Relativistic Mean Field Model with Generalized Derivative Nucleon-Meson Couplings

The quantum hadrodynamics (QHD) model with minimal nucleon-meson couplings is generalized by introducing couplings of mesons to derivatives of the nucleon field in the Lagrangian density. This approach allows an effective description of a state-dependent in-medium interaction in the mean-field approximation. Various parametrizations for the generalized couplings are developed and applied to infinite nuclear matter. In this approach, scalar and vector self-energies depend on both density and momentum similarly as in the Dirac-Brueckner theory. The Schr\"{o}diger-equivalent optical potential is much less repulsive at high nucleon energies as compared to standard relativistic mean field models and thus agrees better with experimental findings. The derivative couplings in the extended model have significant effects on properties of symmetric nuclear matter and neutron matter.Comment: 35 pages, 1 table, 10 figure

Multiple putative oncogenes at the chromosome 20q amplicon contribute to colorectal adenoma to carcinoma progression

Objective: This study aimed to identify the oncogenes at 20q involved in colorectal adenoma to carcinoma progression by measuring the effect of 20q gain on mRNA expression of genes in this amplicon. Methods: Segmentation of DNA copy number changes on 20q was performed by array CGH (comparative genomic hybridisation) in 34 non-progressed colorectal adenomas, 41 progressed adenomas (ie, adenomas that present a focus of cancer) and 33 adenocarcinomas. Moreover, a robust analysis of altered expression of genes in these segments was performed by microarray analysis in 37 adenomas and 31 adenocarcinomas. Protein expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry on tissue microarrays. Results: The genes C20orf24, AURKA, RNPC1, TH1L, ADRM1, C20orf20 and TCFL5, mapping at 20q, were significantly overexpressed in carcinomas compared with adenomas as a consequence of copy number gain of 20q. Conclusion: This approach revealed C20orf24, AURKA, RNPC1, TH1L, ADRM1, C20orf20 and TCFL5 genes to be important in chromosomal instability-related adenoma to carcinoma progression. These genes therefore may serve as highly specific biomarkers for colorectal cancer with potential clinical applications

Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) can help to rule out colorectal cancer in patients presenting in primary care with lower abdominal symptoms:a systematic review conducted to inform new NICE DG30 diagnostic guidance

__Background:__ This study has attempted to assess the effectiveness of quantitative faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) for triage of people presenting with lower abdominal symptoms, where a referral to secondary care for investigation of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) is being considered, particularly when the 2-week criteria are not met. __Methods:__ We conducted a systematic review following published guidelines for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Twenty-one resources were searched up until March 2016. Summary estimates were calculated using a bivariate model or a random-effects logistic regression model. __Results:__ Nine studies are included in this review. One additional study, included in our systematic review, was provided as 'academic in confidence' and cannot be described herein. When FIT was based on a single faecal sample and a cut-off of 10 μg Hb/g faeces, sensitivity estimates indicated that a negative result using either the OC-Sensor or HM-JACKarc may be adequate to rule out nearly all CRC; the summary estimate of sensitivity for the OC-Sensor was 92.1%, based on four studies, and the only study of HM-JACKarc to assess the 10 μg Hb/g faeces cut-off reported a sensitivity of 100%. The corresponding specificity estimates were 85.8% (95% CI 78.3-91.0%) and 76.6%, respectively. When the diagnostic criterion was changed to include lower grades of neoplasia, i.e. the target condition included higher risk adenoma (HRA) as well as CRC, the rule-out performance of both FIT assays was reduced. __Conclusions:__ There is evidence to suggest that triage using FIT at a cut-off around 10 μg Hb/g faeces has the potential to correctly rule out CRC and avoid colonoscopy in 75-80% of symptomatic patients. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO 4201603772

Recurrence after piecemeal hot-snare endoscopic mucosal resection of 10-20-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps:a multicenter cohort study

Background Guidelines are equivocal on the need for early surveillance colonoscopy (ESC) after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) of 10-20-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (NPCPs). This study assessed recurrence rates and associated factors at ESC following hot-snare pEMR of 10-20-mm NPCPs. Methods A retrospective, multicenter cohort study was performed at five hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients undergoing pEMR of 10-20-mm NPCPs (2014-2021) and referred for ESC (range 3-9 months) were included. The primary outcome was recurrence rate at ESC. Secondary outcomes included scar identification rates, both overall and at tattooed sites. A mixed-effects model was used to identify factors associated with recurrence. Results 389 patients undergoing pEMR of 426 NPCPs 10-20 mm (median 15 mm, interquartile range 12.8-20.0 mm) were included. Overall, 262 scars (61.5%; 95%CI 56.8-66.0) and 81.6% of tattooed sites were identified at ESC. The recurrence rate was 35/426 (8.2%; 95%CI 6.0-11.2) overall and 35/262 (13.4%; 95%CI 9.8-18.0) when the scar was identified. Median recurrence size was 5 mm, without high grade dysplasia. No NPCP characteristics were associated with recurrence. Conclusions This real-world study found a substantial recurrence rate after hot-snare pEMR of NPCPs sized 10-20mm at ESC. ESC scar identification was moderate but improved with tattoo placement. Although early surveillance could be considered to avoid missing recurrence, the small recurrence size and absence of high grade dysplasia suggest that modestly extending the interval beyond that of our study may still allow timely detection of recurrences and metachronous lesions

