Extremes of body mass index and postoperative complications after esophagectomy.

Obesity has been variously associated with reduced or similar rates of postoperative complications compared to normal weight patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer. In contrast, little is known about esophagectomy risks in the underweight population. The relationship between the extremes of body mass index (BMI) and postoperative complications after esophagectomy was evaluated. Consecutive esophagectomy patients (2000-2013) were reviewed. The patients were stratified based on BMI at the time of diagnosis: underweight (<18.5), normal (18.5-24.9), overweight (25-29.9), obese I (30-34.9), and obese II or III (≥35). Hospital length of stay as well as postoperative complications and their accordion severity grading were evaluated according to the BMI category. Of 388 patients, 78.6% were male with a median age of 62 years at the time of operation. Pathologic cancer stage was 0 to I in 53%. BMI distribution was as follows: 5.6% underweight, 28.7% normal, 31.4% overweight, 22.8% obese I, and 11.5% obese II or III. Performance status was 0 or 1 in 99.2%. Compared to normal BMI patients, underweight patients had increased pulmonary complications (odds ratio (OR) 3.32, P = 0.014) and increased other postoperative complications (OR 3.00, P = 0.043). Patients who were overweight did not have increased complications compared to normal BMI patients. BMI groups did not differ in mortality rates or complication accordion severity grading. Hospital length of stay trended toward a longer duration in the underweight population (P = 0.06). Underweight patients are at increased risk for postoperative pulmonary and other complications. Underweight patients may benefit from preoperative nutritional repletion and mitigation for sarcopenia. Aggressive postoperative pulmonary care may help reduce complications in these patients. In contrast, the operative risk in overweight and obese patients is similar to normal BMI patients.

Oncogenic CXCL10 signalling drives metastasis development and poor clinical outcome.

BACKGROUND: The CXCL10/CXCR3 signalling mediates paracrine interactions between tumour and stromal cells that govern leukocyte trafficking and angiogenesis. Emerging data implicate noncanonical CXCL10/CXCR3 signalling in tumourigenesis and metastasis. However, little is known regarding the role for autocrine CXCL10/CXCR3 signalling in regulating the metastatic potential of individual tumour clones. METHODS: We performed transcriptomic and cytokine profiling to characterise the functions of CXCL10 and CXCR3 in tumour cells with different metastatic abilities. We modulated the expression of the CXCL10/CXCR3 pathway using shRNA-mediated silencing in both in vitro and in vivo models of B16F1 melanoma. In addition, we examined the expression of CXCL10 and CXCR3 and their associations with clinical outcomes in clinical data sets derived from over 670 patients with melanoma and colon and renal cell carcinomas. RESULTS: We identified a critical role for autocrine CXCL10/CXCR3 signalling in promoting tumour cell growth, motility and metastasis. Analysis of publicly available clinical data sets demonstrated that coexpression of CXCL10 and CXCR3 predicted an increased metastatic potential and was associated with early metastatic disease progression and poor overall survival. CONCLUSION: These findings support the potential for CXCL10/CXCR3 coexpression as a predictor of metastatic recurrence and point towards a role for targeting of this oncogenic axis in the treatment of metastatic disease.