Citations

Objective: Surgeon workload, or human “cost” of performing a procedure, is not well understood in light of emerging surgical technologies. This pilot study quantified surgeon workload for colorectal procedures and identified patient, surgeon, and procedural factors impacting workload. Summary Background Data: Innovative technologies and procedures in surgery have generally been promoted for the advancement of patient care. The resulting surgeon workload is poorly studied with little knowledge of the contributing factors impacting workload. Methods: Surgeons completed NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) questionnaires to self-assess workload following abdominopelvic colon and rectal procedures. Corresponding patient data were retrieved from the medical record. Descriptive statistics, correlations, and ANOVA were performed to compare surgeon and patient factors, procedure type, and surgical approach on workload overall and by subscales. Results: Seven attending surgeons rated 238 surgeries, of which 218 (92%) had corresponding patient data. Surgeon experience and patient demographics had inconsistent effects on workload. A statistically significant 3-way interaction was identified among disease process, procedure type, and surgical approach on workload (F(9, 146) = 2.17, P = 0.027), but was limited to open procedures for neoplasia and inflammatory bowel disease patients. Proctectomy and colectomy procedures compared across open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches showed significant differences in overall workload and subscales, where the robotic procedures required significantly less mental demand, physical demand, and effort, than open or laparoscopic ( P < 0.05). Conclusions: Patient characteristics, disease process, and surgical experience had inconsistent effects on surgeon workload. Major differences in workload were identified for procedure type and surgical approach, where robotic procedures required less mental demand, physical demand, and effort.

208 Background: PEGPH20 degrades hyaluronan (HA), a major component of the stroma, increases delivery of gemcitabine and prolongs survival in preclinical models. We evaluated the activity of PEGPH20 in combination with mFFOX in mPC , unselected for tumor HA. Methods: Pertinent eligibility: untreated mPC, PS of 0-1 and adequate organ function. Standard FFOX was modified to add prophylactic growth factor support and omit bolus 5FU. Due to increased thromboembolic (TE) events with PEGPH20, an amendment instituted LMWH prophylaxis in the PEGPH20 arm only. Following a dose finding cohort of mFFOX + PEGPH20, the Phase II study randomized patients (1:1) to the combination arm or mFFOX alone (n = 138). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), with a null median OS of 10 mo and an alternative of 15 mo (1-sided type 1 error 0.1, 80% power). Results: PEGPH20 at 3 mcg/kg, q2 weeks was more tolerable than twice weekly dosing. The randomized phase II study began May 2015. The planned interim futility analysis when 35 deaths occurred gave a HR of 0.44 favoring the standard arm, thus the study was closed to accrual (March 2017). As of August 22, 2017 (n = 111), the estimated median OS in the mFFOX arm was 15.1 mo (95% CI 10.1-15.7) vs 7.6 mo (95% CI 4.6-9.2) in the PEGPH20 arm. Conclusions: OS in the mFFOX control arm (15.1 mo) is longest yet reported. Addition of PEGPH20 to mFFOX is not recommended for further study and appears to be detrimental (HR = 0.48). The impact of PEGPH20 on OS was unexpected and in contrast to favorable results reported for the combination of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel + PEGPH20 especially in the HA high cohort (Hingorani S et al. A 4008, ASCO 2017). PEGPH20 with mFFOX caused increased toxicity (mostly GI and TE events) and decreased treatment duration compared to mFFOX alone. Tumor HA content will be analyzed. Funding: NIH/NCI grants CA180888, CA180819; and in part by Halozyme Inc. Clinical trial information: 01959139. [Table: see text]

ABSTRACT Introduction : A randomized trial demonstrated benefit from thymectomy in nonthymomatous acetylcholine receptor (AChR)‐antibody positive myasthenia gravis (MG). Uncontrolled observational and histologic studies suggest thymectomy may not be efficacious in anti–muscle‐specific kinase (MuSK)‐MG. Methods : The therapeutic impact of thymectomy was evaluated from data collected for a multicenter, retrospective blinded review of rituximab in MuSK‐MG. Results : Baseline characteristics were similar between thymectomy ( n = 26) and nonthymectomy ( n = 29) groups, including treatment with rituximab (42% vs. 45%). At last visit, 35% of thymectomy subjects reached the primary endpoint, a Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America (MGFA) post‐intervention status (PIS) score of minimal manifestations (MM) or better, compared with 55% of controls ( P = 0.17). After controlling for age at onset of MG, rituximab, prednisone, and intravenous immunoglobulin/plasma exchange treatment, thymectomy was not associated with greater likelihood of favorable clinical outcome (odds ratio = 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.12–1.53, P = 0.19). Discussion : Thymectomy was not associated with additional clinical improvement in this multicenter cohort of MuSK‐MG patients. Muscle Nerve 59:404–410, 2019

