Clinical utility of psoas muscle volume in assessment of sarcopenia in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Sarcopenia influences postoperative outcomes of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Imaging tools for evaluating and diagnosing sarcopenia have developed, and a novel method of psoas volume index (PVI) obtained by measuring bilateral psoas major muscle volume has been reported. However, the relationship between sarcopenia based on PVI and clinical outcomes has not been fully investigated for patients with early-stage NSCLC. This study aimed to clarify the utility of PVI values in assessing the relationshipe between sarcopenia and clinical outcomes. METHODS: This study included 645 patients with stage I-II NSCLC who underwent curative lung resection between 2012 and 2017. Bilateral psoas major muscle volumes were calculated semi-automatically using a three-dimensional workstation. The cutoff value of PVI for defining sarcopenia was < 60.5 cm3/m3 for men and < 43.6 cm3/m3 for women. RESULTS: The avrage time to obtaine PVI was only 25 s with the 3D system, and interobserver agreements for evauating sarcopenia on PVI was 1. A total of 159 patients (24.7%) were preoperatively diagnosed with sarcopenia. On multivariate analysis, sarcopenia was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (OS, p < 0.001), recurrence-free survival (RFS, p < 0.001), and lung cancer-specific survival (LCS, p < 0.001). The 5-year OS, RFS, and LCS were significantly worse in sarcopenic patients than non-sarcopenic patients (88.8 vs. 72.4%, p < 0.001; 80.1 vs. 65.0%, p < 0.001; 92.4 vs. 78.9%, p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Sarcopenia diagnosed using PVI is an independent prognostic predictor of OS, RFS, and LCS in early-stage NSCLC.

The Endometriotic Neoplasm Algorithm for Risk Assessment (e-NARA) Index Sheds Light on the Discrimination of Endometriosis-Associated Ovarian Cancer from Ovarian Endometrioma.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance (MR) relaxometry provides a noninvasive tool to discriminate endometriosis-associated ovarian cancer (EAOC) from ovarian endometrioma (OE) with high accuracy. However, this method has a limitation in discriminating malignancy in clinical use because the R2 value depends on the device manufacturer and repeated imaging is unrealistic. The current study aimed to reassess the diagnostic accuracy of MR relaxometry and investigate a more powerful tool to distinguish EAOC from OE. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted at our institution from December, 2012, to May, 2022. A total of 150 patients were included in this study. Patients with benign ovarian tumors (n = 108) mainly received laparoscopic surgery, and cases with suspected malignancy (n = 42) underwent laparotomy. Information from a chart review of the patients' medical records was collected. RESULTS: A multiple regression analysis revealed that the age, the tumor diameter, and the R2 value were independent malignant predicting factors. The endometriotic neoplasm algorithm for risk assessment (e-NARA) index provided high accuracy (sensitivity, 85.7%; specificity, 87.0%) to discriminate EAOC from OE. CONCLUSIONS: The e-NARA index is a reliable tool to assess the probability of malignant transformation of endometrioma.

Trinity review: integrating Registered Reports with research ethics and funding reviews.

One major source of exhaustion for researchers is the redundant paperwork of three different documents-research papers, ethics review applications, and research grant applications-for the same research plan. This is a wasteful and redundant process for researchers, and it has a more direct impact on the career development of early-career researchers. Here, we propose a trinity review system based on Registered Reports that integrates scientific, ethics, and research funding reviews. In our proposed trinity review system, scientific and ethics reviews are undertaken concurrently for a research protocol before running the study. After the protocol is approved in principle through these review processes, a funding review will take place, and the researchers will begin their research. Following the experiments or surveys, the scientific review will be conducted on a completed version of the paper again, including the results and discussions (i.e., the full paper), and the full paper will be published once it has passed the second review. This paper provides the brief process of the trinity review system and discusses the need for and benefits of the proposed system. Although the trinity review system only applies to a few appropriate disciplines, it helps improve reproducibility and integrity.