Microplastics in human urine: Characterisation using µFTIR and sampling challenges using healthy donors and endometriosis participants.

Microplastics (MPs) are found in all environments, within the human food chain, and have been recently detected in several human tissues. The objective herein was to undertake an analysis of MP contamination in human urine samples, from healthy individuals and participants with endometriosis, with respect to their presence, levels, and the characteristics of any particles identified. A total of 38 human urine samples and 15 procedural blanks were analysed. MPs were characterised using µFTIR spectroscopy (size limitation of 5 µm) and SEM-EDX. In total, 123 MP particles consisting of 22 MP polymer types were identified within 17/29 of the healthy donor (10 mL) urine samples, compared with 232 MP particles of differing 16 MP polymer types in 12/19 urine samples from participants with endometriosis. Healthy donors presented an unadjusted average of 2589 ± 2931 MP/L and participants with endometriosis presented 4724 ± 9710 MP/L. Polyethylene (PE)(27%), polystyrene (PS)(16%), resin and polypropylene (PP)(both 12%) polymer types were most abundant in healthy donor samples, compared with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (59%), and PE (16%) in samples from endometriosis participants. The MP levels within healthy and endometriosis participant samples were not significantly different. However, the predominant polymer types varied, and the MPs from the metal catheter-derived endometriosis participant samples and healthy donors were significantly smaller than those observed in the procedural blanks. The procedural blank samples comprised 62 MP particles of 10 MP polymer types, mainly PP (27%), PE (21%), and PS (15%) with a mean ± SD of 17 ± 18, highlighting the unavoidable contamination inherent in measurement of MPs from donors. This is the first evidence of MP contamination in human urine with polymer characterisation and accounting for procedural blanks. These results support the phenomenon of transport of MPs within humans, specifically to the bladder, and their characterisation of types, shapes and size ranges identified therein.

Cancer screening attendance rates in transgender and gender-diverse patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To examine disparities in attendance rates at cancer screening services between transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) people in comparison with their cisgender (CG) counterparts, and to determine whether these differences were based on the anatomical organ screened. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE (via Ovid), CINAHL Complete (via EBSCO) and Cochrane Library from inception to 30 September 2023. METHODS: Studies for inclusion were case-control or cross-sectional studies with quantitative data that investigated TGD adults attending any cancer screening service. Exclusion criteria were studies with participants who were ineligible for cancer screening or without samples from TGD individuals, qualitative data and a cancer diagnosis from symptomatic presentation or incidental findings. A modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias, during which seven reports were found incompatible with the inclusion criteria and excluded. Results were synthesised through random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. RESULTS: We identified 25 eligible records, of which 18 were included in the analysis. These were cross-sectional studies, including retrospective chart reviews and survey analyses, and encompassed over 14.8 million participants. The main outcomes measured were up-to-date (UTD) and lifetime (LT) attendance. Meta-analysis found differences for UTD cervical (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60, p<0.0001) and mammography (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.87, p=0.02) but not for prostate or colorectal screening. There were no meaningful differences seen in LT attendance based on quantitative synthesis. Narrative synthesis of the seven remaining articles mostly supported the meta-analysis. Reduced rates of screening engagement in TGD participants were found for UTD cervical and mammography screening, alongside LT mammography screening. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with their CG counterparts, TGD individuals had lower rates of using cervical and mammography screening at the recommended frequencies but displayed similar prevalences of LT attendance. The greatest disparity was seen in UTD cervical screening. Limitations of this review included high risk of bias within studies, high heterogeneity and a lack of resources for further statistical testing. Bridging gaps in healthcare to improve cancer screening experiences and outcomes will require consolidated efforts including working with the TGD community. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022368911.