Chronic Kidney Disease in Cats and the Risk of Total Hypercalcemia

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common comorbidity in cats with hypercalcemia, but whether CKD is a risk factor for hypercalcemia is unclear. Hypercalcemia often is diagnosed based on total calcium concentration (tCa), which tends to underestimate the ionized calcium concentration (iCa) in cats. OBJECTIVES: Assessment of the performance of tCa for the diagnosis of ionized hypercalcemia, and exploration of factors influencing the relationship between iCa and tCa. Determination of risk factors for incident total hypercalcemia (ie, the development of hypercalcemia based on tCa during follow‐up). ANIMALS: Records of a cross‐section (n = 477) and observational cohort (n = 367) of client‐owned cats with and without azotemic CKD from first opinion practice. METHODS: Retrospective cross‐sectional and retrospective cohort study. The diagnostic accuracy of tCa as an index test for ionized hypercalcemia was evaluated, and risk factors for underestimation were explored by binary logistic and linear regression in a cross‐section of cats with and without azotemic CKD. Chronic kidney disease and clinicopathological variables were assessed as predictors of incident total hypercalcemia by both time‐invariant and time‐dependent Cox regression in a cohort of cats. RESULTS: Specificity of tCa for identification of ionized hypercalcemia was high (100%), but sensitivity was low. Underestimation was associated with lower venous bicarbonate concentrations. Cats with CKD had increased risk for incident total hypercalcemia (hazard ratio, 4.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.96–9.37; P < .001). Higher tCa predicted incident total hypercalcemia in both azotemic and nonazotemic cats (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Chronic kidney disease is a risk factor for incident total hypercalcemia, and most cats with increased tCa had concurrent ionized hypercalcemia. Higher baseline tCa predicts incident total hypercalcemia. Prospective studies assessing changes in iCa are warranted

Sporadic naturally occurring melanoma in dogs as a preclinical model for human melanoma

Melanoma represents a significant malignancy in humans and dogs. Different from genetically engineered models, sporadic canine melanocytic neoplasms share several characteristics with human disease that could make dogs a more relevant preclinical model. Canine melanomas rarely arise in sun-exposed sites. Most occur in the oral cavity, with a subset having intra-epithelial malignant melanocytes mimicking the in situ component of human mucosal melanoma. The spectrum of canine melanocytic neoplasia includes benign lesions with some analogy to nevi, as well as invasive primary melanoma, and widespread metastasis. Growing evidence of distinct subtypes in humans, differing in somatic and predisposing germ-line genetic alterations, cell of origin, epidemiology, relationship to ultraviolet radiation and progression from benign to malignant tumors, may also exist in dogs. Canine and human mucosal melanomas appear to harbor BRAF, NRAS, and c-kit mutations uncommonly, compared with human cutaneous melanomas, although both species share AKT and MAPK signaling activation. We conclude that there is significant overlap in the clinical and histopathological features of canine and human mucosal melanomas. This represents opportunity to explore canine oral cavity melanoma as a preclinical model

International Guidelines for Veterinary Tumor Pathology: A Call to Action

Standardization of tumor assessment lays the foundation for validation of grading systems, permits reproducibility of oncologic studies among investigators, and increases confidence in the significance of study results. Currently, there is minimal methodological standardization for assessing tumors in veterinary medicine, with few attempts to validate published protocols and grading schemes. The current article attempts to address these shortcomings by providing standard guidelines for tumor assessment parameters and protocols for evaluating specific tumor types. More detailed information is available in the Supplemental Files, the intention of which is 2-fold: publication as part of this commentary, but more importantly, these will be available as “living documents” on a website (www.vetcancerprotocols.org), which will be updated as new information is presented in the peer-reviewed literature. Our hope is that veterinary pathologists will agree that this initiative is needed, and will contribute to and utilize this information for routine diagnostic work and oncologic studies. Journal editors and reviewers can utilize checklists to ensure publications include sufficient detail and standardized methods of tumor assessment. To maintain the relevance of the guidelines and protocols, it is critical that the information is periodically updated and revised as new studies are published and validated with the intent of providing a repository of this information. Our hope is that this initiative (a continuation of efforts published in this journal in 2011) will facilitate collaboration and reproducibility between pathologists and institutions, increase case numbers, and strengthen clinical research findings, thus ensuring continued progress in veterinary oncologic pathology and improving patient care