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

The development and validation of a scoring tool to predict the operative duration of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background: The ability to accurately predict operative duration has the potential to optimise theatre efficiency and utilisation, thus reducing costs and increasing staff and patient satisfaction. With laparoscopic cholecystectomy being one of the most commonly performed procedures worldwide, a tool to predict operative duration could be extremely beneficial to healthcare organisations. Methods: Data collected from the CholeS study on patients undergoing cholecystectomy in UK and Irish hospitals between 04/2014 and 05/2014 were used to study operative duration. A multivariable binary logistic regression model was produced in order to identify significant independent predictors of long (> 90 min) operations. The resulting model was converted to a risk score, which was subsequently validated on second cohort of patients using ROC curves. Results: After exclusions, data were available for 7227 patients in the derivation (CholeS) cohort. The median operative duration was 60 min (interquartile range 45–85), with 17.7% of operations lasting longer than 90 min. Ten factors were found to be significant independent predictors of operative durations > 90 min, including ASA, age, previous surgical admissions, BMI, gallbladder wall thickness and CBD diameter. A risk score was then produced from these factors, and applied to a cohort of 2405 patients from a tertiary centre for external validation. This returned an area under the ROC curve of 0.708 (SE = 0.013, p  90 min increasing more than eightfold from 5.1 to 41.8% in the extremes of the score. Conclusion: The scoring tool produced in this study was found to be significantly predictive of long operative durations on validation in an external cohort. As such, the tool may have the potential to enable organisations to better organise theatre lists and deliver greater efficiencies in care

A social and ecological assessment of tropical land uses at multiple scales: the Sustainable Amazon Network

Science has a critical role to play in guiding more sustainable development trajectories. Here, we present the Sustainable Amazon Network (Rede Amazonia Sustentavel, RAS): a multidisciplinary research initiative involving more than 30 partner organizations working to assess both social and ecological dimensions of land-use sustainability in eastern Brazilian Amazonia. The research approach adopted by RAS offers three advantages for addressing land-use sustainability problems: (i) the collection of synchronized and co-located ecological and socioeconomic data across broad gradients of past and present human use; (ii) a nested sampling design to aid comparison of ecological and socioeconomic conditions associated with different land uses across local, landscape and regional scales; and (iii) a strong engagement with a wide variety of actors and non-research institutions. Here, we elaborate on these key features, and identify the ways in which RAS can help in highlighting those problems in most urgent need of attention, and in guiding improvements in land-use sustainability in Amazonia and elsewhere in the tropics. We also discuss some of the practical lessons, limitations and realities faced during the development of the RAS initiative so far.Keywords: Social–ecological systems, Tropical forests, Land use, Interdisciplinary research, Sustainability, Trade-off

Disruption of orofacial movement topographies in congenic mutants with dopamine D5 but not D4 receptor or DARPP-32 transduction 'knockout'

The role of D(1)-like [D(1), D(5)] and D(2)-like [D(2), D(3), D(4)] dopamine receptors and dopamine transduction via DARPP-32 in topographies of orofacial movement was assessed in restrained mice with congenic D(4) vs. D(5) receptor vs. DARPP-32 'knockout'. D(4) and DARPP-32 mutants evidenced no material phenotype; also, there were no alterations in topographical responsivity to either the selective D(2)-like agonist RU 24213 or the selective D(1)-like agonist SK and F 83959. In contrast, D(5) mutants evidenced an increase in spontaneous vertical jaw movements, which habituated more slowly than in wildtypes, and a decrease in horizontal jaw movements; topographical responsivity to SK and F 83959 and RU 24213 was unaltered. D(5) receptors regulate distinct topographies of vertical and horizontal jaw movement in an opposite manner. In assuming that the well-recognised role of the D(1)-like family in regulating orofacial movements involves primarily D(1) receptors, a role for their D(5) counterparts may have been overlooked

Omicron BA.1-containing mRNA-1273 boosters compared with the original COVID-19 vaccine in the UK: a randomised, observer-blind, active-controlled trial