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers in a national FIT-based CRC screening program

Background and study aims: Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) decrease the effect of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. To enable PCCRC incidence reduction on the long-term we classified PCCRCs diagnosed after colonoscopies performed in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT-) based screening program. Patients and methods: PCCRCs diagnosed after colonoscopies performed between 2014-2016 for positive FIT in the Dutch CRC screening program were included. PCCRCs were categorized according to the World Endoscopy Organization consensus statement into a) interval PCCRC (diagnosed before the recommended surveillance), b) non-interval-type-A (diagnosed at the recommended surveillance interval), c) non-interval-type-B (diagnosed after the recommended surveillance interval), or d) non-interval-type-C (diagnosed after the intended recommended surveillance interval, but not applied due to comorbidity). The most probable etiology was determined by root-cause analysis. Tumor stage distributions were compared between categories. Results: 116,362 colonoscopies were performed after positive FIT with 9,978 screen-detected CRCs. During follow-up, 432 PCCRCs were diagnosed. The 3-year PCCRC rate was 2.7%. PCCRCs were categorized as interval (53.5%), non-interval-type-A (14.6%), non-interval-type-B (30.6%), and non-interval-type-C (1.4%). Interval PCCRCs had as most common etiology a possible missed lesion with adequate examination (73.6%) and were more often diagnosed at an advanced stage (stage III/IV, 53.2%) compared to non-interval-type-A (15.9%, p&lt;0.001) and non-interval-type-B (40.9%, p=0.025) PCCRCs. Conclusions: The 3-year PCCRC rate was low in this FIT-based CRC screening program. Approximately half of PCCRCs were interval PCCRCs. These were mostly caused by missed lesions and were diagnosed at more advanced stage. This emphasizes the importance of high-quality colonoscopy with optimal polyp detection.</p

Anticipating implementation of colorectal cancer screening in The Netherlands: a nation wide survey on endoscopic supply and demand

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening requires sufficient endoscopic resources. The present study aims to determine the Dutch endoscopic production and manpower for 2009, evaluate trends since 2004, determine additional workload which would be caused by implementation of a CRC screening program, and inventory colonoscopy rates performed in other European countries.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>All Dutch endoscopy units (N = 101) were surveyed for manpower and the numbers of endoscopy procedures performed in 2009. Based on calculations in the report issued by the Dutch Health Council, future additional workload caused by faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening was estimated. The number of colonoscopies performed in Europe was evaluated by a literature search and an email-inquiry.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Compared to 2004, there was a 24% increase in total endoscopies (N = 505,226 in 2009), and a 64% increase in colonoscopies (N = 191,339 in 2009) in The Netherlands. The number of endoscopists had increased by 4.6% (N = 583 in 2009). Five years after stepwise implementation of FIT-based CRC screening, endoscopic capacity needs to be increased an additional 15%. A lack of published data on the number of endoscopies performed in Europe was found. Based on our email-inquiry, the number of colonoscopies per 100,000 inhabitants ranged from 126 to 3,031 in 15 European countries.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Over the last years, endoscopic procedures increased markedly in The Netherlands without a corresponding increase in manpower. A FIT-based CRC screening program requires an estimated additional 15% increase in endoscopic procedures. It is very likely that current colonoscopy density varies widely across European countries.</p

