Multiomic analysis reveals conservation of cancer-associated fibroblast phenotypes across species and tissue of origin

1. Download : Download high-res image (241KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes of resectable acinar cell carcinoma of the pancreas-propensity score matching analysis with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BackgroundSurgical resection is recommended for patients with resectable acinar cell carcinoma (ACC). The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes of resectable ACC in comparison to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).MethodA retrospective analysis was performed on all patients who consecutively underwent radical resection with pathologically confirmed ACC and PDAC from December 2011 to December 2018. Clinicopathologic characteristics and follow-up information were analyzed. A 1:3 propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to minimize the bias between ACC and PDAC.ResultsA total of 26 patients with ACC and 1351 with PDAC were included. Compared to PDAC, ACC tended to be larger (4.5 vs. 3.0 cm; p < 0.001) and more frequently located in the pancreatic body/tail (61.5% vs. 36.6%, p = 0.009), with lower total bilirubin levels, lower neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) levels and lower carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) levels and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels. There was no difference in postoperative morbidities in patients with ACC and PDAC. The median OS and RFS were longer in ACC when compared to PDAC (OS: 43.5 mo vs. 19.0 mo, p = 0.004; RFS: 24.5 mo vs. 11.6 mo, p = 0.023). After the 1:3 PSM, ACC remained to be a better histological type for OS (p = 0.024), but had comparable RFS with PDAC (p = 0.164).ConclusionPatients with ACC after radical resection had better OS than that with PDAC. However, ACC is also an aggressive tumor with a similar trend of RFS with PDAC after the matching, necessitating the multidisciplinary treatment for resectable ACC disease.     

Is amiodarone still a reasonable therapeutic option for rhythm control in atrial fibrillation?

Amiodarone is the most potent antiarrhythmic drug available and is commonly prescribed to treat and prevent not only life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias but also atrial fibrillation (AF). The latest European Society of Cardiology AF guidelines state that amiodarone is recommended for long-term rhythm control in all AF patients but that other antiarrhythmic drugs should be considered first whenever possible, due to its extracardiac toxicity. In patients without significant or with only minimal structural heart disease, amiodarone is not listed as a possibility in their therapeutic scheme. Still, amiodarone is widely and liberally used, and is the most prescribed antiarrhythmic drug for patients with AF despite its high toxicity profile. Non-cardiovascular death was more frequent with amiodarone treatment than with a rate control strategy in AFFIRM, while meta-analyses suggest an association between amiodarone use in patients without structural heart disease and increased non-cardiovascular mortality. Severe or even fatal outcomes due to amiodarone may occur years after treatment initiation and are often not acknowledged by the prescribing physician, who may no longer be following the patient. The lack of widely accepted diagnostic criteria and symptom definitions may lead to underestimation of the incidence of severe side effects and of its toxicity. Unlike the underestimated risk of toxicity with amiodarone, severe complications associated with catheter ablation are usually directly ascribed to the treatment even by non-medical personnel, possibly resulting in overestimation of risks. This brief review will address the issue of amiodarone overuse and the frequent underestimation of its toxicity, while suggesting scenarios in which its use is entirely reasonable, and compare it with catheter ablation.     

How does transfusion-associated graft-versus-host disease compare to hematopoietic cell transplantation-associated graft-versus-host disease?

Transfusion-associated graft-versus-host disease (TA-GVHD) is a rare life-threatening complication of blood transfusion caused by donor T cells that escape rejection by the recipient immune system. These donor T cells drive recipient tissue damage in response to host antigens. On the other hand, GVHD occurring after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT-GVHD) is also caused by donor T cells, but its pathophysiology is more complex and differs due to the effects of tissue damage caused by pre?HCT conditioning and profound immunosuppression. Both TA-GVHD and HCT-GVHD can be fatal; however, mortality is higher with TA-GVHD due to the paucity of treatment options. Here, we compare and summarize the presentation, diagnosis, pathophysiology, prevention, and treatment of TA-GVHD and HCT-GVHD.     

Sickle cell nephropathy: A review of novel biomarkers and their potential roles in early detection of renal involvement

Whether the underlying mutations are homozygous, heterozygous, or co-inherited with other hemoglobinopathies, sickle cell disease is known to afflict the kidneys, leading to the clinical entity known as sickle cell nephropathy (SCN). Although common, SCN remains diagnostically elusive. Conventional studies performed in the context of renal disorders often fail to detect early stage SCN. This makes the quest for early diagnosis and treatment more challenging, and it increases the burden of chronic kidney disease-related morbidity among patients. Novel diagnostic tools have been employed to overcome this limitation. In this study, we discuss various biomarkers of SCN, including those employed in clinical practice and others recently identified in experimental settings, such as markers of vascular injury, endothelial dysfunction, tubulo-glomerular damage, and oxidative stress. These include kidney injury molecule-1, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, N-acetyl-B-D-glucosaminidase, ceruloplasmin, orosomucoid, nephrin, and cation channels, among others. Furthermore, we explore the potential of novel biomarkers for refining diagnostic and therapeutic approaches and describe some obstacles that still need to be overcome. We highlight the importance of a collaborative approach to standardize the use of promising new biomarkers. Finally, we outline the limitations of conventional markers of renal damage as extensions of the pathogenic process occurring at the level of the organ and its functional subunits, with a discussion of the expected pattern of clinical and biochemical progression among patients with SCN.