Explore the vast range of titles available.

Comparative oncology clinical trials play an important and growing role in cancer research and drug development efforts. These trials, typically conducted in companion (pet) dogs, allow assessment of novel anticancer agents and combination therapies in a veterinary clinical setting that supports serial biologic sample collections and exploration of dose, schedule and corresponding pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships. Further, an intact immune system and natural co-evolution of tumour and microenvironment support exploration of novel immunotherapeutic strategies. Substantial improvements in our collective understanding of the molecular landscape of canine cancers have occurred in the past 10 years, facilitating translational research and supporting the inclusion of comparative studies in drug development. The value of the approach is demonstrated in various clinical trial settings, including single-agent or combination response rates, inhibition of metastatic progression and randomized comparison of multiple agents in a head-to-head fashion. Such comparative oncology studies have been purposefully included in the developmental plan for several US FDA-approved and up-and-coming anticancer drugs. Challenges for this field include keeping pace with technology and data dissemination/harmonization, improving annotation of the canine genome and immune system, and generation of canine-specific validated reagents to support integration of correlative biology within clinical trial efforts.This Review discusses the role of comparative oncology studies between pet dogs and humans with an emphasis on selected canine tumour types that represent those with the most translational benefit to humans and those possessing important molecular intersections with human malignancies.

Background Animal models are crucial resources for studying cancer, metastasis, and the tumor microenvironment (TME). Spatial resolution improves our ability to decipher the functions and interactions of distinct components within the TME. Traditionally, this is accomplished through mapping of protein immunolabeling within tissue sections using immunohistochemistry (IHC). Emerging techniques in this field, including multiplex imaging and spatial transcriptomics, continue to rely on IHC to facilitate cell type and tissue compartment identification. Therefore, appropriate antibody validation remains part of the foundation on which sound and reproducible scientific findings are built. This is important for studies investigating tissue-based hypotheses in murine, canine, or human tissues. Methods In this work, we aimed to develop a panel of antibodies to label TME components of metastatic osteosarcoma across murine, canine, and human lung. Candidate antibodies were evaluated across species based on sequence homology, immunolabeling in control samples (positive, negative, isotype), and finally, by western blot. Results Herein we present a robust panel of antibodies that label murine, canine, and human immune cells (CD20, CD204, CD3, FOXP3, Iba1), osteosarcoma tumor cells (ALPL, RUNX2, SATB2), and other components of the TME (CD31, cytokeratin, FAPα, PROX1, TTF-1, vimentin), and outline methods in which IHC can be pursued within the context of comparative oncology. Conclusion The identification of antibodies that label murine, canine, and human tissues supports the investigation of cancer biology across models and patient populations, highlighting a critical strength of comparative oncology research.

Guidelines are increasingly determining the decision process in day-to-day clinical work. Guidelines describe the current best possible standard in diagnostics and therapy. They should be developed by an international panel of experts, whereby alongside individual experience, above all, the results of comparative studies are decisive. According to the results of high-ranking scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals, statements and recommendations are formulated, and these are graded strictly according to the criteria of evidence-based medicine. Guidelines can therefore be valuable in helping particularly the young surgeon in his or her day-to-day work to find the best decision for the patient when confronted with a wide and confusing range of options. However, even experienced surgeons benefit because by virtue of a heavy workload and commitment, they often find it difficult to keep up with the ever-increasing published literature. All guidelines require regular updating, usually every 3 years, in line with progress in the field. The current Guidelines focus on technique and perioperative management of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair and constitute the first comprehensive guidelines on this topic. In this issue of Surgical Endoscopy, the first part of the Guidelines is published including sections on basics, indication for surgery, perioperative management, and key points of technique. The next part (Part 2) of the Guidelines will address complications and comparisons between open and laparoscopic techniques. Part 3 will cover mesh technology, hernia prophylaxis, technique-related issues, new technologic developments, lumbar and other unusual hernias, and training/education.

