The androgen-regulated gene human kallikrein 15 (KLK15) is an independent and favourable prognostic marker for breast cancer

Many kallikrein genes were found to be differentially expressed in various malignancies, and prostate specific antigen (encoded by the KLK3 gene) is the best tumour marker for prostate cancer. Prostate specific antigen has recently been shown to be an independent favourable prognostic marker for breast cancer. KLK15 is newly discovered kallikrein gene that is located adjacent to KLK3 on chromosome 19q13.4. KLK15 has 41% similarity to KLK3 and the encoded protein, hK15, can activate pro-prostate specific antigen. We studied the expression of KLK15 by real-time quantitative reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction in 202 tissues from patients with breast carcinoma of various stages, grades and histological types. KLK15 expression was found to be a significant predictor of progression-free survival (hazard ratio of 0.41 and P=0.011) and overall survival (hazard ratio of 0.34 and P=0.009). When all other known confounders were controlled in the multivariate analysis, KLK15 retained its prognostic significance. Higher concentrations of KLK15 mRNA were found more frequently in node negative patients (P=0.042). No association was found between KLK15 expression and any other clinicopathological variable. Further, KLK15 is an independent prognostic factor of progression-free survival and overall survival in the subgroup of patients with lower grade and those with oestrogen receptor and progesterone receptor negative tumours in both univariate and multivariate analysis. KLK15 levels of expression were slightly higher (although not statistically significant) in the oestrogen receptor negative and progesterone receptor negative subgroups of patients. KLK15 is up-regulated by androgens in breast cancer cell lines. Time-course and blocking experiments suggest that this regulation is mediated through the androgen receptor

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

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

Between Governance-Driven Democratisation and Democracy-Driven Governance: explaining changes in Participatory Governance in the Case of Barcelona

Scholars of participatory democracy have long noted dynamic interactions and transformations within and between political spaces that can foster (de)democratisation. At the heart of this dynamism lie (a) the processes through which top‐down “closed” spaces can create opportunities for rupture and democratic challenges and (b) vice‐versa, the mechanisms through which bottom‐up, open spaces can be co‐opted through institutionalisation. This paper seeks to unpick dynamic interactions between different spaces of participation by looking specifically at two forms of participatory governance, or participatory forms of political decision making used to improve the quality of democracy. First, Mark Warren's concept of ‘governance‐driven democratization’ describes top‐down and technocratic participatory governance aiming to produce better policies in response to bureaucratic rationales. Second, we introduce a new concept, democracy‐driven governance, to refer to efforts by social movements to invent new, and reclaim and transform existing, spaces of participatory governance and shape them to respond to citizens’ demands. The paper defines these concepts and argues that they co‐exist and interact in dynamic fashion; it draws on an analysis of case study literature on participatory governance in Barcelona to illuminate this relationship. Finally, the paper relates the theoretical framework to the case study by making propositions as to the structural and agential drivers of shifts in participatory governance

Long-term outcomes for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials

Background Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for early breast cancer can make breast-conserving surgery more feasible and might be more likely to eradicate micrometastatic disease than might the same chemotherapy given after surgery. We investigated the long-term benefits and risks of NACT and the influence of tumour characteristics on outcome with a collaborative meta-analysis of individual patient data from relevant randomised trials. Methods We obtained information about prerandomisation tumour characteristics, clinical tumour response, surgery, recurrence, and mortality for 4756 women in ten randomised trials in early breast cancer that began before 2005 and compared NACT with the same chemotherapy given postoperatively. Primary outcomes were tumour response, extent of local therapy, local and distant recurrence, breast cancer death, and overall mortality. Analyses by intention-to-treat used standard regression (for response and frequency of breast-conserving therapy) and log-rank methods (for recurrence and mortality). Findings Patients entered the trials from 1983 to 2002 and median follow-up was 9 years (IQR 5–14), with the last follow-up in 2013. Most chemotherapy was anthracycline based (3838 [81%] of 4756 women). More than two thirds (1349 [69%] of 1947) of women allocated NACT had a complete or partial clinical response. Patients allocated NACT had an increased frequency of breast-conserving therapy (1504 [65%] of 2320 treated with NACT vs 1135 [49%] of 2318 treated with adjuvant chemotherapy). NACT was associated with more frequent local recurrence than was adjuvant chemotherapy: the 15 year local recurrence was 21·4% for NACT versus 15·9% for adjuvant chemotherapy (5·5% increase [95% CI 2·4–8·6]; rate ratio 1·37 [95% CI 1·17–1·61]; p=0·0001). No significant difference between NACT and adjuvant chemotherapy was noted for distant recurrence (15 year risk 38·2% for NACT vs 38·0% for adjuvant chemotherapy; rate ratio 1·02 [95% CI 0·92–1·14]; p=0·66), breast cancer mortality (34·4% vs 33·7%; 1·06 [0·95–1·18]; p=0·31), or death from any cause (40·9% vs 41·2%; 1·04 [0·94–1·15]; p=0·45). Interpretation Tumours downsized by NACT might have higher local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy than might tumours of the same dimensions in women who have not received NACT. Strategies to mitigate the increased local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy in tumours downsized by NACT should be considered—eg, careful tumour localisation, detailed pathological assessment, and appropriate radiotherapy