7 research outputs found
Tumoricidal efficacy coincides with CD11c up-regulation in antigen-specific CD8+ T cells during vaccine immunotherapy
Background: Dendritic cells (DCs) mount tumor-associated antigens (TAAs), and the double-stranded RNA adjuvant Poly(I:C) stimulates Toll-like receptor 3 (TLR3) signal in DC, which in turn induces type I interferon (IFN) and interleukin-12 (IL-12), then cross-primes cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs). Proliferation of CTLs correlates with tumor regression. How these potent cells expand with high quality is crucial to the outcome of CTL therapy. However, good markers reflecting the efficacy of DC-target immunotherapy have not been addressed. Methods: Using an EG7 (ovalbumin, OVA-positive) tumor-implant mouse model, we examined what is a good marker for active CTL induction in treatment with Poly(I:C)/OVA. Results: Simultaneous administration of Poly(I:C) and antigen (Ag) OVA significantly increased a minor population of CD8+ T cells, that express CD11c in lymphoid and tumor sites. The numbers of the CD11c+ CD8+ T cells correlated with those of induced Ag-specific CD8+ T cells and tumor regression. The CD11c+ CD8+ T cell moiety was characterized by its high killing activity and IFN-γ-producing ability, which represent an active phenotype of the effector CTLs. Not only a TLR3-specific (TICAM-1-dependent) signal but also TLR2 (MyD88) signal in DC triggered the expansion of CD11c+ CD8+ T cells in tumor-bearing mice. Notably, human CD11c+ CD8+ T cells also proliferated in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) stimulated with cytomegalovirus (CMV) Ag. Conclusions: CD11c expression in CD8+ T cells reflects anti-tumor CTL activity and would be a marker for immunotherapeutic efficacy in mouse models and probably cancer patients as well
What is known about the patient's experience of medical tourism? A scoping review
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Medical tourism is understood as travel abroad with the intention of obtaining non-emergency medical services. This practice is the subject of increasing interest, but little is known about its scope.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A comprehensive scoping review of published academic articles, media sources, and grey literature reports was performed to answer the question: what is known about the patient's experience of medical tourism? The review was accomplished in three steps: (1) identifying the question and relevant literature; (2) selecting the literature; (3) charting, collating, and summarizing the information. Overall themes were identified from this process.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>291 sources were identified for review from the databases searched, the majority of which were media pieces (<it>n </it>= 176). A further 57 sources were included for review after hand searching reference lists. Of the 348 sources that were gathered, 216 were ultimately included in this scoping review. Only a small minority of sources reported on empirical studies that involved the collection of primary data (<it>n </it>= 5). The four themes identified via the review were: (1) decision-making (e.g., push and pull factors that operate to shape patients' decisions); (2) motivations (e.g., procedure-, cost-, and travel-based factors motivating patients to seek care abroad); (3) risks (e.g., health and travel risks); and (4) first-hand accounts (e.g., patients' experiential accounts of having gone abroad for medical care). These themes represent the most discussed issues about the patient's experience of medical tourism in the English-language academic, media, and grey literatures.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This review demonstrates the need for additional research on numerous issues, including: (1) understanding how multiple information sources are consulted and evaluated by patients before deciding upon medical tourism; (2) examining how patients understand the risks of care abroad; (3) gathering patients' prospective and retrospective accounts; and (4) the push and pull factors, as well as the motives of patients to participate in medical tourism. The findings from this scoping review and the knowledge gaps it uncovered also demonstrate that there is great potential for new contributions to our understanding of the patient's experience of medical tourism.</p
BJS commission on surgery and perioperative care post-COVID-19
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the WHO on 11 March 2020 and global surgical practice was compromised. This Commission aimed to document and reflect on the changes seen in the surgical environment during the pandemic, by reviewing colleagues' experiences and published evidence
Outcomes Following Vascular and Endovascular Procedures Performed During the First COVID-19 Pandemic Wave
\ua9 2024 The Author(s)Objective: The first COVID-19 pandemic wave was a period of reduced surgical activity and redistribution of resources to only those with late stage or critical presentations. This Vascular and Endovascular Research Network COVID-19 Vascular Service (COVER) study aimed to describe the six-month outcomes of patients who underwent open surgery and or endovascular interventions for major vascular conditions during this period. Methods: In this international, multicentre, prospective, observational study, centres recruited consecutive patients undergoing vascular procedures over a 12-week period. The study opened in March 2020 and closed to recruitment in August 2020. Patient demographics, procedure details, and post-operative outcomes were collected on a secure online database. The reported outcomes at 30 days and six months were post-operative complications, re-interventions, and all cause in-hospital mortality rate. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with six-month mortality rate. Results: Data were collected on 3 150 vascular procedures, including 1 380 lower limb revascularisations, 609 amputations, 403 aortic, 289 carotid, and 469 other vascular interventions. The median age was 68 years (interquartile range 59, 76), 73.5% were men, and 1.7% had confirmed COVID-19 disease. The cumulative all cause in-hospital, 30-day, and six-month mortality rates were 9.1%, 10.4%, and 12.8%, respectively. The six-month mortality rate was 32.1% (95% CI 24.2–40.8%) in patients with confirmed COVID-19 compared with 12.0% (95% CI 10.8–13.2%) in those without. After adjustment, confirmed COVID-19 was associated with a three times higher odds of six-month death (adjusted OR 3.25, 95% CI 2.18–4.83). Increasing ASA grade (3–5 vs. 1–2), frailty scores 4–9, diabetes mellitus, and urgent and or immediate procedures were also independently associated with increased odds of death by six months, while statin use had a protective effect. Conclusion: During the first wave of the pandemic, the six-month mortality rate after vascular and endovascular procedures was higher compared with historic pre-pandemic studies and associated with COVID-19 disease