Significant variation exists in the outcomes used in cancer cachexia trials, including measures of body composition, which are often selected as primary or secondary endpoints. To date, there has been no review of the most commonly selected measures or their potential sensitivity to detect changes resulting from the interventions being examined. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the frequency and diversity of body composition measures that have been used in cancer cachexia trials. MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched between January 1990 and June 2021. Eligible trials examined adults (≥18 years) who had received an intervention aiming to treat or attenuate the effects of cancer cachexia for >14 days. Trials were also of a prospective controlled design and included body weight or at least one anthropometric, bioelectrical or radiological endpoint pertaining to body composition, irrespective of the modality of intervention (e.g., pharmacological, nutritional, physical exercise and behavioural) or comparator. Trials with a sample size of <40 patients were excluded. Data extraction used Covidence software, and reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidance. This review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO: CRD42022276710). A total of 84 clinical trials, comprising 13 016 patients, were eligible for inclusion. Non‐small‐cell lung cancer and pancreatic cancer were studied most frequently. The majority of trial interventions were pharmacological (52%) or nutritional (34%) in nature. The most frequently reported endpoints were assessments of body weight (68 trials, n = 11 561) followed by bioimpedance analysis (BIA)‐based estimates (23 trials, n = 3140). Sixteen trials (n = 3052) included dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DEXA)‐based endpoints, and computed tomography (CT) body composition was included in eight trials (n = 841). Discrepancies were evident when comparing the efficacy of interventions using BIA‐based estimates of lean tissue mass against radiological assessment modalities. Body weight, BIA and DEXA‐based endpoints have been most frequently used in cancer cachexia trials. Although the optimal endpoints cannot be determined from this review, body weight, alongside measurements from radiological body composition analysis, would seem appropriate. The choice of radiological modality is likely to be dependent on the trial setting, population and intervention in question. CT and magnetic resonance imaging, which have the ability to accurately discriminate tissue types, are likely to be more sensitive and provide greater detail. Endpoints are of particular importance when aligned with the intervention's mechanism of action and/or intended patient benefit.

Remote digital postoperative wound monitoring provides an opportunity to strengthen postoperative community care and minimise the burden of surgical-site infection (SSI). This study aimed to pilot a remote digital postoperative wound monitoring service and evaluate the readiness for implementation in routine clinical practice. This was a single-arm pilot implementational study of remote digital postoperative wound monitoring across two tertiary care hospitals in the UK (IDEAL stage 2b, clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05069103). Adults undergoing abdominal surgery were recruited and received a smartphone-delivered wound assessment tool for 30-days postoperatively. Patients received 30-day postoperative follow-up, including the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ). A thematic mixed-methods approach was used, according to the WHO framework for monitoring and evaluating digital health interventions. 200 patients were enroled, of whom 115 (57.5%) underwent emergency surgical procedures. Overall, the 30-day SSI rate was 16.5% (n = 33/200), with 72.7% (n = 24) diagnosed post-discharge. Usage of the intervention was 83.0% (n = 166/200), with subsequently 74.1% (n = 123/166) TUQ completion. There were no issues reported with feasibility of the technology, with the reliability (3.87, 95% CI: 3.73–4.00) and quality of the interface rated highly (4.18, 95%: 4.06–4.30). Patient acceptance was similarly high with regards to ease of use (4.51, 95% CI: 4.41–4.62), satisfaction (4.27, 95% CI: 4.13–4.41), and usefulness (4.07, 95% CI: 3.92–4.23). Despite the desire for more frequent and personalised interactions, the majority viewed the intervention as providing meaningful benefit over routine postoperative care. Remote digital postoperative wound monitoring successfully demonstrated readiness for implementation with regards to the technology, usability, and healthcare process improvement.

