, with an international perspective, to guide clinical practice, and has outlined areas for future clinical research

Contemporary Management of Locally Advanced and Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Views from the PelvEx Collaborative

Pelvic exenteration is a complex operation performed for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancers. The goal of surgery is to achieve clear margins, therefore identifying adjacent or involved organs, bone, muscle, nerves and/or vascular structures that may need resection. While these extensive resections are potentially curative, they can be associated with substantial morbidity. Recently, there has been a move to centralize care to specialized units, as this facilitates better multi-disciplinary care input. Advancements in pelvic oncology and surgical innovation have redefined the boundaries of pelvic exenterative surgery. Combined with improved neoadjuvant therapies, advances in diagnostics, and better reconstructive techniques have provided quicker recovery and better quality of life outcomes, with improved survival This article provides highlights of the current management of advanced pelvic cancers in terms of surgical strategy and potential future developments

Induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone as neoadjuvant treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer: Study protocol of a multicentre, open-label, parallel-arms, randomized controlled study (PelvEx II)

Background: A resection with clear margins (R0 resection) is the most important prognostic factor in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). However, this is achieved in only 60 per cent of patients. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the addition of induction chemotherapy to neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation improves the R0 resection rate in LRRC. Methods: Thismulticentre, international, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study will enrol 364 patients with resectable LRRC after previous partial or total mesorectal resection without synchronous distant metastases or recent chemo- and/or radiotherapy treatment. Patients will be randomized to receive either induction chemotherapy (three 3-week cycles of CAPOX (capecitabine, oxaliplatin), four 2- week cycles of FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) or FOLFORI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan)) followed by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery (experimental arm) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery alone (control arm). Tumours will be restaged usingMRI and, in the experimental arm, a further cycle of CAPOX or two cycles of FOLFOX/FOLFIRI will be administered before chemoradiotherapy in case of stable or responsive disease. The radiotherapy dose will be 25 × 2.0 Gy or 28 × 1.8Gy in radiotherapy-naive patients, and 15 × 2.0Gy in previously irradiated patients. The concomitant chemotherapy agent will be capecitabine administered twice daily at a dose of 825mg/m2 on radiotherapy days. The primary endpoint of the study is the R0 resection rate. Secondary endpoints are long-termoncological outcomes, radiological and pathological response, toxicity, postoperative complications, costs, and quality of life. Discussion: This trial protocol describes the PelvEx II study. PelvEx II, designed as a multicentre, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study, is the first randomized study to compare induction chemotherapy followed by neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery with neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery alone in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, with the aim of improving the number of R0 resections

Association of mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics and anastomotic leak following left sided colorectal resection:an international, multi-centre, prospective audit

Introduction: The optimal bowel preparation strategy to minimise the risk of anastomotic leak is yet to be determined. This study aimed to determine whether oral antibiotics combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP+Abx) was associated with a reduced risk of anastomotic leak when compared to mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP) or no bowel preparation (NBP). Methods: A pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 Left Sided Colorectal Resection audit was performed. Patients undergoing elective left sided colonic or rectal resection with primary anastomosis between 1 January 2017 and 15 March 2017 by any operative approach were included. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak. Results: Of 3676 patients across 343 centres in 47 countries, 618 (16.8%) received MBP+ABx, 1945 MBP (52.9%) and 1099 patients NBP (29.9%). Patients undergoing MBP+ABx had the lowest overall rate of anastomotic leak (6.1%, 9.2%, 8.7% respectively) in unadjusted analysis. After case-mix adjustment using a mixed-effects multivariable regression model, MBP+Abx was associated with a lower risk of anastomotic leak (OR 0.52, 0.30–0.92, P&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.02) but MBP was not (OR 0.92, 0.63–1.36, P&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.69) compared to NBP. Conclusion: This non-randomised study adds ‘real-world’, contemporaneous, and prospective evidence of the beneficial effects of combined mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics in the prevention of anastomotic leak following left sided colorectal resection across diverse settings. We have also demonstrated limited uptake of this strategy in current international colorectal practice

International consensus to define outcomes for trials of chemoradiotherapy for anal cancer (CORMAC-2): defining the outcomes from the CORMAC core outcome set

Variation in outcomes definitions and reporting limit the utility of clinical trial results. The Core Outcome Research Measures in Anal Cancer (CORMAC) project developed a core outcome set (COS) for chemoradiotherapy trials for anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) through an international healthcare professional and patient consensus process. The CORMAC-COS comprises 19 outcomes across 4 domains (disease activity, survival, toxicity, life impact). In CORMAC-2 we have established standardised definitions for the 11 disease activity and survival outcomes in the CORMAC COS. Definitions were agreed through a 3 step process, initially identifying existing definitions through systematic review (registered with PROSPERO, CRD42016036540), using these to populate a two-round Delphi questionnaire completed by 51 experts from 13 countries, and finally ratification through an online consensus meeting. Standardising the definitions for these core outcomes facilitates real world utilisation of the CORMAC-COS, thereby increasing the quality of data available for clinical decision-making and ultimately enhancing patient care

International consensus to define outcomes for trials of chemoradiotherapy for anal cancer (CORMAC-2): defining the outcomes from the CORMAC core outcome set

Variation in outcomes definitions and reporting limit the utility of clinical trial results. The Core Outcome Research Measures in Anal Cancer (CORMAC) project developed a core outcome set (COS) for chemoradiotherapy trials for anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) through an international healthcare professional and patient consensus process. The CORMAC-COS comprises 19 outcomes across 4 domains (disease activity, survival, toxicity, life impact). In CORMAC-2 we have established standardised definitions for the 11 disease activity and survival outcomes in the CORMAC COS. Definitions were agreed through a 3 step process, initially identifying existing definitions through systematic review (registered with PROSPERO, CRD42016036540), using these to populate a two-round Delphi questionnaire completed by 51 experts from 13 countries, and finally ratification through an online consensus meeting. Standardising the definitions for these core outcomes facilitates real world utilisation of the CORMAC-COS, thereby increasing the quality of data available for clinical decision-making and ultimately enhancing patient care

Research priorities in prehabilitation for patients undergoing cancer surgery: an international Delphi study

Background Recently, the number of prehabilitation trials has increased significantly. The identification of key research priorities is vital in guiding future research directions. Thus, the aim of this collaborative study was to define key research priorities in prehabilitation for patients undergoing cancer surgery. Methods The Delphi methodology was implemented over three rounds of surveys distributed to prehabilitation experts from across multiple specialties, tumour streams and countries via a secure online platform. In the first round, participants were asked to provide baseline demographics and to identify five top prehabilitation research priorities. In successive rounds, participants were asked to rank research priorities on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was considered if > 70% of participants indicated agreement on each research priority. Results A total of 165 prehabilitation experts participated, including medical doctors, physiotherapists, dieticians, nurses, and academics across four continents. The first round identified 446 research priorities, collated within 75 unique research questions. Over two successive rounds, a list of 10 research priorities reached international consensus of importance. These included the efficacy of prehabilitation on varied postoperative outcomes, benefit to specific patient groups, ideal programme composition, cost efficacy, enhancing compliance and adherence, effect during neoadjuvant therapies, and modes of delivery. Conclusions This collaborative international study identified the top 10 research priorities in prehabilitation for patients undergoing cancer surgery. The identified priorities inform research strategies, provide future directions for prehabilitation research, support resource allocation and enhance the prehabilitation evidence base in cancer patients undergoing surgery