A direct comparison of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive patients with a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 negative control group undergoing an operative intervention during the current pandemic is lacking, and a reliable estimate of the assumed difference in morbidity and mortality between both patient categories remains unknown. We included all consecutive patients with a confirmed pre- or postoperative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive status (operated in 27 hospitals) and negative control patients (operated in 4 hospitals) undergoing emergency or elective operations. A propensity score-matched comparison of clinical outcomes was performed between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive and negative tested patients (control group). Primary outcome was overall 30-day mortality rate between both groups. Main secondary outcomes were overall, pulmonary, and thromboembolic complications. In total, 161 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive and 342 control severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 negative patients were included in this study. The 30-day overall postoperative mortality rate was greater in the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive cohort compared with the negative control group (16% vs 4% respectively; P = .007). After propensity score matching, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive group consisted of 123 patients (median 70 years of age [interquartile range 59–77] and 55% male) were compared with 196 patients in the matched control group (median 69 years (interquartile range 58–75] and 53% male). The 30-day mortality rate and risk were greater in the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive group compared with the matched control group (12% vs 4%; P = .009 and odds ratio 3.4 [95% confidence interval 1.5–8.5]; P = .005, respectively). Overall, pulmonary and thromboembolic complications occurred more often in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive patients (P < .01). Patients diagnosed with perioperative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have an increased risk of 30-day mortality, pulmonary complications, and thromboembolic events. These findings serve as an evidence-based argument to postpone elective surgery and selected emergency cases.

Background: Upfront cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC (CRS-HIPEC) is the standard treatment for isolated resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (PM) in the Netherlands. This study investigates whether addition of perioperative systemic therapy to CRS-HIPEC improves oncological outcomes. Methods: This open-label, parallel-group, phase II-III, randomised, superiority study is performed in nine Dutch tertiary referral centres. Eligible patients are adults who have a good performance status, histologically or cytologically proven resectable PM of a colorectal adenocarcinoma, no systemic colorectal metastases, no systemic therapy for colorectal cancer within six months prior to enrolment, and no previous CRS-HIPEC. Eligible patients are randomised (1:1) to perioperative systemic therapy and CRS-HIPEC (experimental arm) or upfront CRS-HIPEC alone (control arm) by using central randomisation software with minimisation stratified by a peritoneal cancer index of 0–10 or 11–20, metachronous or synchronous PM, previous systemic therapy for colorectal cancer, and HIPEC with oxaliplatin or mitomycin C. At the treating physician’s discretion, perioperative systemic therapy consists of either four 3-weekly neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of capecitabine with oxaliplatin (CAPOX), six 2-weekly neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin with oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), or six 2-weekly neoadjuvant cycles of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin with irinotecan (FOLFIRI) followed by four 3-weekly (capecitabine) or six 2-weekly (5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) adjuvant cycles of fluoropyrimidine monotherapy. Bevacizumab is added to the first three (CAPOX) or four (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI) neoadjuvant cycles. The first 80 patients are enrolled in a phase II study to explore the feasibility of accrual and the feasibility, safety, and tolerance of perioperative systemic therapy. If predefined criteria of feasibility and safety are met, the study continues as a phase III study with 3-year overall survival as primary endpoint. A total of 358 patients is needed to detect the hypothesised 15% increase in 3-year overall survival (control arm 50%; experimental arm 65%). Secondary endpoints are surgical characteristics, major postoperative morbidity, progression-free survival, disease-free survival, health-related quality of life, costs, major systemic therapy related toxicity, and objective radiological and histopathological response rates. Discussion: This is the first randomised study that prospectively compares oncological outcomes of perioperative systemic therapy and CRS-HIPEC with upfront CRS-HIPEC alone for isolated resectable colorectal PM. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov/NCT02758951, NTR/NTR6301, ISRCTN/ISRCTN15977568, EudraCT/2016–001865-99.

End-stage renal disease is often complicated by the occurrence of secondary and eventually tertiary hyperparathyroidism, characterized by increased parathormone, calcium, and phosphate concentrations. Related symptoms include pruritus and osteodynia, concentration difficulties, and feelings of depression may be present. In the long-term, end-stage renal disease patients with hyperparathyroidism have an increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Among treatment options are vitamin D supplements, phosphate binders, calcimimetics, and surgical parathyroidectomy. Determining the optimal treatment for the individual patient is challenging for nephrologists and endocrine surgeons. This review resumes the pathogenesis of hyperparathyroidism, clinical presentation, required diagnostic work-up, and discusses indications for the available treatment options for patients with secondary and tertiary hyperparathyroidism.

Purpose: The aim of this review is to give an overview of the current status of targeted optical fluorescence imaging in the field of oncology, cardiovascular, infectious and inflammatory diseases to further promote clinical translation. Methods: A meta-narrative approach was taken to systematically describe the relevant literature. Consecutively, each field was assigned a developmental stage regarding the clinical implementation of optical fluorescence imaging. Results: Optical fluorescence imaging is leaning towards clinical implementation in gastrointestinal and head and neck cancers, closely followed by pulmonary, neuro, breast and gynaecological oncology. In cardiovascular and infectious disease, optical imaging is in a less advanced/proof of concept stage. Conclusion: Targeted optical fluorescence imaging is rapidly evolving and expanding into the clinic, especially in the field of oncology. However, the imaging modality still has to overcome some major challenges before it can be part of the standard of care in the clinic, such as the provision of pivotal trial data. Intensive multidisciplinary (pre-)clinical joined forces are essential to overcome the delivery of such compelling phase III registration trial data and subsequent regulatory approval and reimbursement hurdles to advance clinical implementation of targeted optical fluorescence imaging as part of standard practice.

Although palliative care as a discipline in high income countries is maturing, it is still somewhat in its infancy in sub-Saharan Africa, an area where this type of care is needed the most: more than 80% of people in urgent need of palliative care live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We will describe why the development of palliative care in LMICs is increasingly essential, and how it is currently still underdeveloped. In this manuscript, we discuss the challenges in organizing palliative care in LMICs in regard to the four WHO palliative care pillars: policy, education, medication, and implementation. We will illustrate how several Sub-Saharan African countries are increasingly able to provide palliative care analyzed in terms of these pillars. Ultimately, scientific research and cost-effectiveness analyses of well-developed palliative programs, should encourage both local and international governments and authorities to provide more capital and human recourses for palliative care in the future.

Patients with well-differentiated thyroid cancer, especially papillary thyroid cancer (PTC), are treated with surgical resection of the thyroid gland. This is followed by post-operative radioactive iodine (I¹³¹), resulting in total thyroid ablation. Unfortunately, about 15-33% of PTC patients are unable to take up I¹³¹, limiting further treatment options. The aim of our study was to develop a cancer organoid model with the potential for pre-treatment diagnosis of these I¹³¹-resistant patients. PTC tissue from thirteen patients was used to establish a long-term organoid model. These organoids showed a self-renewal potential for at least five passages, suggesting the presence of cancer stem cells. We demonstrated that thyroid specific markers, a PTC marker, and transporters/receptors necessary for iodine uptake and thyroid hormone production were expressed on a gene and protein level. Additionally, we cultured organoids from I¹³¹-resistant PTC material from three patients. When comparing PTC organoids to radioactive iodine (RAI)-refractory disease (RAIRD) organoids, a substantial discordance on both a protein and gene expression level was observed, indicating a treatment prediction potential. We showed that patient-derived PTC organoids recapitulate PTC tissue and a RAIRD phenotype. Patient-specific PTC organoids may enable the early identification of I¹³¹-resistant patients, in order to reduce RAI overtreatment and its many side effects for thyroid cancer patients.