The somatostatin analogue octreotide confers sensitivity to rapamycin treatment on pituitary tumor cells

Rapamycin and its analogues have significant antiproliferative action against a variety of tumors. However, sensitivity to rapamycin is reduced by Akt activation that results from the ablative effects of rapamycin on a p70 S6K-induced negative feedback loop that blunts phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)-mediated support for Akt activity. Thus, sensitivity to rapamycin might be increased by imposing an upstream blockade to the PI3K/Akt pathway. Here, we investigated this model using the somatostatin analogue octreotide as a tool to decrease levels of activated Ser(473)-phosphorylated Akt (pAkt-Ser(473)) in pituitary tumor cells that express somatostatin receptors. Octreotide increased levels of phosphorylated insulin receptor substrate-1 that were suppressed by rapamycin, subsequently decreasing levels of pAkt-Ser(473) through effects on phosphotyrosine phosphatase SHP-1. Octreotide potentiated the antiproliferative effects of rapamycin in immortalized pituitary tumor cells or human nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma cells in primary cell culture, sensitizing tumor cells even to low rapamycin concentrations. Combined treatment of octreotide and rapamycin triggered G(1) cell cycle arrest, decreasing E2F transcriptional activity and cyclin E levels by increasing levels of p27/Kip1. These findings show that adjuvant treatment with a somatostatin analogue can sensitize pituitary tumor cells to the antiproliferative effects of rapamycin

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries