Personal comorbidities and their subsequent risks for liver,gallbladder and bile duct cancers

Many environmental risk factors for hepatobiliary cancers are known but whether they are associated with specific cancer types is unclear. We present here a novel approach of assessing standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of previously diagnosed comorbidities for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), gallbladder cancer (GBC), cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and ampullary cancer. The 13 comorbidities included alcohol and nonalcohol related liver disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, gallstone disease, viral and other kinds of hepatitis, infection of bile ducts, hepatic and other autoimmune diseases, obesity and diabetes. Patients were identified from the Swedish Inpatient Register from 1987 to 2018, and their cancers were followed from 1997 onwards. SIRs for HCC were 80 to 100 in men and women diagnosed with hepatitis C virus and they were also >10 in patients diagnosed with hepatitis B virus, other kind of hepatitis, hepatic autoimmune disease and nonalcohol related liver disease. Many of these risks, as well as alcohol related liver disease, were either specific to HCC or were shared with intrahepatic CCA. For GBC, CCA and ampullary cancer infection of bile ducts was the main risk factor. Gallstone disease, nonhepatic autoimmune diseases and diabetes were associated with all hepatobiliary cancers. The limitations of the study include inability to cover some rare risk factors and limited follow-up time. Many of the considered comorbidities are characterized by chronic inflammation and/or overt immune disturbance in autoimmune diseases. The results suggest that local chronic inflammation and a related immune disturbance is the carcinogenic trigger for all these cancers.     

Layer-specific and whole wall global longitudinal strain predict major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with stable angina pectoris

The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging - Global longitudinal strain (GLS) has proven to be a powerful prognostic marker in various patient populations, but the prognostic value of...     

Modular hip exoskeleton improves walking function and reduces sedentary time in community-dwelling older adults

Numerous studies showed that postural balance improves through light touch on a stable surface highlighting the importance of haptic information, seemingly downplaying the mechanical contributions of the support. The present study examined the mechanical effects of canes for assisting balance in healthy individuals challenged by standing on a beam. Sixteen participants supported themselves with two canes, one in each hand, and applied minimal, preferred, or maximum force onto the canes. They positioned the canes in the frontal plane or in a tripod configuration. Statistical analysis used a linear mixed model to evaluate the effects on the center of pressure and the center of mass. The canes significantly reduced the variability of the center of pressure and the center of mass to the same level as when standing on the ground. Increasing the exerted force beyond the preferred level yielded no further benefits, although in the preferred force condition, participants exploited the altered mechanics by resting their arms on the canes. The tripod configuration allowed for larger variability of the center of pressure in the task-irrelevant anterior–posterior dimension. High forces had a destabilizing effect on the canes: the displacement of the hand on the cane handle increased with the force. Given this static instability, these results show that using canes can provide not only mechanical benefits but also challenges. From a control perspective, effort can be reduced by resting the arms on the canes and by channeling noise in the task-irrelevant dimensions. However, larger forces exerted onto the canes can also have destabilizing effects and the instability of the canes needs to be counteracted, possibly by arm and shoulder stiffness. Insights into the variety of mechanical effects is important for the design of canes and the instructions of how to use them.     

Qualitätsentwicklung im Gesundheitswesen: Sind wir schon so weit,wie wir wollten?

Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz -     

Immunogenicity of two doses of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines for solid cancer patients on treatment with or without a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection

Previous studies on the immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines showed a reduced seroconversion in cancer patients. The aim of our study is to evaluate the immunogenicity of two doses of mRNA vaccines in solid cancer patients with or without a previous exposure to the virus. This is a single-institution, prospective, nonrandomized study. Patients in active treatment and a control cohort of healthy people received two doses of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, BioNTech/Pfizer, The United States) or mRNA-1273 (Spikevax, Moderna). Vaccine was administered before starting anticancer therapy or on the first day of the treatment cycle. SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels against S1, RBD (to evaluate vaccine response) and N proteins (to evaluate previous infection) were measured in plasma before the first dose and 30 days after the second one. From January to June 2021, 195 consecutive cancer patients and 20 healthy controls were enrolled. Thirty-one cancer patients had a previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Cancer patients previously exposed to the virus had significantly higher median levels of anti-S1 and anti-RBD IgG, compared to healthy controls (P = .0349) and to cancer patients without a previous infection (P < .001). Vaccine type (anti-S1: P < .0001; anti-RBD: P = .0045), comorbidities (anti-S1: P = .0274; anti-RBD: P = .0048) and the use of G-CSF (anti-S1: P = .0151) negatively affected the antibody response. Conversely, previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 significantly enhanced the response to vaccination (anti-S1: P < .0001; anti-RBD: P = .0026). Vaccine immunogenicity in cancer patients with a previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 seems comparable to that of healthy subjects. On the other hand, clinical variables of immune frailty negatively affect humoral immune response to vaccination.