PurposeThis case‐control retrospective discovery study is to identify antigenic bovine pericardium (BP) proteins that stimulate graft‐specific humoral immune response in patients implanted with glutaraldehyde fixed bovine pericardial (GFBP) heart valves.Experimental designBanked serum is collected from age‐ and sex‐matched patients who received either a GFBP or mechanical heart valve replacement. Serum IgG is isolated and used to generate poly‐polyclonal antibody affinity chromatography columns from each patient. Native and deglycosylated BP protein extracts are separately added to individual patient affinity chromatography columns, with unbound proteins washed through the column. Proteins captured in the affinity chromatography columns are submitted for proteomic identification. Differences between GFBP and mechanical heart valve replacement recipients are analyzed with Gaussian linearized modeling.ResultsCarbohydrate antigens overwhelm protein capture in the column, requiring BP protein deglycosylation prior to affinity chromatography. Nineteen BP protein antigens, which stimulated graft‐specific IgG production, are identified in patients who received GFBP valve replacements. Identified antigens are significantly over‐represented for calcium‐binding proteins.Conclusions and clinical relevancePatients implanted with GFBP valves develop a graft‐specific humoral immune response toward BP protein antigens, with 19 specific antigens identified in this work. The molecular functions of over‐represented antigens, specifically calcium‐binding proteins, may aid in understanding the underlying factors that contribute to structural valve deterioration.

Insulin deficiency and uncontrolled diabetes lead to a catabolic state with decreased muscle strength, contributing to disease-related morbidity. FoxO transcription factors are suppressed by insulin and thus are key mediators of insulin action. To study their role in diabetic muscle wasting, we created mice with muscle-specific triple knockout of FoxO1/3/4 and induced diabetes in these M-FoxO-TKO mice with streptozotocin (STZ). Muscle mass and myofiber area were decreased 20–30% in STZ-Diabetes mice due to increased ubiquitin-proteasome degradation and autophagy alterations, characterized by increased LC3-containing vesicles, and elevated levels of phosphorylated ULK1 and LC3-II. Both the muscle loss and markers of increased degradation/autophagy were completely prevented in STZ FoxO-TKO mice. Transcriptomic analyses revealed FoxO-dependent increases in ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis pathways in STZ-Diabetes, including regulation of Fbxo32 (Atrogin1), Trim63 (MuRF1), Bnip3L, and Gabarapl. These same genes were increased 1.4- to 3.3-fold in muscle from humans with type 1 diabetes after short-term insulin deprivation. Thus, FoxO-regulated genes play a rate-limiting role in increased protein degradation and muscle atrophy in insulin-deficient diabetes.

Abstract New gene-editing tools challenge conventional policy proscriptions of research aimed at either human germline gene editing or human enhancement by potentially lowering technical barriers to both kinds of intervention. Some recent gene-editing reports have begun to take up the prospect of germline editing, but most experts are in broad agreement that research should prioritize medical applications over attempts to enhance human traits. However, there is little consensus about what counts as human enhancement in this context, or how to deal with the issues it flags. Moreover, several influential reports interpret medical applications to include disease prevention as well as treatment as a goal for gene-editing research. This challenges the current policy consensus because using gene editing to prevent disease would incidentally facilitate human enhancement applications in a variety of ways. If such research efforts are penalized by policy concerns about enhancement, then their preventive health benefits could be lost. To avoid being caught off guard by such challenges, science policy makers will need to think more carefully about what “prevention” might mean in the gene-editing context, and develop research governance that can anticipate and address the human enhancement concerns it will raise. To accomplish the latter, the scope of policy making will need to expand from its narrow focus on human clinical trials to engage with basic researchers driving the translational pipeline toward preventive gene editing and the science policy makers who have to address its “off-label” uses.