1.American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline update on chemotherapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer.
Christopher G AZZOLI ; Sherman BAKER ; Sarah TEMIN ; William PAO ; Timothy ALIFF ; Julie BRAHMER ; David H JOHNSON ; Janessa L LASKIN ; Gregory MASTERS ; Daniel MILTON ; Luke NORDQUIST ; David G PFISTER ; Steven PIANTADOSI ; Joan H SCHILLER ; Reily SMITH ; Thomas J SMITH ; John R STRAWN ; David TRENT ; Giuseppe GIACCONE
Chinese Journal of Lung Cancer 2010;13(3):171-189
2.Targeting whole body metabolism and mitochondrial bioenergetics in the drug development for Alzheimer's disease.
Steven N AUSTAD ; Scott BALLINGER ; Thomas W BUFORD ; Christy S CARTER ; Daniel L SMITH ; Victor DARLEY-USMAR ; Jianhua ZHANG
Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B 2022;12(2):511-531
Aging is by far the most prominent risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD), and both aging and AD are associated with apparent metabolic alterations. As developing effective therapeutic interventions to treat AD is clearly in urgent need, the impact of modulating whole-body and intracellular metabolism in preclinical models and in human patients, on disease pathogenesis, have been explored. There is also an increasing awareness of differential risk and potential targeting strategies related to biological sex, microbiome, and circadian regulation. As a major part of intracellular metabolism, mitochondrial bioenergetics, mitochondrial quality-control mechanisms, and mitochondria-linked inflammatory responses have been considered for AD therapeutic interventions. This review summarizes and highlights these efforts.
3.Identification of new genetic risk factors for prostate cancer.
Michelle GUY ; Zsofia KOTE-JARAI ; Graham G GILES ; Ali Amin Al OLAMA ; Sarah K JUGURNAUTH ; Shani MULHOLLAND ; Daniel A LEONGAMORNLERT ; Stephen M EDWARDS ; Jonathan MORRISON ; Helen I FIELD ; Melissa C SOUTHEY ; Gianluca SEVERI ; Jenny L DONOVAN ; Freddie C HAMDY ; David P DEARNALEY ; Kenneth R MUIR ; Charmaine SMITH ; Melisa BAGNATO ; Audrey T ARDERN-JONES ; Amanda L HALL ; Lynne T O'BRIEN ; Beatrice N GEHR-SWAIN ; Rosemary A WILKINSON ; Angela COX ; Sarah LEWIS ; Paul M BROWN ; Sameer G JHAVAR ; Malgorzata TYMRAKIEWICZ ; Artitaya LOPHATANANON ; Sarah L BRYANT ; null ; null ; null ; Alan HORWICH ; Robert A HUDDART ; Vincent S KHOO ; Christopher C PARKER ; Christopher J WOODHOUSE ; Alan THOMPSON ; Tim CHRISTMAS ; Chris OGDEN ; Cyril FISHER ; Charles JAMESON ; Colin S COOPER ; Dallas R ENGLISH ; John L HOPPER ; David E NEAL ; Douglas F EASTON ; Rosalind A EELES
Asian Journal of Andrology 2009;11(1):49-55
There is evidence that a substantial part of genetic predisposition to prostate cancer (PCa) may be due to lower penetrance genes which are found by genome-wide association studies. We have recently conducted such a study and seven new regions of the genome linked to PCa risk have been identified. Three of these loci contain candidate susceptibility genes: MSMB, LMTK2 and KLK2/3. The MSMB and KLK2/3 genes may be useful for PCa screening, and the LMTK2 gene might provide a potential therapeutic target. Together with results from other groups, there are now 23 germline genetic variants which have been reported. These results have the potential to be developed into a genetic test. However, we consider that marketing of tests to the public is premature, as PCa risk can not be evaluated fully at this stage and the appropriate screening protocols need to be developed. Follow-up validation studies, as well as studies to explore the psychological implications of genetic profile testing, will be vital prior to roll out into healthcare.
Genetic Predisposition to Disease
;
genetics
;
Genetic Testing
;
Humans
;
Kallikreins
;
genetics
;
Male
;
Membrane Proteins
;
genetics
;
Prostatic Neoplasms
;
diagnosis
;
genetics
;
Prostatic Secretory Proteins
;
genetics
;
Protein-Serine-Threonine Kinases
;
genetics
;
Risk Factors
4.Do some patients receive unnecessary parenteral nutrition after pancreatoduodenectomy?Results from an international multicentre study
Thomas B. RUSSELL ; Peter L. LABIB ; Paula MURPHY ; Fabio AUSANIA ; Elizabeth PANDO ; Keith J. ROBERTS ; Ambareen KAUSAR ; Vasileios K. MAVROEIDIS ; Gabriele MARANGONI ; Sarah C. THOMASSET ; Adam E. FRAMPTON ; Pavlos LYKOUDIS ; Manuel MAGLIONE ; Nassir ALHABOOB ; Hassaan BARI ; Andrew M. SMITH ; Duncan SPALDING ; Parthi SRINIVASAN ; Brian R. DAVIDSON ; Ricky H. BHOGAL ; Daniel CROAGH ; Ismael DOMINGUEZ ; Rohan THAKKAR ; Dhanny GOMEZ ; Michael A. SILVA ; Pierfrancesco LAPOLLA ; Andrea MINGOLI ; Alberto PORCU ; Nehal S. SHAH ; Zaed Z. R. HAMADY ; Bilal AL-SARRIEH ; Alejandro SERRABLO ; ; Somaiah AROORI
Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery 2024;28(1):70-79
Background:
s/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes.
Methods:
Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple’s study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes.
Results:
In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was “enteral only,” “parenteral only,” and “enteral and parenteral” in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN.
Conclusions
A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.
5.Do some patients receive unnecessary parenteral nutrition after pancreatoduodenectomy?Results from an international multicentre study
Thomas B. RUSSELL ; Peter L. LABIB ; Paula MURPHY ; Fabio AUSANIA ; Elizabeth PANDO ; Keith J. ROBERTS ; Ambareen KAUSAR ; Vasileios K. MAVROEIDIS ; Gabriele MARANGONI ; Sarah C. THOMASSET ; Adam E. FRAMPTON ; Pavlos LYKOUDIS ; Manuel MAGLIONE ; Nassir ALHABOOB ; Hassaan BARI ; Andrew M. SMITH ; Duncan SPALDING ; Parthi SRINIVASAN ; Brian R. DAVIDSON ; Ricky H. BHOGAL ; Daniel CROAGH ; Ismael DOMINGUEZ ; Rohan THAKKAR ; Dhanny GOMEZ ; Michael A. SILVA ; Pierfrancesco LAPOLLA ; Andrea MINGOLI ; Alberto PORCU ; Nehal S. SHAH ; Zaed Z. R. HAMADY ; Bilal AL-SARRIEH ; Alejandro SERRABLO ; ; Somaiah AROORI
Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery 2024;28(1):70-79
Background:
s/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes.
Methods:
Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple’s study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes.
Results:
In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was “enteral only,” “parenteral only,” and “enteral and parenteral” in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN.
Conclusions
A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.
6.Do some patients receive unnecessary parenteral nutrition after pancreatoduodenectomy?Results from an international multicentre study
Thomas B. RUSSELL ; Peter L. LABIB ; Paula MURPHY ; Fabio AUSANIA ; Elizabeth PANDO ; Keith J. ROBERTS ; Ambareen KAUSAR ; Vasileios K. MAVROEIDIS ; Gabriele MARANGONI ; Sarah C. THOMASSET ; Adam E. FRAMPTON ; Pavlos LYKOUDIS ; Manuel MAGLIONE ; Nassir ALHABOOB ; Hassaan BARI ; Andrew M. SMITH ; Duncan SPALDING ; Parthi SRINIVASAN ; Brian R. DAVIDSON ; Ricky H. BHOGAL ; Daniel CROAGH ; Ismael DOMINGUEZ ; Rohan THAKKAR ; Dhanny GOMEZ ; Michael A. SILVA ; Pierfrancesco LAPOLLA ; Andrea MINGOLI ; Alberto PORCU ; Nehal S. SHAH ; Zaed Z. R. HAMADY ; Bilal AL-SARRIEH ; Alejandro SERRABLO ; ; Somaiah AROORI
Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery 2024;28(1):70-79
Background:
s/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes.
Methods:
Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple’s study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes.
Results:
In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was “enteral only,” “parenteral only,” and “enteral and parenteral” in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN.
Conclusions
A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.
7.Do some patients receive unnecessary parenteral nutrition after pancreatoduodenectomy?Results from an international multicentre study
Thomas B. RUSSELL ; Peter L. LABIB ; Paula MURPHY ; Fabio AUSANIA ; Elizabeth PANDO ; Keith J. ROBERTS ; Ambareen KAUSAR ; Vasileios K. MAVROEIDIS ; Gabriele MARANGONI ; Sarah C. THOMASSET ; Adam E. FRAMPTON ; Pavlos LYKOUDIS ; Manuel MAGLIONE ; Nassir ALHABOOB ; Hassaan BARI ; Andrew M. SMITH ; Duncan SPALDING ; Parthi SRINIVASAN ; Brian R. DAVIDSON ; Ricky H. BHOGAL ; Daniel CROAGH ; Ismael DOMINGUEZ ; Rohan THAKKAR ; Dhanny GOMEZ ; Michael A. SILVA ; Pierfrancesco LAPOLLA ; Andrea MINGOLI ; Alberto PORCU ; Nehal S. SHAH ; Zaed Z. R. HAMADY ; Bilal AL-SARRIEH ; Alejandro SERRABLO ; ; Somaiah AROORI
Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery 2024;28(1):70-79
Background:
s/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes.
Methods:
Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple’s study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes.
Results:
In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was “enteral only,” “parenteral only,” and “enteral and parenteral” in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN.
Conclusions
A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.