Effect of chronic ankle instability on lower extremity kinematics,dynamic postural stability,and muscle activity during unilateral jump-landing tasks: A systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo determine if individuals with chronic ankle instability (CAI) demonstrate altered landing kinematics, muscle activity, and impaired dynamic postural stability during a unilateral jump-landing task.Methods21 studies were included from PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL searched on September 26, 2021. Mean differences in joint angles and muscle activity between CAI and controls were analysed as continuous variables and pooled using a random-effects model to obtain standardised mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Dynamic postural stability measured using time to stabilisation (TTS) was assessed qualitatively.ResultsWe found greater plantarflexion (pooled SMD = 0.33, 95%CI [0.02,0.65]), reduced knee flexion (pooled SMD = −0.67, 95%CI [−0.97, −0.37]), and reduced hip flexion (pooled SMD = −0.52, 95%CI [−0.96, −0.07]) in CAI after landing. Regarding muscle activity, we observed reduced peroneus longus muscle activation (pooled SMD = −0.77, 95% CI [−1.17, −0.36]) in CAI prior to landing.ConclusionOur study provides preliminary evidence of altered landing kinematics in the sagittal plane and reduced peroneus muscle activity in CAI during a dynamic jump-landing task. These results may have clinical implications in the development of more effective and targeted rehabilitation programmes for patients with CAI.     

Evolving insights: how DNA repair pathways impact cancer evolution

Viewing cancer as a large, evolving population of heterogeneous cells is a common perspective. Because genomic instability is one of the fundamental features of cancer, this intrinsic tendency of genomic variation leads to striking intratumor heterogeneity and functions during the process of cancer formation, development, metastasis, and relapse. With the increased mutation rate and abundant diversity of the gene pool, this heterogeneity leads to cancer evolution, which is the major obstacle in the clinical treatment of cancer. Cells rely on the integrity of DNA repair machineries to maintain genomic stability, but these machineries often do not function properly in cancer cells. The deficiency of DNA repair could contribute to the generation of cancer genomic instability, and ultimately promote cancer evolution. With the rapid advance of new technologies, such as single-cell sequencing in recent years, we have the opportunity to better understand the specific processes and mechanisms of cancer evolution, and its relationship with DNA repair. Here, we review recent findings on how DNA repair affects cancer evolution, and discuss how these mechanisms provide the basis for critical clinical challenges and therapeutic applications.     

Patient-reported Symptom Outcomes and Microsatellite Instability in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

BackgroundThe survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is influenced by the genetic and epigenetic changes that might influence the patient experience of symptom burden. Understanding the association of molecular changes with the symptom burden could help clinicians gain insight into the molecular basis of symptom burden and improve treatment tolerance. To date, no studies have compared the patient-reported symptom burden with these molecular subsets among patients with mCRC.Patients and MethodsWe recruited patients with mCRC that was refractory to ≥ 1 line of therapy who had been enrolled in the Assessment of Targeted Therapies Against Colorectal Cancer trial at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. All patients completed a baseline gastrointestinal symptom inventory (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory, gastrointestinal). The symptom burden across key demographic variables and molecular changes, including CRC-associated mutations, microsatellite instability (MSI) status, and the CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) were compared using χ² tests. Association of the symptom burden with overall survival was examined using Cox regression models.ResultsPatients with an MSI-high (MSI-H) phenotype reported greater pain (odds ratio [OR], 3.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.61-5.84), fatigue (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.41-5.49), sleep (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.32-4.08); and drowsiness (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.32-4.78) compared with microsatellite stable patients. Patients with an MSI-H phenotype also had greater odds of overall symptom burden (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.29-4.74) compared with microsatellite stable patients. The CIMP-high patients experienced greater odds of pain compared with the CIMP-negative patients (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.06-2.80). A greater overall symptom burden was associated with poor overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.98-2.06]), although the difference was not significant (P = .06).ConclusionCorrelation of MSI-H–associated tumor features with the symptom burden could help provide a better understanding of underlying mechanisms associated with our findings.     

Relationship between MLH1, PMS2, MSH2 and MSH6 gene-specific alterations and tumor mutational burden in 1057 microsatellite instability-high solid tumors

Microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) and tumor mutational burden (TMB) are predictive biomarkers for immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Still, the relationship between the underlying cause(s) of MSI and TMB in tumors remains poorly defined. We investigated associations of TMB to mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression patterns by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and MMR mutations in a diverse sample of tumors. Hypothesized differences were identified by the protein/gene affected/mutated and the tumor histology/primary site. Overall, 1057 MSI-H tumors were identified from the 32 932 tested. MSI was examined by NGS using 7000+ target microsatellite loci. TMB was calculated using only nonsynonymous missense mutations sequenced with a 592-gene panel; a subset of MSI-H tumors also had MMR IHC performed. Analyses examined TMB by MMR protein heterodimer impacted (loss of MLH1/PMS2 vs. MSH2/MSH6 expression) and gene-specific mutations. The sample was 54.6% female; mean age was 63.5 years. Among IHC tested tumors, loss of co-expression of MLH1/PMS2 was more common (n = 544/705, 77.2%) than loss of MSH2/MSH6 (n = 81/705, 11.5%; P < .0001), and was associated with lower mean TMB (MLH1/PMS2: 25.03 mut/Mb vs MSH2/MSH6 46.83 mut/Mb; P < .0001). TMB also varied by tumor histology: colorectal cancers demonstrating MLH1/PMS2 loss had higher TMBs (33.14 mut/Mb) than endometrial cancers (20.60 mut/Mb) and other tumors (25.59 mut/Mb; P < .0001). MMR gene mutations were detected in 42.0% of tumors; among these, MSH6 mutations were most common (25.7%). MSH6 mutation patterns showed variability by tumor histology and TMB. TMB varies by underlying cause(s) of MSI and tumor histology; this heterogeneity may contribute to differences in response to ICI.