AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Defects in pancreatic beta cell turnover are implicated in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes by genetic markers for diabetes. Decreased beta cell neogenesis could contribute to diabetes. The longevity and turnover of human beta cells is unknown; in rodents <1 year old, a half-life of 30 days is estimated. Intracellular lipofuscin body (LB) accumulation is a hallmark of ageing in neurons. To estimate the lifespan of human beta cells, we measured beta cell LB accumulation in individuals aged 1-81 years. METHODS: LB content was determined by electron microscopical morphometry in sections of beta cells from human (non-diabetic, n = 45; type 2 diabetic, n = 10) and non-human primates (n = 10; 5-30 years) and from 15 mice aged 10-99 weeks. Total cellular LB content was estimated by three-dimensional (3D) mathematical modelling. RESULTS: LB area proportion was significantly correlated with age in human and non-human primates. The proportion of human LB-positive beta cells was significantly related to age, with no apparent differences in type 2 diabetes or obesity. LB content was low in human insulinomas (n = 5) and alpha cells and in mouse beta cells (LB content in mouse <10% human). Using 3D electron microscopy and 3D mathematical modelling, the LB-positive human beta cells (representing aged cells) increased from >or=90% (<10 years) to >or=97% (>20 years) and remained constant thereafter. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Human beta cells, unlike those of young rodents, are long-lived. LB proportions in type 2 diabetes and obesity suggest that little adaptive change occurs in the adult human beta cell population, which is largely established by age 20 years.
\n \n\n \n \nCONTEXT: Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) is characterized by the occurrence of parathyroid, pituitary, and pancreatic tumors. MEN1, an autosomal dominant disorder, has a high degree of penetrance, such that more than 95% of patients develop clinical manifestations by the fifth decade, although this is lower at approximately 50% by age 20 yr. However, the lower penetrance in the younger group, which is based on detecting hormone-secreting tumors, may be an underestimate because patients may have nonfunctioning tumors and be asymptomatic. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the occurrence of nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in asymptomatic children with MEN1. PATIENTS: Twelve asymptomatic Northern European children, aged 6 to 16 yr, who were known to have MEN1 mutations were studied. RESULTS: Two asymptomatic children, who were aged 12 and 14 yr, had normal plasma fasting gastrointestinal hormones and were found to have nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors that were more than 2 cm in size. Surgery and immunostaining revealed that the tumors did not have significant expression of gastrointestinal hormones but did contain chromogranin A and synaptophysin, features consistent with those of nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. The tumors had a loss of menin expression. The 14 yr old also had primary hyperparathyroidism and a microprolactinoma, and the 12 yr old had a nonfunctioning pituitary microadenoma. Three other children had primary hyperparathyroidism and a microprolactinoma. CONCLUSION: Nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors may occur in asymptomatic children with MEN1 mutations, and screening for such enteropancreatic tumors in MEN1 children should be considered earlier than the age of 20 yr, as is currently recommended by the international guidelines.
