Population Genetics Identifies Challenges in Analyzing Rare Variants

Geneticists have, for years, understood the nature of genome‐wide association studies using common genomic variants. Recently, however, focus has shifted to the analysis of rare variants. This presents potential problems for researchers, as rare variants do not always behave in the same way common variants do, sometimes rendering decades of solid intuition moot. In this paper, we present examples of the differences between common and rare variants. We show why one must be significantly more careful about the origin of rare variants, and how failing to do so can lead to highly inflated type I error. We then explain how to best avoid such concerns with careful understanding and study design. Additionally, we demonstrate that a seemingly low error rate in next‐generation sequencing can dramatically impact the false‐positive rate for rare variants. This is due to the fact that rare variants are, by definition, seen infrequently, making it hard to distinguish between errors and real variants. Compounding this problem is the fact that the proportion of errors is likely to get worse, not better, with increasing sample size. One cannot simply scale their way up in order to solve this problem. Understanding these potential pitfalls is a key step in successfully identifying true associations between rare variants and diseases.     

The primary health care physician and the cancer patient: tips and strategies for managing sexual health

There is a large and growing population of long-term cancer survivors. Primary care physicians (PCPs) are playing an increasingly greater role in the care of these patients across the continuum of cancer survivorship. In this role, PCPs are faced with the responsibility of managing a range of medical and psychosocial late effects of cancer treatment. In particular, the sexual side effects of treatment which are common and have significant impact on quality of life for the cancer survivor, often go unaddressed. This is an area of clinical care and research that has received increasing attention, highlighted by the presentation of this special issue on Cancer and Sexual Health. The aims of this review are 3-fold. First, we seek to overview common presentations of sexual dysfunction related to major cancer diagnoses in order to give the PCP a sense of the medical issues that the survivor may present with. Barriers to communication about sexual health issues between patient/PCPs in order are also described in order to emphasize the importance of PCPs initiating this important conversation. Next, we provide strategies and resources to help guide the PCP in the management of sexual dysfunction in cancer survivors. Finally, we discuss case examples of survivorship sexual health issues and highlight the role that a PCP can play in each of these case examples.     

Erratum to: Specific stressors in endonasal skull base surgery with and without navigation

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology -     

Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive and median sternotomy for double and triple valve surgery: A meta-analysis

Background

Limited data exists demonstrating the efficacy of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared to median sternotomy (MS) for multiple valvular disease (MVD). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare operative and peri-operative outcomes of MIS vs MS in MVD.

Methods

PubMed, Ovid, and Embase were searched from inception until August 2019 for randomized and observational studies comparing MIS and MS in patients with MVD. Clinical outcomes of intra- and postoperative times, reoperation for bleeding and surgical site infection were evaluated.

Results

Five observational studies comparing 340 MIS vs 414 MS patients were eligible for qualitative and quantitative review. The quality of evidence assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was good for all included studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated increased cardiopulmonary bypass time for MIS patients (weighted mean difference [WMD], 0.487; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.365-0.608; P < .0001). Similarly, aortic cross-clamp time was longer in patients undergoing MIS (WMD, 0.632; 95% CI, 0.509-0.755; P < .0001). No differences were found in operative mortality, reoperation for bleeding, surgical site infection, or hospital stay.

Conclusions

MIS for MVD have similar short-term outcomes compared to MS. This adds value to the use of minimally invasive methods for multivalvular surgery, despite conferring longer operative times. However, the paucity in literature and learning curve associated with MIS warrants further evidence, ideally randomized control trials, to support these findings.

     

Anastomotic Recurrence of Colon Cancer—is it a Local Recurrence,a Second Primary,or a Metastatic Disease (Local Manifestation of Systemic Disease)?

The aim of this study is to review the literature to find out the exact etiology of anastomotic cancers of colon post resection and differentiate them between a recurrence, second primary, and metastatic disease (local manifestation of systemic disease). Web-based literature search was done, and datas collected. We searched PubMed for papers using the keywords colon cancer recurrence, anastomotic recurrence, and recurrent colon carcinoma. We also searched for systematic review in the same topic. In addition, we used our personal referrence archive. Anastomotic recurrences of colon are postulated to arise due to inadequate margins, tumor implantation by exfoliated cells, altered biological properties of bowel anastomosis, and missed synchronous lesions. Some tumors are unique with repeated recurrence after repeated resection. Duration after primary surgery plays a major role in differentiating recurrent and second primary lesions. Repeated recurrences after repeated resections have to be considered a manifestation of systemic disease or metastatic disease due to the virulence of the disease. A detailed analysis and study of patients with colonic anastomotic lesion are required to differentiate it between a recurrent, a second primary lesion, and a metastatic disease (local manifestation of a systemic disease). The nomenclature is significant to study the survival of these patients, as a second primary lesion will have different survival compared to that of recurrent lesions.