Does delay in diagnosing colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients affect tumor stage and survival? A population-based observational study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Diagnosing colorectal cancer (CRC) at an early stage improves survival. To what extent any delay affects outcome once patients are symptomatic is still unclear.</p> <p>Our objectives were to evaluate the association between diagnostic delay and survival in symptomatic patients with early stage CRC and late stage CRC.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Prospective population-based observational study evaluating daily clinical practice in Northern Holland. Diagnostic delay was determined through questionnaire-interviews. Dukes' stage was classified into two groups: early stage (Dukes A or B) and late stage (Dukes C or D) cancer. Patients were followed up for 3.5 years after diagnosis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In total, 272 patients were available for analysis. Early stage CRC was present in 136 patients while 136 patients had late stage CRC. The mean total diagnostic delay (SE) was 31 (1.5) weeks in all CRC patients. No significant difference was observed in the mean total diagnostic delay in early versus late stage CRC (<it>p </it>= 0.27).</p> <p>In early stage CRC, no difference in survival was observed between patients with total diagnostic delay shorter and longer than the median (Kaplan-Meier, log-rank <it>p </it>= 0.93).</p> <p>In late stage CRC, patients with a diagnostic delay shorter than the median had a shorter survival than patients with a diagnostic delay longer than the median (log-rank <it>p </it>= 0.01). In the multivariate Cox regression model with survival as dependent variable and median delay, age, open access endoscopy, number and type of symptoms as independent variables, the odd's ratio for survival in patients with long delay (>median) versus short delay (≤median) was 1.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1 to 3.0; <it>p </it>= 0.01). Tumor-site was not associated with patient survival. When separating late stage CRC in Dukes C and Dukes D tumors, a shorter delay was associated with a shorter survival in Dukes D tumors only and not in Dukes C tumors.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In symptomatic CRC patients, a longer diagnostic and therapeutic delay in routine clinical practice was not associated with an adverse effect on survival. The time to CRC diagnosis and initiation of treatment did not differ between early stage and late stage colorectal cancer.</p

Magnitude, trends, and variability of the global ocean Carbon sink from 1985 to 2018

This contribution to the RECCAP2 (REgional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes) assessment analyzes the processes that determine the global ocean carbon sink, and its trends and variability over the period 1985-2018, using a combination of models and observation-based products. The mean sea-air CO2 flux from 1985 to 2018 is -1.6 +/- 0.2 PgC yr(-1) based on an ensemble of reconstructions of the history of sea surface pCO(2) (pCO(2) products). Models indicate that the dominant component of this flux is the net oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2, which is estimated at -2.1 +/- 0.3 PgC yr(-1) by an ensemble of ocean biogeochemical models, and -2.4 +/- 0.1 PgC yr(-1) by two ocean circulation inverse models. The ocean also degasses about 0.65 +/- 0.3 PgC yr(-1) of terrestrially derived CO2, but this process is not fully resolved by any of the models used here. From 2001 to 2018, the pCO2 products reconstruct a trend in the ocean carbon sink of -0.61 +/- 0.12 PgC yr(-1) decade(-1), while biogeochemical models and inverse models diagnose an anthropogenic CO2-driven trend of -0.34 +/- 0.06 and -0.41 +/- 0.03 PgC yr(-1) decade(-1), respectively. This implies a climate-forced acceleration of the ocean carbon sink in recent decades, but there are still large uncertainties on the magnitude and cause of this trend. The interannual to decadal variability of the global carbon sink is mainly driven by climate variability, with the climate-driven variability exceeding the CO2-forced variability by 2-3 times. These results suggest that anthropogenic CO2 dominates the ocean CO2 sink, while climate-driven variability is potentially large but highly uncertain and not consistently captured across different methods

Double sampling of a faecal immunochemical test is not superior to single sampling for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a colonoscopy controlled prospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A single sampled faecal immunochemical test (FIT) has moderate sensitivity for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas. Repeated FIT sampling could improve test sensitivity. The aim of the present study is to determine whether any of three different strategies of double FIT sampling has a better combination of sensitivity and specificity than single FIT sampling.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Test performance of single FIT sampling in subjects scheduled for colonoscopy was compared to double FIT sampling intra-individually. Test positivity of double FIT sampling was evaluated in three different ways: 1) "one of two FITs+" when at least one out of two measurements exceeded the cut-off value, 2) "two of two FITs+" when both measurements exceeded the cut-off value, 3) "mean of two FITs+" when the geometric mean of two FITs exceeded the cut-off value. Receiver operator curves were calculated and sensitivity of single and the three strategies of double FIT sampling were compared at a fixed level of specificity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In 124 of 1096 subjects, screen relevant neoplasia (SRN) were found (i.e. early stage CRC or advanced adenomas). At any cut-off, "two of two FITs+" resulted in the lowest and "one of two FITs+" in the highest sensitivity for SRN (range 35-44% and 42%-54% respectively). ROC's of double FIT sampling were similar to single FIT sampling. At specificities of 85/90/95%, sensitivity of any double FIT sampling strategy did not differ significantly from single FIT (p-values 0.07-1).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>At any cut off, "one of two FITs+" is the most sensitive double FIT sampling strategy. However, at a given specificity level, sensitivity of any double FIT sampling strategy for SRN is comparable to single FIT sampling at a different cut-off value. None of the double FIT strategies has a superior combination of sensitivity and specificity over single FIT.</p