The predictive and prognostic potential of plasma telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) RNA in rectal cancer patients

Background: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgery is the standard care for locally advanced rectal cancer, but tumour response to CRT and disease outcome are variable. The current study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of plasma telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) levels in predicting tumour response and clinical outcome. Methods: 176 rectal cancer patients were included. Plasma samples were collected at baseline (before CRT\ubcT0), 2 weeks after CRT was initiated (T1), post-CRT and before surgery (T2), and 4\u20138 months after surgery (T3) time points. Plasma TERT mRNA levels and total cell-free RNA were determined using real-time PCR. Results: Plasma levels of TERT were significantly lower at T2 (Po0.0001) in responders than in non-responders. Post-CRT TERT levels and the differences between pre- and post-CRT TERT levels independently predicted tumour response, and the prediction model had an area under curve of 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73\u20130.87). Multiple analysis demonstrated that patients with detectable TERT levels at T2 and T3 time points had a risk of disease progression 2.13 (95% CI 1.10\u20134.11)-fold and 4.55 (95% CI 1.48\u201313.95)-fold higher, respectively, than those with undetectable plasma TERT levels. Conclusions: Plasma TERT levels are independent markers of tumour response and are prognostic of disease progression in rectal cancer patients who undergo neoadjuvant therapy

Impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular testing in the United States versus the rest of the world

Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-US institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection

Very high energy gamma-ray observation of the peculiar transient event Swift J1644+57 with the MAGIC telescopes and AGILE

Context. On March 28, 2011, the BAT instrument on board the Swift satellite detected a new transient event that in the very beginning was classified as a gamma ray burst (GRB). However, the unusual X-ray flaring activity observed from a few hours up to days after the onset of the event made a different nature seem to be more likely. The long-lasting activity in the X-ray band, followed by a delayed brightening of the source in infrared and radio activity, suggested that it is better interpreted as a tidal disruption event that triggered a dormant black hole in the nucleus of the host galaxy and generated an outflowing jet of relativistic matter. Aims. Detecting a very high energy emission component from such a peculiar object would be enable us to constrain the dynamic of the emission processes and the jet model by providing information on the Doppler factor of the relativistic ejecta. Methods. The MAGIC telescopes observed the peculiar source Swift J1644+57 during the flaring phase, searching for gamma-ray emission at very-high energy (VHE, E > 100 GeV), starting observations nearly 2.5 days after the trigger time. MAGIC collected a total of 28 h of data during 12 nights. The source was observed in wobble mode during dark time at a mean zenith angle of 35 degrees. Data were reduced using a new image-cleaning algorithm, the so-called sum-cleaning, which guarantees a better noise suppression and a lower energy threshold than the standard analysis procedure. Results. No clear evidence for emission above the energy threshold of 100 GeV was found. MAGIC observations permit one to constrain the emission from the source down to 100 GeV, which favors models that explain the observed lower energy variable emission. Data analysis of simultaneous observations from AGILE, Fermi and VERITAS also provide negative detection, which additionally constrain the self-Compton emission component

Symptom Variability and Early Symptom Regression in the MAPP Study: A Prospective Study of Urological Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome

PurposeWe examined symptom variability in men and women with urological chronic pelvic pain syndrome. We describe symptom fluctuations as related to early symptom regression and its effect on estimated 1-year symptom change. We also describe a method to quantify patient specific symptom variability.Materials and methodsSymptoms were assessed biweekly in 424 subjects with urological chronic pelvic pain syndrome during 1 year. To evaluate the impact of early symptom regression subjects were classified as improved, no change or worse according to the rate of change using 1) all data, 2) excluding week 0 and 3)&nbsp;excluding weeks 0 and 2. Patient specific, time varying variability was calculated at each interval using a sliding window approach. Patients were classified as high, medium or low variability at each time and ultimately as high or low variability overall based on the variability for the majority of contacts.ResultsPrior to excluding early weeks to adjust for early symptom regression 25% to 38% and 5% to 6% of patients were classified as improved and worse, respectively. After adjustment the percent of patients who were improved or worse ranged from 15% to 25% and 6% to 9%, respectively. High and low variability phenotypes were each identified in 25% to 30% of participants.ConclusionsPatients with urological chronic pelvic pain syndrome show symptom variability. At study enrollment patients had worse symptoms on average, resulting in a regression effect that influenced the estimated proportion of those who were improved or worse. Prospective studies should include a run-in period to account for regression to the mean and other causes of early symptom regression. Further, symptom variability may be quantified and used to characterize longitudinal symptom profiles of urological chronic pelvic pain syndrome

