Search

The study was conducted in Rudrapur and Khatima blocks of the district U.S. Nagar. Ghee and paneer were the two milk products whose study was made in cooperative sector. After apportionment of joint costs, unit cost for ghee and paneer was estimated. The most important cost component of ghee and paneer production was procurement cost. The cooperative milk product producers are skilled at sales and distribution levels, Customer oriented market research and development should be accorded higher attention by the cooperative sector so as to attract consumer preferences. Brand popularity of its products trade named "Anchal" should be enhanced. Qualified and technical persons should be recruited. The product mix should be reoriented as per the changing market environment and superfluous expenses avoided. The co-operative plants should formulate long-term vision and strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Genomic alterations have been identified in patients with breast cancer brain metastases (BCBMs), but large structural rearrangements have not been extensively studied., Materials and Methods: We analyzed the genomic profiles of 822 BCBMs and compared them with 11,988 local, breast-biopsied breast cancers (BCs) and 15,516 non-CNS metastases (Non-CNS M) derived from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded material using targeted capture sequencing., Results: Nine genes with structural rearrangements were more prevalent within BCBMs as compared with local BCs and Non-CNS M (adjusted- P < .05) and displayed a prevalence of >0.5%. The most common rearrangements within BCBMs involves cyclin-dependent kinase 12 ( CDK12 ; 3.53%) as compared with the local BC (0.86%; adjusted- P = 7.1 × 10 -8 ) and Non-CNS M specimens (0.68%; adjusted- P = 3.7 × 10 -10 ). CDK12 rearrangements had a significantly higher frequency within human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive BCBMs (14.59%) compared with HER2-positive BCs (7.80%; P = 4.6 × 10 -3 ) and HER2-positive Non-CNS M (7.87%; P = 4.8 × 10 -3 )., Conclusion: The most common structural rearrangements involve CDK12 with the higher prevalence in HER2-positive BCBMs. These data support more detailed investigation of the role and importance of CDK12 rearrangements in BCBMs.

Patients with cancer have been shown to have increased risk of COVID-19 severity. We previously built and validated the COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET) to predict the likely severity of COVID-19 in patients with active cancer who present to hospital. We assessed the differences in presentation and outcomes of patients with cancer and COVID-19, depending on the wave of the pandemic. We examined differences in features at presentation and outcomes in patients worldwide, depending on the waves of the pandemic: wave 1 D614G (n = 1430), wave 2 Alpha (n = 475), and wave 4 Omicron variant (n = 63, UK and Spain only). The performance of CORONET was evaluated on 258, 48, and 54 patients for each wave, respectively. We found that mortality rates were reduced in subsequent waves. The majority of patients were vaccinated in wave 4, and 94% were treated with steroids if they required oxygen. The stages of cancer and the median ages of patients significantly differed, but features associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes remained predictive and did not differ between waves. The CORONET tool performed well in all waves, with scores in an area under the curve (AUC) of >0.72. We concluded that patients with cancer who present to hospital with COVID-19 have similar features of severity, which remain discriminatory despite differences in variants and vaccination status. Survival improved following the first wave of the pandemic, which may be associated with vaccination and the increased steroid use in those patients requiring oxygen. The CORONET model demonstrated good performance, independent of the SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Importance: The introduction of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) directed therapy has transformed the outcomes of patients with advanced breast cancer (BC). However, HER2 positive breast cancer has a predilection for the central nervous system (CNS) which is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Understanding the intracranial activity of novel HER2 directed agents is key to developing treatments as well as possible preventative strategies for HER2-positive CNS disease., Observations: Using protocols and data from published phase III clinical trials for locally advanced/metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer since the licensing of single agent trastuzumab for advanced BC we review the central nervous system related aspects. This includes CNS related entry criteria, use of baseline and on study cross-sectional imaging of the CNS and protocol and non-protocol defined CNS end points and reported data., Conclusions: and Relevance: This review found heterogeneity between studies with regard to the entry criteria, use of CNS imaging and reported end points within the pivotal phase III studies. Based on these data, a standardisation of both entry criteria and end points with regard to the CNS should be developed and applied to future studies of HER2-positive advanced BC. Such an approach would enable the generation of comparable data and allow a