TRPA1, TRPV1, and Caffeine: Pain and Analgesia.

Caffeine (1,3,7-trimethylxanthine) is a naturally occurring methylxanthine that acts as a potent central nervous system stimulant found in more than 60 different plants and fruits. Although caffeinated beverages are widely and casually consumed, the application of caffeine beyond dietary levels as pharmacologic therapy has been recognized since the beginning of its recorded use. The analgesic and vasoactive properties of caffeine are well known, but the extent of their molecular basis remains an area of active research. There is existing evidence in the literature as to caffeine's effect on TRP channels, the role of caffeine in pain management and analgesia, as well as the role of TRP in pain and analgesia; however, there has yet to be a review focused on the interaction between caffeine and TRP channels. Although the influence of caffeine on TRP has been demonstrated in the lab and in animal models, there is a scarcity of data collected on a large scale as to the clinical utility of caffeine as a regulator of TRP. This review aims to prompt further molecular research to elucidate the specific ligand-host interaction between caffeine and TRP by validating caffeine as a regulator of transient receptor potential (TRP) channels-focusing on the transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) receptor and transient receptor potential ankyrin 1 (TRPA1) receptor subtypes-and its application in areas of pain.

Validation of the Melanoma Institute of Australia's Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Risk Prediction Tool for Cutaneous Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: For patients with cutaneous melanoma, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is used to stage regional lymph nodes pathologically and inform prognosis, treatment, and surveillance. To reduce unnecessary surgeries, predictive tools aim to identify those at lowest risk for node-positive disease. The Melanoma Institute of Australia (MIA)'s Prediction Tool for Sentinel Node Metastasis Risk estimates risk of a positive SLNB using patient age and primary melanoma Breslow depth, histologic subtype, ulceration, mitotic rate, and lymphovascular invasion. METHODS: A single-institution validation was performed of the MIA Calculator with 982 cutaneous melanoma patients that included all relevant clinicopathologic factors and SLNB pathology outcomes. The study evaluated discrimination via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration via calibration plots, and clinical utility via decision curve analysis of the MIA model in various subgroups. The data were fit to MIA model parameters via a generalized linear model to assess the odds ratio of parameters in our dataset. RESULTS: The Calculator demonstrated limited discrimination based on ROC curves (C-statistic, 0.709) and consistently underestimated risk of SLN positivity. It did not provide a net benefit over SLNB performed on all patients or reduce unnecessary procedures in the risk domain of 0% to 16%. Compared with the original development and validation cohorts, the current study cohort had thinner tumors and a larger proportion of acral melanomas. CONCLUSIONS: The Calculator generally underestimated SLN positivity risk, including assessment in patients who would be counseled to forego SLNB based on a predicted risk lower than 5%. Recognition of the tool's current limitations emphasizes the need to refine it further for use in medical decision-making.