Background The omicron BA.1 bivalent booster is used globally. Previous open-label studies of the omicron BA.1 (Moderna mRNA-1273.214) booster showed superior neutralising antibody responses against omicron BA.1 and other variants compared with the original mRNA-1273 booster. We aimed to compare the safety and immunogenicity of omicron BA.1 monovalent and bivalent boosters with the original mRNA-1273 vaccine in a large, randomised controlled trial. Methods In this large, randomised, observer-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trial in the UK (28 hospital and vaccination clinic sites), individuals aged 16 years or older who had previously received two injections of any authorised or approved COVID-19 vaccine, with or without an mRNA vaccine booster (third dose), were randomly allocated (1:1) using interactive response technology to receive 50 μg omicron BA.1 monovalent or bivalent vaccines or 50 μg mRNA-1273 administered as boosters via deltoid intramuscular injection. The primary outcomes were safety and immunogenicity at day 29, including prespecified non-inferiority and superiority of booster immune responses, based on the neutralising antibody geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios of the monovalent and bivalent boosters compared with mRNA-1273. Safety was assessed in all participants who received first or second boosters, and primary immunogenicity outcomes were assessed in all participants who received the planned booster dose, had pre-booster and day 29 antibody data, had no major protocol deviations, and who were SARS-CoV-2-negative. The study is registered with EudraCT (2022-000063-51) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05249829) and is ongoing. Findings Between Feb 16 and March 24, 2022, 724 participants were randomly allocated to receive omicron BA.1 monovalent (n=366) or mRNA-1273 (n=357), and between April 2 and June 17, 2022, 2824 participants were randomly allocated to receive omicron BA.1 bivalent (n=1418) or mRNA-1273 (n=1395) vaccines as second boosters. Median durations (months) between the most recent COVID-19 vaccine and study boosters were similar for omicron BA.1 monovalent (4·0 months [IQR 3·6–4·7]) and mRNA-1273 (4·1 [3·5–4·7]), and for the omicron BA.1 bivalent (5·5 [4·8–6·2]) and mRNA-1273 (5·4 [4·8–6·2]) boosters. The omicron BA.1 monovalent and bivalent boosters elicited superior neutralising GMCs against the omicron BA.1 variant compared with mRNA-1273, with GMC ratios of 1·68 (99% CI 1·45−1·95) and 1·53 (1·41−1·67) at day 29 post-booster doses in participants without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Both boosters induced non-inferior ancestral SARS-CoV-2 (Asp614Gly) immune responses with GMCs that were similar for the bivalent (2987·2 [95% CI 2814·9–3169·9]) versus mRNA-1273 (2911·3 [2750·9–3081·0]) and lower for the monovalent (2699·7 [2431·3–2997·7] vs 3020·6 [2776·5–3286·2]) boosters, with respective GMC ratios of 1·05 (99% CI 0·96–1·15) and 0·82 (95% CI 0·74–0·91). Results were comparable regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Incidences of solicited adverse reactions with the omicron BA.1 monovalent (335 [91·3%] of 367 participants) and omicron BA.1 bivalent (1285 [90·4%] of 1421 participants) boosters were similar to those observed previously for mRNA-1273, with no new safety concerns identified and no occurrences of fatal adverse events. Interpretation Omicron-containing booster vaccines generated superior immunogenicity against omicron BA.1 and comparable immunogenicity against the original strain with no new safety concerns. It remains important to continuously monitor the immune responses and real-world vaccine effectiveness as divergent SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge. Funding Moderna

Erratum : Grams ME, Sang Y, Ballew SH, et al, for the Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium. Predicting timing of clinical outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease and severely decreased glomerular filtration rate. Kidney Int. 2018;93:1442–1451 (Kidney International (2018) 93(6) (1442–1451), (S0085253818300978) (10.1016/j.kint.2018.01.009))

The Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Prognosis Consortium is a collaborative author of the above-mentioned article. The CKD Prognosis Consortium investigators/collaborators are as follows: • African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK): Brad Astor, Lawrence J. Appel; Canadian Study of Prediction of Death, Dialysis and Interim Cardiovascular Events (CanPREDDICT): Adeera Levin, Mila Tang, Ognjenka Djurdjev; Cleveland Clinic CKD Registry Study (CCF): Sankar D. Navaneethan, Stacey E. Jolly, Jesse D. Schold, Joseph V. Nally Jr.; Chronic Renal Impairment in Birmingham (CRIB): David C. Wheeler, Jonathan Emberson, John Townend, Martin Landray; Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort Study (CRIC): Harold I. Feldman, Chi-yuan Hsu, James P. Lash, Lawrence J. Appel; Chronic Renal Insufficiency Standards Implementation Study (CRISIS): Philip A. Kalra, James P. Ritchie, Raman Maharajan, Rachel J. Middleton, Donal J. O'Donoghue; German Chronic Kidney Disease Study (GCKD): Kai-Uwe Eckardt, Markus P. Schneider, Anna Köttgen, Florian Kronenberg, Barbara Bärthlein; Geisinger Health System: Alex R. Chang, Jamie A. Green, H. Lester Kirchner, Kevin Ho; Grampian Laboratory Outcomes, Morbidity and Mortality Studies – 2 (GLOMMS2): Angharad Marks, Corri Black, Gordon J. Prescott, Nick Fluck; Gonryo Study: Masaaki Nakayama, Mariko Miyazaki, Tae Yamamoto, Gen Yamada; Hong Kong CKD Studies: Angela Yee-Moon Wang, Sharon Cheung, Sharon Wong, Jessie Chu, Henry Wu; Ontario Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Provincial Kidney, Dialysis and Transplantation program (ICES KDT): Amit X. Garg, Eric McArthur, Danielle M. Nash; Maccabi Health System: Varda Shalev, Gabriel Chodick; Multifactorial Approach and Superior Treatment Efficacy in Renal Patients with the Aid of a Nurse Practitioner (MASTERPLAN): Peter J. Blankestijn, Jack F.M. Wetzels, Arjan D. van Zuilen, Jan A. van den Brand; Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study (MDRD): Andrew S. Levey, Lesley A. Inker, Mark J. Sarnak, Hocine Tighiouart; Nanjing CKD Network Cohort Study (Nanjing CKD): Haitao Zhang; NephroTest Study (NephroTest): Benedicte Stengel, Marie Metzger, Martin Flamant, Pascal Houillier, Jean-Philippe Haymann; National Renal Healthcare Program – Uruguay (NRHP-URU): Pablo G. Rios, Nelson Mazzuchi, Liliana Gadola, Verónica Lamadrid, Laura Sola; New Zealand Diabetes Cohort Study (NZDCS): John F. Collins, C. Raina Elley, Timothy Kenealy; Parcours de Soins des Personnes Agées (PSPA): Olivier Moranne, Cecile Couchoud, Cecile Vigneau; Primary-Secondary Care Partnership to Prevent Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease (PSP CKD): Nigel J. Brunskill, Rupert W. Major, David Shepherd, James F. Medcalf; Racial and Cardiovascular Risk Anomalies in CKD Cohort (RCAV): Csaba P. Kovesdy, Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh, Miklos Z. Molnar, Keiichi Sumida, Praveen K. Potukuchi; Reduction of Endpoints in Non-insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL): Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, Dick de Zeeuw, Barry Brenner; Stockholm CREAtinine Measurements Cohort (SCREAM): Juan Jesus Carrero, Alessandro Gasparini, Abdul Rashid Qureshi, Carl-Gustaf Elinder; Second Manifestations of ARTerial Disease Study (SMART): Frank L.J. Visseren, Yolanda van der Graaf; Swedish Renal Registry CKD Cohort (SRR CKD): Marie Evans, Maria Stendahl, Staffan Schön, Mårten Segelmark, Karl-Göran Prütz; Sunnybrook Cohort: David M. Naimark, Navdeep Tangri; West of Scotland CKD Study: Patrick B. Mark, Jamie P. Traynor, Colin C. Geddes, Peter C. Thomson.• CKD Prognosis Consortium Steering Committee: Alex R. Chang, Josef Coresh (Chair), Ron T. Gansevoort, Morgan E. Grams, Anna Köttgen, Andrew S. Levey, Kunihiro Matsushita, Mark Woodward, Luxia Zhang.• CKD Prognosis Consortium Data Coordinating Center: Shoshana H. Ballew (Assistant Project Director), Jingsha Chen (Programmer), Josef Coresh (Principal Investigator), Morgan E. Grams (Director of Nephrology Initiatives), Lucia Kwak (Programmer), Kunihiro Matsushita (Director), Yingying Sang (Lead Programmer), Aditya Surapaneni (Programmer), Mark Woodward (Senior Statistician).• Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference on Prognosis and Optimal Management of Patients with Advanced CKD: Kai-Uwe Eckardt (Conference Co-Chair), Brenda R. Hemmelgarn (Conference Co-Chair), David C. Wheeler (KDIGO Co-Chair), Wolfgang C. Winkelmayer (KDIGO Co-Chair), John Davis (CEO), Danielle Green (Managing Director), Michael Cheung (Chief Scientific Officer), Tanya Green (Communications Director), Melissa McMahan (Programs Director)

A social and ecological assessment of tropical land uses at multiple scales:the Sustainable Amazon Network

Science has a critical role to play in guiding more sustainable development trajectories. Here, we present the Sustainable Amazon Network (Rede Amazonia Sustentavel, RAS): a multidisciplinary research initiative involving more than 30 partner organizations working to assess both social and ecological dimensions of land-use sustainability in eastern Brazilian Amazonia. The research approach adopted by RAS offers three advantages for addressing land-use sustainability problems: (i) the collection of synchronized and co-located ecological and socioeconomic data across broad gradients of past and present human use; (ii) a nested sampling design to aid comparison of ecological and socioeconomic conditions associated with different land uses across local, landscape and regional scales; and (iii) a strong engagement with a wide variety of actors and non-research institutions. Here, we elaborate on these key features, and identify the ways in which RAS can help in highlighting those problems in most urgent need of attention, and in guiding improvements in land-use sustainability in Amazonia and elsewhere in the tropics. We also discuss some of the practical lessons, limitations and realities faced during the development of the RAS initiative so far

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic : an international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks