Clinical presentation,management, screening and surveillance for colorectal cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic

Management of colorectal cancer (CRC) was severely affected by the changes implemented during the pandemic, and this resulted in delayed elective presentation, increased emergency presentation, reduced screening and delayed definitive therapy. This review was conducted to analyze the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on management of CRC and to identify the changes made in order to adapt to the pandemic. We performed a literature search in PubMed, Medline, Index Medicus, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/) and Google Scholar using the following keywords in various combinations: Colorectal cancer, elective surgery, emergency surgery, stage upgrading, screening, surveillance and the COVID-19 pandemic. Only studies published in English were included. To curtail the spread of COVID-19 infection, there were modifications made in the management of CRC. Screening was limited to high risk individuals, and the screening tests of choice during the pandemic were fecal occult blood test, fecal immunochemical test and stool DNA testing. The use of capsule colonoscopy and open access colonoscopy was also encouraged. Blood-based tests like serum methylated septin 9 were also encouraged for screening of CRC during the pandemic. The presentation of CRC was also affected by the pandemic with more patients presenting with emergencies like obstruction and perforation. Stage migration was also observed during the pandemic with more patients presenting with more advanced tumors. The operative therapy of CRC was altered by the pandemic as more emergencies surgeries were done, which may require exteriorization by stoma. This was to reduce the morbidity associated with anastomosis and encourage early discharge from the hospital. There was also an initial reduction in laparoscopic surgical procedures due to the fear of aerosols and COVID-19 infection. As we gradually come out of the pandemic, we should remember the lessons learned and continue to apply them even after the pandemic passes.     

MR-safety in clinical practice at 7T: Evaluation of a multistep screening process in 1819 subjects

IntroductionMR facilities must implement and maintain adequate screening and safety procedures to ensure safety during MR examinations. The aim of this study was to evaluate a multi-step MR safety screening process used at a 7T facility regarding incidence of different types of safety risks detected during the safety procedure.MethodsSubjects scheduled for an MR examination and having entered the 7T facility during 2016–2019 underwent a pre-defined multi-step MR safety screening process. Screening documentation of 1819 included subjects was reviewed, and risks identified during the different screening steps were compiled. These data were also related to documented decisions made by a 7T MR safety committee and reported MR safety incidents.ResultsPassive or active implants (n = 315) were identified in a screening form and/or an additional documented interview in 305 subjects. Additional information not previously self-reported by the subject, regarding implants necessitating safety decisions performed by the staff was revealed in the documented interview in 102 subjects (106 items). In total, the 7T MR safety committee documented a decision in 36 (2%) of the included subjects. All of these subjects were finally cleared for scanning.ConclusionA multi-step screening process allows a thorough MR screening of subjects, avoiding safety incidents. Different steps in the process allow awareness to rise and items to be detected that were missed in earlier steps.Implications for practiceSafety questions posed at a single timepoint during an MR screening process might not reveal all safety risks. Repetition and rephrasing of screening questions leads to increased detection of safety risks. This could be effectively mitigated by a multi-step screening process. A multi-disciplinary safety committee is efficient at short notice responding to unexpected safety issues.     

Elección informada en el cribado del cáncer de mama: el papel del nivel educativo

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of receiving information about the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening in informed choice, according to educational level.MethodSecondary analysis of a randomized, controlled study, in four screening programs, in Catalonia and the Canary Islands (Spain). We analyzed 400 women who were going to be invited to participate for the first time. The intervention group received a decision aid that showed the benefits and harms of screening. The control group received a standard brochure that recommended participating in the screening program. Educational level was grouped into two categories, low and high. The primary outcome was informed choice defined as adequate knowledge and consistency between attitudes and intentions.ResultsThe intervention produced a greater increase in knowledge in women with a high educational level compared to those with a lower educational level. Among women who received the intervention, informed choice was almost three times higher in those with a high educational level (27% versus 11%). No differences were observed between educational levels in decisional conflict, confidence in the decision, anxiety and worry about breast cancer, in the intervention and control groups.ConclusionsA decision aid for breast cancer screening had much more impact on informed choice among women with a high educational level. In women with low educational level, the attitude towards screening improved and there was an increase in the intention to be screened.     

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer—2020 Update. Part 1: Screening,Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent

ObjectiveTo present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa).Evidence acquisitionThe panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2016 and 2020. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence.Evidence synthesisA risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. Risk-adapted screening should be offered to men at increased risk from the age of 45 yr and to breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers, who have been confirmed to be at risk of early and aggressive disease (mainly BRAC2), from around 40 yr of age. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is performed, a combination of targeted and systematic biopsies must be offered. There is currently no place for the routine use of tissue-based biomarkers. Whilst prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography is the most sensitive staging procedure, the lack of outcome benefit remains a major limitation. Active surveillance (AS) should always be discussed with low-risk patients, as well as with selected intermediate-risk patients with favourable International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the AS journey and the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A strong recommendation to consider moderate hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term hormonal treatment.ConclusionsThe evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for their use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management.Patient summaryUpdated prostate cancer guidelines are presented, addressing screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. These guidelines rely on the available scientific evidence, and new insights will need to be considered and included on a regular basis. In some cases, the supporting evidence for new treatment options is not yet strong enough to provide a recommendation, which is why continuous updating is important. Patients must be fully informed of all relevant options and, together with their treating physicians, decide on the most optimal management for them.     

Redox active or thiol reactive? Optimization of rapid screens to identify less evident nuisance compounds

Compounds that exhibit assay interference or undesirable mechanisms of bioactivity are routinely encountered in assays at various stages of drug discovery. We observed that assays for the investigation of thiol-reactive and redox-active compounds have not been collected in a comprehensive review. Here, we review these assays and subject them to experimental optimization to improve their reliability. We demonstrate the usefulness of our assay cascade by assaying a library of bioactive compounds, chemical probes, and a set of approved drugs. These high-throughput assays should complement the array of wet-lab and in silico assays during the initial stages of hit discovery campaigns to pursue only hit compounds with tractable mechanisms of action.     

Identifying current uses of return to work screening tests and their effectiveness of reducing the risk of reinjury in athletic occupations – A systematic review

ObjectiveTo identify the current return-to-work (RTW) screening tests conducted for athletic occupations following injury and their effectiveness of reducing reinjury risk.MethodsA search was made of multiple databases (BioMed Central, CINAHL through ebscohost, EMBASE, Google Scholar, PUBMED, Scopus, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science) from their inception to March 2022, using relevant terms to identify articles meeting predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. The search, data extraction, risk of bias, and evaluation of the certainty of the findings were completed independently by two authors. To understand the effectiveness of screening tests and their impact in reducing in reinjury rates, results were split into the following three time points: “Short-term” (≤1 year), “Medium-term” (≥2 years) and “Long-term” (≥3 years).ResultsFive studies (n = 507) met the inclusion criteria. There was a very low level of certainty for the effectiveness of screening tools reducing reinjury risk at short-term, medium-term and long-term follow ups. Only one study recorded a large effect in the reducing reinjury risk.ConclusionThe results demonstrated very low level of certainty for the effectiveness of screening tests reducing the risk of reinjury. A gap in our understanding currently exists for the effectiveness of RTW screening tests in tactical athletic occupations following injury and further research investigating is required.