Opinion statement: Considerable advances in the investigation and management of oesophagogastric cancer have occurred over the last few decades. While the historically dismal prognosis associated with these diseases has improved, outcomes remain very poor. Cancer cachexia is an often neglected, yet critical, factor for this patient group. There is a persuasive argument that a lack of assessment and treatment of cachexia has limited progress in oesophagogastric cancer care. In the curative setting, the stage of the host (based on factors such as body composition, function, and inflammatory status), alongside tumour stage, has the potential to influence treatment efficacy. Phenotypical features of cachexia may decrease the survival benefit of (peri-operative) chemoradiotherapy, immunotherapy, or surgical resection in patients with potentially curative malignancy. Most patients with oesophagogastric cancer unfortunately present with disease which is not amenable, or is unlikely to respond, to these treatments. In the palliative setting, host factors can similarly impair results from systemic anti-cancer therapies, cause adverse symptoms, and reduce quality of life. To optimise treatment pathways and enhance patient outcomes, we must utilise this information during clinical decision-making. As our understanding of the genesis of cancer cachexia improves and more therapeutic options, ranging from basic (e.g. exercise and nutrition) to targeted (e.g. anti-IL1 α and anti-GDF-15), become available, there can be grounds for optimism. Cachexia can change from a hitherto neglected condition to an integral part of the oesophagogastric cancer treatment pathway.

Remote monitoring is essential for healthcare digital transformation, however, this poses greater burdens on healthcare providers to review and respond as the data collected expands. This study developed a multimodal neural network to automate assessments of patient-generated data from remote postoperative wound monitoring. Two interventional studies including adult gastrointestinal surgery patients collected wound images and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for 30-days postoperatively. Neural networks for PROMs and images were combined to predict surgical site infection (SSI) diagnosis within 48 h. The multimodal neural network model to predict confirmed SSI within 48 h remained comparable to clinician triage (0.762 [0.690–0.835] vs 0.777 [0.721–0.832]), with an excellent performance on external validation. Simulated usage indicated an 80% reduction in staff time (51.5 to 9.1 h) without compromising diagnostic accuracy. This multimodal approach can effectively support remote monitoring, alleviating provider burden while ensuring high-quality postoperative care.

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a common malignancy and is associated with poor survival outcomes. Biomarkers of systemic inflammation derived from blood tests collected as part of routine clinical care offer prognostic information for patients with NSCLC that may assist clinical decision making. They are an attractive tool, as they are inexpensive, easily measured, and reproducible in a variety of healthcare settings. Despite the wealth of evidence available to support them, these inflammatory biomarkers are not yet routinely used in clinical practice. In this narrative review, the key inflammatory indices reported in the literature and their prognostic significance in NSCLC are described. Key challenges limiting their clinical application are highlighted, including the need to define the optimal biomarker of systemic inflammation, a lack of understanding of the systemic inflammatory landscape of NSCLC as a heterogenous disease, and the lack of clinical relevance in reported outcomes. These challenges may be overcome with standardised recording and reporting of inflammatory biomarkers, clinicopathological factors, and survival outcomes. This will require a collaborative approach, to which this field of research lends itself. This work may be aided by the rise of data-driven research, including the potential to utilise modern electronic patient records and advanced data-analysis techniques.

Medical schools in the UK have been forced to dramatically restructure teaching and assessment amidst the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. As part of this, some have opted to assess progression through open book examinations (OBE). I aim to share my thoughts as an unsettled 4th year medical student about to embark on my first set of clinical exams conducted in this format. The difficulties associated with preparing for examinations under such unique and challenging circumstances cannot be underestimated. Working from home, during social distancing, surrounds students with the extra family stresses that we are all facing during this pandemic. This combined with a new, unfamiliar examination format will inevitably lead to students feeling daunted. While some would argue that an OBE may reward good problem solvers, students still require a strong foundation of knowledge. The luxury of reference will not be afforded in all clinical settings thus leading to concerns regarding students skimming over essential learning points. Furthermore, we cannot ignore the increased opportunity for academic misconduct resulting from an open book assessment format. Why are medical schools placing undue stress on students who could instead focus their attention on living compassionately for others during this difficult time?