In 2014, the International Endohernia Society (IEHS) published the first international “Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias.” Guidelines reflect the currently best available evidence in diagnostics and therapy and give recommendations to help surgeons to standardize their techniques and to improve their results. However, science is a dynamic field which is continuously developing. Therefore, guidelines require regular updates to keep pace with the evolving literature.MethodsFor the development of the original guidelines, all relevant literature published up to year 2012 was analyzed using the ranking of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. For the present update, all of the previous authors were asked to evaluate the literature published during the recent years from 2012 to 2017 and revise their statements and recommendations given in the initial guidelines accordingly. In two Consensus Conferences (October 2017 Beijing, March 2018 Cologne), the updates were presented, discussed, and confirmed. To avoid redundancy, only new statements or recommendations are included in this paper. Therefore, for full understanding both of the guidelines, the original and the current, must be read. In addition, the new developments in repair of abdominal wall hernias like surgical techniques within the abdominal wall, release operations (transversus muscle release, component separation), Botox application, and robot-assisted repair methods were included.ResultsDue to an increase of the number of patients and further development of surgical techniques, repair of primary and secondary abdominal wall hernias attracts increasing interests of many surgeons. Whereas up to three decades ago hernia-related publications did not exceed 20 per year, currently this number is about 10-fold higher. Recent years are characterized by the advent of new techniques—minimal invasive techniques using robotics and laparoscopy, totally extraperitoneal repairs, novel myofascial release techniques for optimal closure of large defects, and Botox for relaxing the abdominal wall. Furthermore, a concomitant rectus diastasis was recognized as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Despite insufficient evidence with respect to these new techniques, it seemed to us necessary to include them in the update to stimulate surgeons to do research in these fields.ConclusionGuidelines are recommendations based on best available evidence intended to help the surgeon to improve the quality of his daily work. However, science is a continuously evolving process, and as such guidelines should be updated about every 3 years. For a comprehensive reference, however, it is suggested to read both the initial guidelines published in 2014 together with the update. Moreover, the presented update includes also techniques which were not known 3 years before.

Abstract The National Cancer Institute-led multidisciplinary Comparative Brain Tumor Consortium (CBTC) convened a glioma pathology board, comprising both veterinarian and physician neuropathologists, and conducted a comprehensive review of 193 cases of canine glioma. The immediate goal was to improve existing glioma classification methods through creation of a histologic atlas of features, thus yielding greater harmonization of phenotypic characterization. The long-term goal was to support future incorporation of clinical outcomes and genomic data into proposed simplified diagnostic schema, so as to further bridge the worlds of veterinary and physician neuropathology and strengthen validity of the dog as a naturally occurring, translationally relevant animal model of human glioma. All cases were morphologically reclassified according to a new schema devised by the entire board, yielding a majority opinion diagnosis of astrocytoma (43, 22.3%), 19 of which were low-grade and 24 high-grade, and oligodendroglioma (134, 69.4%), 35 of which were low-grade and 99 were high-grade. Sixteen cases (8.3%) could not be classified as oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma based on morphology alone and were designated as undefined gliomas. The simplified classification scheme proposed herein provides a tractable means for future addition of molecular data, and also serves to highlight histologic similarities and differences between human and canine glioma.

Understanding relationships between spontaneous cancer in companion (pet) canines and humans can facilitate biomarker and drug development in both species. Towards this end we developed an experimental-bioinformatic protocol that analyzes canine transcriptomics data in the context of existing human data to evaluate comparative relevance of canine to human cancer. We used this protocol to characterize five canine cancers: melanoma, osteosarcoma, pulmonary carcinoma, B- and T-cell lymphoma, in 60 dogs. We applied an unsupervised, iterative clustering method that yielded five co-expression modules and found that each cancer exhibited a unique module expression profile. We constructed cancer models based on the co-expression modules and used the models to successfully classify the canine data. These canine-derived models also successfully classified human tumors representing the same cancers, indicating shared cancer biology between canines and humans. Annotation of the module genes identified cancer specific pathways relevant to cells-of-origin and tumor biology. For example, annotations associated with melanin production ( PMEL , GPNMB , and BACE2 ), synthesis of bone material ( COL5A2 , COL6A3 , and COL12A1 ), synthesis of pulmonary surfactant ( CTSH , LPCAT1 , and NAPSA ), ribosomal proteins ( RPL8 , RPS7 , and RPLP0 ), and epigenetic regulation ( EDEM1 , PTK2B , and JAK1 ) were unique to melanoma, osteosarcoma, pulmonary carcinoma, B- and T-cell lymphoma, respectively. In total, 152 biomarker candidates were selected from highly expressing modules for each cancer type. Many of these biomarker candidates are under-explored as drug discovery targets and warrant further study. The demonstrated transferability of classification models from canines to humans enforces the idea that tumor biology, biomarker targets, and associated therapeutics, discovered in canines, may translate to human medicine.

Development of animal models that accurately recapitulate human cancer is an ongoing challenge. This is particularly relevant in the study of osteosarcoma (OS), a highly malignant bone tumor diagnosed in approximately 1000 pediatric/adolescent patients each year. Metastasis is the leading cause of patient death underscoring the need for relevant animal models of metastatic OS. In this study, we describe how existing OS mouse models can be interrogated in a time-course context to determine the kinetics of spontaneous metastasis from an orthotopically implanted primary tumor. We evaluated four highly metastatic OS cell lines (3 human, 1 mouse) to establish a timeline for metastatic progression in immune deficient NSG mice. To discern the effects of therapy on tumor development and metastasis in these models, we investigated cisplatin therapy and surgical limb amputation at early and late timepoints. These data help define the appropriate observational periods for studies of metastatic progression in OS and further our understanding of existing mouse models. Efforts to advance the study of metastatic OS are critical for facilitating the identification of novel therapeutics and for improving patient survival.

In 2014 the International Endohernia Society (IEHS) published the first international “Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias”. Guidelines reflect the currently best available evidence in diagnostics and therapy and give recommendations to help surgeons to standardize their techniques and to improve their results. However, science is a dynamic field which is continuously developing. Therefore, guidelines require regular updates to keep pace with the evolving literature.MethodsFor the development of the original guidelines all relevant literature published up to year 2012 was analyzed using the ranking of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based-Medicine. For the present update all of the previous authors were asked to evaluate the literature published during the recent years from 2012 to 2017 and revise their statements and recommendations given in the initial guidelines accordingly. In two Consensus Conferences (October 2017 Beijing, March 2018 Cologne) the updates were presented, discussed, and confirmed. To avoid redundancy, only new statements or recommendations are included in this paper. Therefore, for full understanding both of the guidelines, the original and the current, must be read. In addition, the new developments in repair of abdominal wall hernias like surgical techniques within the abdominal wall, release operations (transversus muscle release, component separation), Botox application, and robot-assisted repair methods were included.ResultsDue to an increase of the number of patients and further development of surgical techniques, repair of primary and secondary abdominal wall hernias attracts increasing interests of many surgeons. Whereas up to three decades ago hernia-related publications did not exceed 20 per year, currently this number is about 10-fold higher. Recent years are characterized by the advent of new techniques—minimal invasive techniques using robotics and laparoscopy, totally extraperitoneal repairs, novel myofascial release techniques for optimal closure of large defects, and Botox for relaxing the abdominal wall. Furthermore, a concomitant rectus diastasis was recognized as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Despite still insufficient evidence with respect to these new techniques it seemed to us necessary to include them in the update to stimulate surgeons to do research in these fields.ConclusionGuidelines are recommendations based on best available evidence intended to help the surgeon to improve the quality of his daily work. However, science is a continuously evolving process, and as such guidelines should be updated about every 3 years. For a comprehensive reference, however, it is suggested to read both the initially guidelines published in 2014 together with the update. Moreover, the presented update includes also techniques which were not known 3 years before.

Laparoscopic repair of incisional and ventral hernias is rapidly becoming more commonplace in the armamentarium of general surgeons. Its utility and low recurrence rates make it a very attractive option. As with all newer procedures, controversies exist with this approach. One significant aspect is the method of fixation for the biomaterial. Most authors add the use of transfascial sutures. Others, in the minority, do not. A literature search using Medline and PubMed was used to evaluate the best practice for fixation in laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair. This review of the current literature (including comparative series) seems to show that the recurrence rate is approximately 4% with the use of sutures and 1.8% without their use. However, these data do not show that there is tremendous variation in the method and manner of placing transfascial sutures or that long-term follow-up evaluation is inadequate in most series. No firm conclusions can be drawn about whether it is detrimental to omit the use of transfascial sutures. On the basis of this review, a larger overlap of the prosthesis (5 vs 3 cm) is necessary if sutures are not used. If sutures are used, they should be placed no more than 5 cm apart. Prospective randomized trials with and without of transfascial sutures using a consistent biomaterial are necessary to settle this issue.