Relationship between Chronic Nonurological Associated Somatic Syndromes and Symptom Severity in Urological Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndromes: Baseline Evaluation of the MAPP Study

PurposeWe used MAPP data to identify participants with urological chronic pelvic pain syndromes only or a chronic functional nonurological associated somatic syndrome in addition to urological chronic pelvic pain syndromes. We characterized these 2 subgroups and explored them using 3 criteria, including 1) MAPP eligibility criteria, 2) self-reported medical history or 3) RICE criteria.Materials and methodsSelf-reported cross-sectional data were collected on men and women with urological chronic pelvic pain syndromes, including predominant symptoms, symptom duration and severity, nonurological associated somatic syndrome symptoms and psychosocial factors.ResultsOf 424 participants with urological chronic pelvic pain syndromes 162 (38%) had a nonurological associated somatic syndrome, including irritable bowel syndrome in 93 (22%), fibromyalgia in 15 (4%), chronic fatigue syndrome in 13 (3%) and multiple syndromes in 41 (10%). Of 233 females 103 (44%) had a nonurological associated somatic syndrome compared to 59 of 191 males (31%) (p = 0.006). Participants with a nonurological associated somatic syndrome had more severe urological symptoms and more frequent depression and anxiety. Of 424 participants 228 (54%) met RICE criteria. Of 228 RICE positive participants 108 (47%) had a nonurological associated somatic syndrome compared to 54 of 203 RICE negative patients (28%) with a nonurological associated somatic syndrome (p &lt; 0.001).ConclusionsNonurological associated somatic syndromes represent important clinical characteristics of urological chronic pelvic pain syndromes. Participants with a nonurological associated somatic syndrome have more severe symptoms, longer duration and higher rates of depression and anxiety. RICE positive patients are more likely to have a nonurological associated somatic syndrome and more severe symptoms. Because nonurological associated somatic syndromes are more common in women, future studies must account for this potential confounding factor in urological chronic pelvic pain syndromes

Worldwide Disparities in Recovery of Cardiac Testing 1 Year Into COVID-19

BACKGROUND The extent to which health care systems have adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic to provide necessary cardiac diagnostic services is unknown.OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the pandemic on cardiac testing practices, volumes and types of diagnostic services, and perceived psychological stress to health care providers worldwide.METHODS The International Atomic Energy Agency conducted a worldwide survey assessing alterations from baseline in cardiovascular diagnostic care at the pandemic's onset and 1 year later. Multivariable regression was used to determine factors associated with procedure volume recovery.RESULTS Surveys were submitted from 669 centers in 107 countries. Worldwide reduction in cardiac procedure volumes of 64% from March 2019 to April 2020 recovered by April 2021 in high- and upper middle-income countries (recovery rates of 108% and 99%) but remained depressed in lower middle- and low-income countries (46% and 30% recovery). Although stress testing was used 12% less frequently in 2021 than in 2019, coronary computed tomographic angiography was used 14% more, a trend also seen for other advanced cardiac imaging modalities (positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance; 22%-25% increases). Pandemic-related psychological stress was estimated to have affected nearly 40% of staff, impacting patient care at 78% of sites. In multivariable regression, only lower-income status and physicians' psychological stress were significant in predicting recovery of cardiac testing.CONCLUSIONS Cardiac diagnostic testing has yet to recover to prepandemic levels in lower-income countries. Worldwide, the decrease in standard stress testing is offset by greater use of advanced cardiac imaging modalities. Pandemic-related psychological stress among providers is widespread and associated with poor recovery of cardiac testing. (C) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation