Background: A gold standard method for malnutrition diagnosis is still lacking in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). Objective: The aims of this study are to determine the prevalence of malnutrition in IBD patients according with recently published Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria, to detect the factors contributing to the onset of malnutrition, and to evaluate the most accurate predictor of malnutrition risk within the available nutritional screening tools. Methods: Fifty-three consecutive adult IBD patients [38 Crohn’s disease (CD) and 15 ulcerative colitis (UC)] had been assessed preoperatively by a multidisciplinary IBD team before undergoing elective surgery. Several malnutrition risk tools were tested, such as NRS-2002, MUST, MST, MIRT, and SaskIBD-NR. The statistical association of independent GLIM variables with baseline characteristics of patients was explored as well as the concordance with the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN 2015) and the screening tools. Results: Twenty-two IBD patients (42%) were malnourished according to GLIM criteria, of which 13 were CD (34%) and 9 UC (60%). The etiological criteria of inflammation and reduction of food intake were present in 51% and 19% of our patients, respectively. The prevalence of GLIM phenotypic criteria was 28%, 28% and 34% for BMI, Free Fat Mass Index (FFMI) and unintended weight loss (UWL), respectively. The presence of ileostomy was statistically associated with a higher prevalence of BMI (p = 0.030), FFMI (p = 0.030) and UWL (p = 0.002) values lower than the GLIM criteria cut-offs, while secondary surgery is associated with a decrease in FFMI (p = 0.017) and UWL (p = 0.041). The sensitivity of the tested nutritional screening tools, compared with the GLIM prevalence of malnutrition, was not satisfactory (between 50 and 82%). Conclusions: GLIM has a higher rate of malnutrition detection than ESPEN 2015, as malnutrition in IBD seems linked to inflammation and secondary malabsorption even without a reduction of food intake. The sensitivity of the screening tools is lower than the specificity when compared with GLIM criteria for malnutrition diagnosis.

Crohn’ disease (CD) patients are at high risk of postoperative recurrence and new tools for the assessment of disease activity are needed to prevent long-term complications. In these patients, the over-production of ROS generated by inflamed bowel tissue and inflammatory cells activates a pathogenic cascade that further exacerbates inflammation and leads to increased oxidative damage to DNA, proteins, and lipids. We measured the products of protein/lipid oxidation and the total antioxidant capacity (ferric reducing ability of plasma, FRAP) in the serum of CD patients with severe disease activity requiring surgery with the aim to characterize their redox status and identify associations between oxidative stress-related markers and their clinical characteristics. At the systemic level, CD was associated with increased levels of protein and lipid oxidation products when compared to healthy volunteers, even though the FRAP values were similar. Advanced oxidation protein product (AOPP) levels showed the highest difference between patients and the controls (11.25, 5.02–15.15, vs. 1.36, 0.75–2.70, median, interquartile range; p < 0.0001) and the analysis of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, indicated for AOPP, the best area under the curve (AUC) value for CD prediction. Advanced glycated end-products (AGEs) were also significantly higher in CD patients (p < 0.01), which is of interest since AOPP and AGEs are both able to activate the membrane receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE) involved in inflammatory diseases. Thiobarbituric acid reactive substance (TBARS) levels were significantly higher in CD patients with ileal localization and aggressive disease behavior, in smokers, and in patients suffering from allergies. In conclusion, our data indicate that circulating oxidative stress biomarkers may be attractive candidates as disease predictors as well as for clinical or therapeutic monitoring of CD. Our results also suggest that AOPP/AGEs and RAGE signaling may represent a pathogenic factor and a potential therapeutic target in CD.

Background: Accurate identification of malnutrition and preoperative nutritional care in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) surgery is mandatory. There is no validated nutritional screening tool for IBD patients. We developed a novel nutritional screening tool for IBD patients requiring surgery and compared it with other tools. Methods: we included 62 consecutive patients scheduled for elective surgery. The IBD Nutritional Screening tool (NS-IBD) was developed to screen patients for further comprehensive assessment. NRS-2002, MUST, MST, MIRT, SaskIBD-NR are compared with the new test. All screening tests were subsequently related to new GLIM criteria. Results: according to GLIM criteria, 25 (40%) IBD patients were malnourished (15 CD and 10 UC, 33% vs. 63%, p = 0.036). Stage 1 malnutrition was reported in ten patients, while stage 2 was detected in 15 patients. The comparison of each nutritional risk tool with GLIM criteria showed sensitivity of 0.52, 0.6, 0.6, 0.84, 0.84 and 0.92 for SASKIBD-NR, MUST, MST, NRS-2002, MIRT, and the new NS-IBD, respectively. Conclusions: in IBD, currently adopted nutritional screening tools are characterized by a low sensitivity when malnutrition diagnosis is performed with recent GLIM criteria. Our proposed tool to detect malnutrition performed the best in detecting patients that may require nutritional assessment and preoperative intervention.

Diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (DMPM) is a rare form of mesothelioma that carries a very poor prognosis. The 5-year overall survival is about 20% (±5.9). Survival is optimal for patients suitable for cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC), with a median OS ranging from 34 to 92 months. However, selecting patients for surgery remains a complex task and requires a careful preoperative workup, rational analysis of prognostic profiles, and risk prediction models. Systemic chemotherapy could be offered: (1) in the adjuvant setting for high-risk patients; (2) for patients not eligible for CRS; and (3) for those with recurrent disease. It mainly includes the combination of Platin compound with Pemetrexed or immunotherapy. The biology of DMPM is still largely unknown. However, progress has been made on some fronts, such as telomere maintenance mechanisms, deregulation of apoptosis, tyrosine kinase pathways, and mutation of BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1). Future perspectives should include translational research to improve our understanding of the disease biology to identify druggable targets. We should also clear the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors and investigate new locoregional technologies, such as pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) or normothermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (NIPEC).