\n \n\n \n \nBACKGROUND: Olanzapine as an antiemetic represents a new use of an antipsychotic drug. People with cancer may experience nausea and vomiting whilst receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or whilst in the palliative phase of illness. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of olanzapine when used as an antiemetic in the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting related to cancer in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase for published data on 20th September 2017, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished trials. We checked reference lists, and contacted experts in the field and study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of olanzapine versus any comparator with or without adjunct therapies for the prevention or treatment, or both, of nausea or vomiting in people with cancer aged 18 years or older, in any setting, of any duration, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. We used GRADE to assess quality of evidence for each main outcome. We extracted data for absence of nausea or vomiting and frequency of serious adverse events as primary outcomes. We extracted data for patient perception of treatment, other adverse events, somnolence and fatigue, attrition, nausea or vomiting severity, breakthrough nausea and vomiting, rescue antiemetic use, and nausea and vomiting as secondary outcomes at specified time points. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs (1917 participants) from high-, middle- and low-income countries, representing over 24 different cancers. Thirteen studies were in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Oral olanzapine was administered during highly emetogenic (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) chemotherapy (12 studies); chemoradiotherapy (one study); or palliation (one study). Eight studies await classification and 13 are ongoing.The main comparison was olanzapine versus placebo/no treatment. Other comparisons were olanzapine versus NK1 antagonist, prokinetic, 5-HT3 antagonist or dexamethasone.We assessed all but one study as having one or more domains that were at high risk of bias. Eight RCTs with fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm, and 10 RCTs with issues related to blinding, were at high risk of bias. We downgraded GRADE assessments due to imprecision, inconsistency and study limitations.Olanzapine versus placebo/no treatmentPrimary outcomesOlanzapine probably doubles the likelihood of no nausea or vomiting during chemotherapy from 25% to 50% (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.47; 561 participants; 3 studies; solid tumours; HEC or MEC therapy; moderate-quality evidence) when added to standard therapy. Number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 5 (95% CI 3.3 - 6.6).It is uncertain if olanzapine increases the risk of serious adverse events (absolute risk difference 0.7% more, 95% CI 0.2 to 5.2) (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.48 to 12.55; 7 studies, 889 participants, low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesFour studies reported patient perception of treatment. One study (48 participants) reported no difference in patient preference. Four reported quality of life but data were insufficient for meta-analysis.Olanzapine may increase other adverse events (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.96; 332 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence) and probably increases somnolence and fatigue compared to no treatment or placebo (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.30 to 4.18; anticipated absolute risk 8.2% more, 95% CI 1.9 to 18.8; 464 participants; 5 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Olanzapine probably does not affect all-cause attrition (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.73; 943 participants; 8 studies; I\u00b2 = 0%). We are uncertain if olanzapine increases attrition due to adverse events (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 70.16; 422 participants; 6 studies). No participants withdrew due to lack of efficacy.We are uncertain if olanzapine reduces breakthrough nausea and vomiting (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.47; 501 participants; 2 studies; I\u00b2 = 54%) compared to placebo or no treatment. No studies reported 50% reduction in severity of nausea or vomiting, use of rescue antiemetics, or attrition.We are uncertain of olanzapine's efficacy in reducing acute nausea or vomiting. Olanzapine probably reduces delayed nausea (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.09; 585 participants; 3 studies) and vomiting (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.42; 702 participants; 5 studies).Subgroup analysis: 5 mg versus 10 mgPlanned subgroup analyses found that it is unclear if 5 mg is as effective an antiemetic as 10 mg. There is insufficient evidence to exclude the possibility that 5 mg may confer a lower risk of somnolence and fatigue than 10 mg.Other comparisonsOne study (20 participants) compared olanzapine versus NK1 antagonists. We observed no difference in any reported outcomes.One study (112 participants) compared olanzapine versus a prokinetic (metoclopramide), reporting that olanzapine may increase freedom from overall nausea (RR 2.95, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.02) and overall vomiting (RR 3.03, 95% CI 1.78 to 5.14).One study (62 participants) examined olanzapine versus 5-HT3 antagonists, reporting olanzapine may increase the likelihood of 50% or greater reduction in nausea or vomiting at 48 hours (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.97) and 24 hours (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.34).One study (229 participants) compared olanzapine versus dexamethasone, reporting that olanzapine may reduce overall nausea (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.18), overall vomiting (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.48), delayed nausea (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.08) and delayed vomiting (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.45). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-quality evidence that oral olanzapine probably increases the likelihood of not being nauseous or vomiting during chemotherapy from 25% to 50% in adults with solid tumours, in addition to standard therapy, compared to placebo or no treatment. There is uncertainty whether it increases serious adverse events. It may increase the likelihood of other adverse events, probably increasing somnolence and fatigue. There is uncertainty about relative benefits and harms of 5 mg versus 10 mg.We identified only RCTs describing oral administration. The findings of this review cannot be extrapolated to provide evidence about the efficacy and safety of any injectable form (intravenous, intramuscular or subcutaneous) of olanzapine.
