Suchergebnisse
Filter
23 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
SSRN
Letters
In: Bulletin of the atomic scientists, Band 62, Heft 1, S. 5-7
ISSN: 1938-3282
Ecological Interventions to Enhance Goat Health and Livelihood Outcomes in Rural Sub-Saharan African Communities
In: JAE23-526
SSRN
The Pleistocene Epoch and the Evolution of Man [and Comments and Reply]
In: Current anthropology, Band 9, Heft 1, S. 27-47
ISSN: 1537-5382
Human and Methodological Sources of Variability in the Measurement of Urinary 8-Oxo-7,8-dihydro-2 '-deoxyguanosine
WOS: 000319871200001 ; PubMed ID: 23198723 ; Aims: Urinary 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-oxodG) is a widely used biomarker of oxidative stress. However, variability between chromatographic and ELISA methods hampers interpretation of data, and this variability may increase should urine composition differ between individuals, leading to assay interference. Furthermore, optimal urine sampling conditions are not well defined. We performed inter-laboratory comparisons of 8-oxodG measurement between mass spectrometric-, electrochemical- and ELISA-based methods, using common within-technique calibrants to analyze 8-oxodG-spiked phosphate-buffered saline and urine samples. We also investigated human subject- and sample collection-related variables, as potential sources of variability. Results: Chromatographic assays showed high agreement across urines from different subjects, whereas ELISAs showed far more inter-laboratory variation and generally overestimated levels, compared to the chromatographic assays. Excretion rates in timed 'spot' samples showed strong correlations with 24 h excretion (the 'gold' standard) of urinary 8-oxodG (r(p) 0.67-0.90), although the associations were weaker for 8-oxodG adjusted for creatinine or specific gravity (SG). The within-individual excretion of 8-oxodG varied only moderately between days (CV 17% for 24 h excretion and 20% for first void, creatinine-corrected samples). Innovation: This is the first comprehensive study of both human and methodological factors influencing 8-oxodG measurement, providing key information for future studies with this important biomarker. Conclusion: ELISA variability is greater than chromatographic assay variability, and cannot determine absolute levels of 8-oxodG. Use of standardized calibrants greatly improves intra-technique agreement and, for the chromatographic assays, importantly allows integration of results for pooled analyses. If 24 h samples are not feasible, creatinine- or SG-adjusted first morning samples are recommended. ; ECNIS (Environmental Cancer Risk, Nutrition and Individual Susceptibility), a network of excellence operating within the European Union 6th Framework Program, Priority 5:"Food Quality and Safety" [FOOD-CT-2005-513943]; ECNIS2, a coordination and support action within the European Union FP7 Cooperation Theme 2 Food, Agriculture, Fisheries and Biotechnologies; CISBO; Ingeborg; Leo Dannin Foundation; National Science Council, TaiwanNational Science Council of Taiwan [NSC 97-2314-B-040-015-MY3, NSC 100-2628-B-040-001-MY4]; US NIHUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA [P30ES009089]; Instituto Carlos III division of the Government for Clinical Research [PI-10/00802, RD06/0045/0006]; Generalitat ValencianaGeneralitat Valenciana [ACOM/2012/238]; Swedish Council for Working Life and Social ResearchSwedish Research CouncilSwedish Research Council for Health Working Life & Welfare (Forte); TUBITAK (Technical and Scientific Research Council of Turkey)Turkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Arastirma Kurumu (TUBITAK) [108Y049]; Grant Agency of the Czech RepublicGrant Agency of the Czech Republic [P503/11/0084]; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg; UK Medical Research Council via a People Exchange Programme Research Leader Fellowship award [G1001808/98136] ; Some of the authors of this work were partners in, and this work was partly supported by, ECNIS (Environmental Cancer Risk, Nutrition and Individual Susceptibility), a network of excellence operating within the European Union 6th Framework Program, Priority 5:"Food Quality and Safety" (Contract No. FOOD-CT-2005-513943), and also ECNIS 2 , a coordination and support action within the European Union FP7 Cooperation Theme 2 Food, Agriculture, Fisheries and Biotechnologies.; P Moller and S Loft are supported by CISBO and the Ingeborg and Leo Dannin Foundation.; M-R Chao and C-W Hu acknowledge financial support from the National Science Council, Taiwan (Grants NSC 97-2314-B-040-015-MY3 and NSC 100-2628-B-040-001-MY4).; R Santella acknowledges the contribution of Qiao Wang, and support from US NIH P30ES009089.; G Saez and C Cerda acknowledge financial support from the Instituto Carlos III division of the Government for Clinical Research (Grants PI-10/00802 and RD06/0045/0006) and Grant ACOM/2012/238 from Generalitat Valenciana.; K Broberg, C Lindh, and M Hossain acknowledge financial support from the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research; H Orhan and N Senduran acknowledge financial support from TUBITAK (Technical and Scientific Research Council of Turkey), grant number 108Y049.; P Rossner, Jr. and RJ Sram acknowledge support from the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (P503/11/0084).; L Barregard acknowledges financial support from the Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg.; MS Cooke acknowledges support from the UK Medical Research Council via a People Exchange Programme Research Leader Fellowship award (G1001808/98136).
BASE
Corrigendum to "European contribution to the study of ROS: A summary of the findings and prospects for the future from the COST action BM1203 (EU-ROS)" (Redox Biol. (2017) 13 (94–162)(S2213231717303373)(10.1016/j.redox.2017.05.007))
The authors regret that they have to correct the acknowledgement of the above mentioned publication as follows: This article/publication is based upon work from COST Action BM1203 (EU-ROS), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) which is funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European Union. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is a funding agency for research and innovation networks. Our Actions help connect research initiatives across Europe and enable scientists to grow their ideas by sharing them with their peers. This boosts their research, career and innovation. For further information see www.cost.eu. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. ; This article/publication is based upon work from COST Action BM1203 (EU-ROS), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) which is funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European Union. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is a funding agency for research and innovation networks.
BASE
Effect of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns on planned cancer surgery for 15 tumour types in 61 countries: an international, prospective, cohort study
Background: Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods: This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings: Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation: Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.
BASE
Effect of COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns on planned cancer surgery for 15 tumour types in 61 countries: an international, prospective, cohort study
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE