Understanding the Clinical Significance of MUC5AC in Biliary Tract Cancers.

Biliary tract cancers (BTC) arise from biliary epithelium and include cholangiocarcinomas or CCA (including intrahepatic (ICC) and extrahepatic (ECC)) and gallbladder cancers (GBC). They often have poor outcomes owing to limited treatment options, advanced presentations, frequent recurrence, and poor response to available systemic therapy. Mucin 5AC (MUC5AC) is rarely expressed in normal biliary epithelium, but can be upregulated in tissues of benign biliary disease, premalignant conditions (e.g., biliary intraepithelial neoplasia), and BTCs. This mucin's numerous glycoforms can be divided into less-glycosylated immature and heavily-glycosylated mature forms. Reported MUC5AC tissue expression in BTC varies widely, with some associations based on cancer location (e.g., perihilar vs. peripheral ICC). Study methods were variable regarding cancer subtypes, expression positivity thresholds, and MUC5AC glycoforms. MUC5AC can be detected in serum of BTC patients at high concentrations. The hesitancy in developing MUC5AC into a clinically useful biomarker in BTC management is due to variable evidence on the diagnostic and prognostic value. Concrete conclusions on tissue MUC5AC are difficult, but serum detection might be relevant for diagnosis and is associated with poor prognosis. Future studies are needed to further the understanding of the potential clinical value of MUC5AC in BTC, especially regarding predictive and therapeutic value.

Inclusion of older adults and reporting of consent processes in randomized controlled trials in the emergency department: A scoping review.

Objective: Conducting research in the emergency department (ED) is often complicated by patients' acute and chronic illnesses, which can adversely affect cognition and subsequently capacity to consent for research, especially in older adults. Validated screening tools to assess capacity to consent for research exist, but neither the frequency of use nor which ones are used for ED research are known. Methods: We conducted a scoping review using standard review techniques. Inclusion criteria included (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from publication years 2014-2019 that (2) enrolled participants only in the ED, (3) included patients aged 65+ years, and (4) were fully published in English. Articles were sourced from Embase and screened using Covidence. Results: From 3130 search results, 269 studies passed title/abstract and full text screening. Average of the mean or median ages was 55.7 years (SD 14.2). The mean number of study participants was 311.9 [range 8-10,807 participants]. A few (n = 13, 4.8%) waived or had exception from informed consent. Of the 256 studies requiring consent, a fourth (26.5%, n = 68) specifically excluded patients due to impaired capacity to consent. Only 11 (4.3%) documented a formal capacity screening tool and only 13 (5.1%) reported consent by legally authorized representative (LAR). Conclusions: Most RCTs enrolling older adults in EDs did not report assessment of capacity to consent or use of LARs. This snapshot of informed consent procedures is potentially concerning and suggests that either research consent processes for older patients and/or reporting of consent processes require improvement.