\n \n\n \n \n\u00a9 2018, The Author(s). Purpose of Review: Provide a current overview regarding the optimal strategy for managing patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Recent Findings: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) reduce long-term stroke risk in asymptomatic patients. However, CAS is associated with a higher risk of peri-procedural stroke. Improvements in best medical therapy (BMT) have renewed uncertainty regarding the extent to which results from older randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes following carotid intervention can be generalised to modern medical practise. Summary: \u2018Average surgical risk\u2019 patients with an asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis of 60\u201399% and increased risk of late stroke should be considered for either CEA or CAS. In patients deemed \u2018high risk\u2019 for surgery, CAS is indicated. Use of an anti-platelet, anti-hypertensive and statin, with strict glycaemic control, is recommended. Results from ongoing large, multicentre RCTs comparing CEA, CAS and BMT will provide clarity regarding the optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.
\n \n\n \n \nTo evaluate the effectiveness of aviation-style teamwork training in improving operating theatre team performance and clinical outcomes.
\n \n\n \n \nTeamwork training and system standardisation have both been proposed to reduce error and harm in surgery. Since the approaches differ markedly, there is potential for synergy between them.
\n \n\n \n \nStandard operating procedures (SOPs) should improve safety in the operating theatre, but controlled studies evaluating the effect of staff-led implementation are needed
\n \n\n \n \nA paper to compare the survival outcomes of patients treated with surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Survival from prostate cancer is greater in men with localised disease treated with surgery rather than radiotherapy. High quality evidence comparing cancer outcomes after surgery and radiotherapy in men with prostate cancer is lacking.\r\nThis observational study suggests that surgery might offer benefit over radiotherapy for most men with clinically localised prostate cancer.
\n \n\n \n \nAbstract\r\nBACKGROUND:\r\nEndovascular detachable coil treatment is being increasingly used as an alternative to craniotomy and clipping for some ruptured intracranial aneurysms, although the relative benefits of these two approaches have yet to be established. We undertook a randomised, multicentre trial to compare the safety and efficacy of endovascular coiling with standard neurosurgical clipping for such aneurysms judged to be suitable for both treatments.\r\nMETHODS:\r\nWe enrolled 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms and randomly assigned them to neurosurgical clipping (n=1070) or endovascular treatment by detachable platinum coils (n=1073). Clinical outcomes were assessed at 2 months and at 1 year with interim ascertainment of rebleeds and death. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a modified Rankin scale score of 3-6 (dependency or death) at 1 year. Trial recruitment was stopped by the steering committee after a planned interim analysis. Analysis was per protocol.\r\nFINDINGS:\r\n190 of 801 (23.7%) patients allocated endovascular treatment were dependent or dead at 1 year compared with 243 of 793 (30.6%) allocated neurosurgical treatment (p=0.0019). The relative and absolute risk reductions in dependency or death after allocation to an endovascular versus neurosurgical treatment were 22.6% (95% CI 8.9-34.2) and 6.9% (2.5-11.3), respectively. The risk of rebleeding from the ruptured aneurysm after 1 year was two per 1276 and zero per 1081 patient-years for patients allocated endovascular and neurosurgical treatment, respectively.\r\nINTERPRETATION:\r\nIn patients with a ruptured intracranial aneurysm, for which endovascular coiling and neurosurgical clipping are therapeutic options, the outcome in terms of survival free of disability at 1 year is significantly better with endovascular coiling. The data available to date suggest that the long-term risks of further bleeding from the treated aneurysm are low with either therapy, although somewhat more frequent with endovascular coiling.
\n \n\n \n \nTraditionally, surgery has been the only cure for many solid tumours. Technological advances have catalysed a shift from open surgery towards less invasive techniques. Laparoscopic surgery and minimally invasive techniques continue to evolve, but for decades high-intensity focused ultrasound has promised to deliver the ultimate objective - truly non-invasive tumour ablation. Only now, however, with recent improvements in imaging, has this objective finally emerged as a real clinical possibility.
\n \n\n \n \n