Combining transplant professional's psychosocial donor evaluation and donor self-report measures to optimise the prediction of HRQoL after kidney donation:an observational prospective multicentre study

OBJECTIVES: Living donor kidney transplantation is currently the preferred treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease. The psychosocial evaluation of kidney donor candidates relies mostly on the clinical viewpoint of transplant professionals because evidence-based guidelines for psychosocial donor eligibility are currently lacking. However, the accuracy of these clinical risk judgements and the potential added value of a systematic self-reported screening procedure are as yet unknown. The current study examined the effectiveness of the psychosocial evaluation by transplant professionals and the potential value of donor self-report measures in optimising the donor evaluation. Based on the stress-vulnerability model, the predictive value of predonation, intradonation and postdonation factors to impaired longer term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of kidney donors was studied. DESIGN: An observational prospective multicentre study. SETTING: Seven Dutch transplantation centres. PARTICIPANTS: 588 potential donors participated, of whom 361 donated. Complete prospective data of 230 donors were available. Also, 1048 risk estimation questionnaires were completed by healthcare professionals. METHODS: Transplant professionals (nephrologists, coordinating nurses, social workers and psychologists) filled in risk estimation questionnaires on kidney donor candidates. Furthermore, 230 kidney donors completed questionnaires (eg, on HRQoL) before and 6 and 12 months after donation. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: HRQoL, demographic and preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative health characteristics, perceived support, donor cognitions, recipient functioning and professionals risk estimation questionnaires. RESULTS: On top of other predictors, such as the transplant professionals’ risk assessments, donor self-report measures significantly predicted impaired longer term HRQoL after donation, particularly by poorer predonation physical (17%–28% explained variance) and psychological functioning (23%). CONCLUSIONS: The current study endorses the effectiveness of the psychosocial donor evaluation by professionals and the additional value of donor self-report measures in optimising the psychosocial evaluation. Consequently, systematic screening of donors based on the most prominent risk factors provide ground for tailored interventions for donors at risk

Should jaundice preclude resection in patients with gallbladder cancer? Results from a nation-wide cohort study

Background: It is controversial whether patients with gallbladder cancer (GBC) presenting with jaundice benefit from resection. This study re-evaluates the impact of jaundice on resectability and survival. Methods: Data was collected on surgically explored GBC patients in all Dutch academic hospitals from 2000 to 2018. Survival and prognostic factors were assessed. Results: In total 202 patients underwent exploration and 148 were resected; 124 non-jaundiced patients (104 resected) and 75 jaundiced patients (44 resected). Jaundiced patients had significantly (P < 0.05) more pT3/T4 tumors, extended (≥3 segments) liver- and organ resections, major post-operative complications and margin-positive resection. 90-day mortality was higher in jaundiced patients (14% vs. 0%, P < 0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was 7.7 months in jaundiced patients (2-year survival 17%) vs. 26.1 months in non-jaundiced patients (2-year survival 39%, P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, jaundice (HR1.89) was a poor prognostic factor for OS in surgically explored but not in resected patients. Six jaundiced patients did not develop a recurrence; none had liver- or common bile duct (CBD) invasion on imaging. Conclusion: Jaundice is associated with poor survival. However, jaundice is not an independent adverse prognostic factor in resected patients. Surgery should be considered in patients with limited disease and no CBD invasion on imaging

Extended Resections for Advanced Gallbladder Cancer: Results from a Nationwide Cohort Study

Background: Extended resections (i.e., major hepatectomy and/or pancreatoduodenectomy) are rarely performed for gallbladder cancer (GBC) because outcomes remain inconclusive. Data regarding extended resections from Western centers are sparse. This Dutch, multicenter cohort study analyzed the outcomes of patients who underwent extended resections for locally advanced GBC. Methods: Patients with GBC who underwent extended resection with curative intent between January 2000 and September 2018 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Extended resection was defined as a major hepatectomy (resection of ≥ 3 liver segments), a pancreatoduodenectomy, or both. Treatment and survival data were obtained. Postoperative morbidity, mortality, survival, and characteristics of short- and long-term survivors were assessed. Results: The study included 33 patients. For 16 of the patients, R0 resection margins were achieved. Major postoperative complications (Clavien Dindo ≥ 3A) occurred for 19 patients, and 4 patients experienced postoperative mortality within 90 days. Recurrence occurred for 24 patients. The median overall survival (OS) was 12.8 months (95% confidence interval, 6.5–19.0 months). A 2-year survival period was achieved for 10 patients (30%) and a 5-year survival period for 5 patients (15%). Common bile duct, liver, perineural and perivascular invasion and jaundice were associated with reduced survival. All three recurrence-free patients had R0 resection margins and no liver invasion. Conclusion: The median OS after extended resections for advanced GBC was 12.8 months in this cohort. Although postoperative morbidity and mortality were significant, long-term survival (≥ 2 years) was achieved in a subset of patients. Therefore, GBC requiring major surgery does not preclude long-term survival, and a subgroup of patients benefit from surgery

Correction:How the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the necessity of animal research (vol 30, pg R1014, 2020)

(Current Biology 30, R1014–R1018; September 21, 2020) As a result of an author oversight in the originally published version of this article, a number of errors were introduced in the author list and affiliations. First, the middle initials were omitted from the names of several authors. Second, the surname of Dr. van Dam was mistakenly written as “Dam.” Third, the first name of author Bernhard Englitz was misspelled as “Bernard” and the surname of author B.J.A. Pollux was misspelled as “Pullox.” Finally, Dr. Keijer's first name was abbreviated rather than written in full. These errors, as well as various errors in the author affiliations, have now been corrected online

An Outline for a Functional Taxonomy of Annotation

A taxonomy of annotation, focusing on the function, objective, or purpose of the annotation.unpublishednot peer reviewe