meaningful analysis of different treatment approaches with regard to the CNS. This in turn would allow the development of the most optimal treatment approaches for HER2 positive CNS disease and ultimately the development of preventative strategies., (Crown Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Patients with cancer are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease, but have heterogeneous presentations and outcomes. Decision-making tools for hospital admission, severity prediction, and increased monitoring for early intervention are critical. We sought to identify features of COVID-19 disease in patients with cancer predicting severe disease and build a decision support online tool, COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET)., Methods: Patients with active cancer (stage I-IV) and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 disease presenting to hospitals worldwide were included. Discharge (within 24 hours), admission (≥ 24 hours inpatient), oxygen (O 2 ) requirement, and death were combined in a 0-3 point severity scale. Association of features with outcomes were investigated using Lasso regression and Random Forest combined with Shapley Additive Explanations. The CORONET model was then examined in the entire cohort to build an online CORONET decision support tool. Admission and severe disease thresholds were established through pragmatically defined cost functions. Finally, the CORONET model was validated on an external cohort., Results: The model development data set comprised 920 patients, with median age 70 (range 5-99) years, 56% males, 44% females, and 81% solid versus 19% hematologic cancers. In derivation, Random Forest demonstrated superior performance over Lasso with lower mean squared error (0.801 v 0.807) and was selected for development. During validation (n = 282 patients), the performance of CORONET varied depending on the country cohort. CORONET cutoffs for admission and mortality of 1.0 and 2.3 were established. The CORONET decision support tool recommended admission for 95% of patients eventually requiring oxygen and 97% of those who died (94% and 98% in validation, respectively). The specificity for mortality prediction was 92% and 83% in derivation and validation, respectively. Shapley Additive Explanations revealed that National Early Warning Score 2, C-reactive protein, and albumin were the most important features contributing to COVID-19 severity prediction in patients with cancer at time of hospital presentation., Conclusion: CORONET, a decision support tool validated in health care systems worldwide, can aid admission decisions and predict COVID-19 severity in patients with cancer., Competing Interests: Rebecca J. LeeSpeakers' Bureau: AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst) Rohan ShottonHonoraria: ServierTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Servier Laurence AlbigesConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Roche (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Merck (Inst), MSD (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Janssen (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Corvus Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Bellerophon Therapeutics (Inst)Research Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: BMS, MSD Dirk ArnoldEmployment: Asklepios KlinikenHonoraria: Bayer, Merck Serono, Roche/Genentech, Servier, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dome, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Pierre Fabre, IpsenConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, Merck Serono, Biocompatibles, Terumo, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Oncolytics (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Boston ScientificUncompensated Relationships: ESMO Council, ESMO Journals (Ann Oncol, ESMO Open), German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology, German Cancer Society, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Kathryn BanfillStock and Other Ownership Interests: Roche (I)Honoraria: AstraZeneca Mark BaxterHonoraria: IpsenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Ipsen Fabrice BarlesiHonoraria: Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Merck Serono, MSD Oncology, Takeda, Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Mirati TherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD Oncology, Takeda, Bayer, Mirati TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech (Inst), AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Pierre Fabre (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Innate Pharma (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Sanofi/Aventis (Inst), Takeda (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, MSD Oncology Benjamin BesseResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Onxeo (Inst), Inivata (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Blueprint Medicines (Inst), Celgene (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Cristal Therapeutics (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Janssen Oncology (Inst), OSE Immunotherapeutics (Inst), BeiGene (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Tolero Pharmaceuticals (Inst), 4D Pharma (Inst), Aptitude Health (Inst), Cergentis (Inst), Chugai Pharma (Inst), Genzyme (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Turning Point Therapeutics (Inst), Eisai (Inst) Antonio CallesHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Lilly, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Bayer, Takeda, Sanofi/RegeneronConsulting or Advisory Role: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche/Genentech, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Igen Biotech, Sanofi/RegeneronResearch Funding: MSD Oncology Ellen CopsonHonoraria: Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lilly, NovartisConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, NanoString Technologies, Pfizer, Sanofi/Aventis, RocheSpeakers' Bureau: Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi/AventisResearch Funding: SECA, AstraZeneca (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, AstraZeneca Adina E. CroitoruConsulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Pfizer, MSD OncologyResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Exelixis (Inst), Merck (Inst), Merck KGaA (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck, ServierUncompensated Relationships: Lilly, Roche, Bayer, Pfizer, Sanofi Leonie EastlakeTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Servier Paul FitzpatrickStock and Other Ownership Interests: AstraZeneca/MedImmuneResearch Funding: AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst)Other Relationship: Pistoia Alliance, EHDEN IMI project Henrik FrederiksenResearch Funding: AbbVie (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), Sanofi (Inst) Hannah FrostResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst) Sarju GanatraExpert Testimony: Haymarket Medical EducationTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Haymarket Medical Education Andreas GlenthøjHonoraria: Novo NordiskConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Bluebird Bio, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, AgiosResearch Funding: Sanofi, Saniona A/STravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Agios Fabio GomesHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Roche Donna M. GrahamConsulting or Advisory Role: Clinigen GroupSpeakers' Bureau: Cancer Drug Development ForumResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Kevin HarringtonHonoraria: Arch Oncology (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), BMS (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), MSD (Inst), Oncolys BioPharma (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Replimune (Inst), Inzen Therapeutics (Inst), Codiak Biosciences (Inst)Consulting or Advisory Role: Arch Oncology (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), BMS (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), MSD (Inst), Oncolys BioPharma (Inst), Replimune (Inst), Inzen Therapeutics (Inst)Speakers' Bureau: BMS (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), MSD (Inst)Research Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Replimune (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst) Lasse H. JakobsenHonoraria: Takeda, Roche Khurum KhanHonoraria: ServierConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer Health Christophe MassardConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, Celgene, Debiopharm Group, Genentech/Roche, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, ORION, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Blueprint Medicines, Innate Pharma, PharmaMar, Faron Pharmaceuticals Olivier MichielinConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Amgen, Pierre FabreResearch Funding: MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, NeraCare GmbHExpert Testimony: Bristol Myers SquibbTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Anne C. MosenthalHonoraria: Springer Nature Berta ObispoHonoraria: Sanofi, Lilly, Angelini, LEO Pharma, RoviConsulting or Advisory Role: Rovi George PentheroudakisHonoraria: Roche, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, MerckConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, AmgenResearch Funding: Roche (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Merck (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Sanofi, MSD, Roche, Amgen, BMS Solange PetersHonoraria: Roche (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), MSD (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Illumina (Inst), Medscape (Inst), Prime Oncology (Inst), RMEI Medical Education (Inst), Research to Practice (Inst), PER (Inst), Imedex (Inst), ecancer (Inst)Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), MSD (Inst), Amgen (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Janssen (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Lilly (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Biocartis (Inst), Debiopharm Group (Inst), Illumina (Inst), PharmaMar (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Blueprint Medicines (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Incyte (Inst), Bioinvent (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Vaccibody (Inst), Phosplatin Therapeutics (Inst), Foundation Medicine (Inst)Research Funding: Roche (Inst), BMS (Inst), MSD (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Lilly (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Illumina (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Biodesix (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Iovance Biotherapeutics (Inst), Phosplatin Therapeutics (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Sanofi, IncyteUncompensated Relationships: Journal of Thoracic Oncology, ESMO, European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP), Annals of Oncology (I) Kimberly Rieger-ChristResearch Funding: Veracyte, Ravel, Grail, Exact Sciences, Nucleix Timothy RobinsonTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly Emanuela RomanoConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst)Research Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, AmgenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche Michael RoweHonoraria: MSDSpeakers' Bureau: ServierTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Astellas Pharma Anne ThomasConsulting or Advisory Role: BMSSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol Myers SquibbExpert Testimony: BMS Lance TurtleSpeakers' Bureau: Eisai (Inst) David ViñalSpeakers' Bureau: ServierTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck Caroline WilsonConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Pfizer Carlo PalmieriHonoraria: PfizerConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Lilly, Novartis, Seattle GeneticsResearch Funding: Pfizer, Daiichi-SankyoTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche Donal LandersEmployment: AstraZeneca, AthenexLeadership: DeLondra OncologyStock and Other Ownership Interests: DeLondra OncologyResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst) Timothy CooksleyHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation Caroline DiveConsulting or Advisory Role: Biocartis, Merck, AstraZeneca, GRAIL, Boehringer IngelheimResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Bioven, Amgen, Carrick Therapeutics, Merck, Taiho Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, BMS, Novartis, Celgene, Epigene Therapeutics, Angle, Menarini, Clearbridge Biomedics, Thermo Fisher Scientific, NeoMed André FreitasResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst) Anne C. ArmstrongStock and Other Ownership Interests: AstraZeneca (I)Consulting or Advisory Role: Gilead Sciences, MSDResearch Funding: AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Gilead Sciences, MSD OncologyNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: Among patients with breast carcinoma who have metastatic disease, 15%-30% will eventually develop brain metastases. We examined the genomic landscape of a large cohort of patients with breast carcinoma brain metastases (BCBMs) and compared it with a cohort of patients with primary breast carcinomas (BCs)., Material and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 733 BCBMs tested with comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and compared them with 10,772 primary breast carcinomas (not-paired) specimens. For a subset of 16 triple-negative breast carcinoma (TNBC)-brain metastasis samples, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed concurrently., Results: A total of 733 consecutive BCBMs were analyzed. Compared with primary BCs, BCBMs were enriched for genomic alterations in TP53 (72.0%, 528/733), ERBB2 (25.6%, 188/733), RAD21 (14.1%, 103/733), NF1 (9.0%, 66/733), BRCA1 (7.8%, 57/733), and ESR1 (6.3%,46/733) (p < .05 for all comparisons). Immune checkpoint inhibitor biomarkers such as high tumor mutational burden (TMB-high; 16.2%, 119/733); high microsatellite instability (1.9%, 14/733); CD274 amplification (3.6%, 27/733); and apolipoprotein B mRNA editing enzyme, catalytic polypeptide-like mutational signature (5.9%, 43/733) were significantly higher in the BCBM cohort compared with the primary BC cohort (p < .05 for all comparisons). When using both CGP and PD-L1 IHC, 37.5% (6/16) of patients with TNBC brain metastasis were eligible for atezolizumab based on PD-L1 IHC, and 18.8% (3/16) were eligible for pembrolizumab based on TMB-high status., Conclusion: We found a high prevalence of clinically relevant genomic alterations in patients with BCBM, suggesting that tissue acquisition (surgery) and/or cerebrospinal fluid for CGP in addition to CGP of the primary tumor may be clinically warranted., Implications for Practice: This study found a high prevalence of clinically relevant genomic alterations in patients with breast carcinoma brain metastasis (BCBM), suggesting that tissue acquisition (surgery) and/or cerebrospinal fluid for comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in addition to CGP of the primary tumor may be clinically warranted. In addition, this study identified higher positive rates for FDA-approved immunotherapy biomarkers detected by CGP in patients with BCBM, opening a possibility of new on-label treatments. Last, this study noted limited correlation between tumor mutational burden and PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC), which shows the importance of testing patients with triple-negative BCBM for immune checkpoint inhibitor eligibility with both PD-L1 IHC and CGP., (© 2021 AlphaMed Press.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a disruptive event for cancer patients, especially those with haematological malignancies (HM). They may experience a more severe clinical course due to impaired immune responses. This multi-center retrospective UK audit identified cancer patients who had SARS-CoV-2 infection between 1 March and 10 June 2020 and collected data pertaining to cancer history, COVID-19 presentation and outcomes. In total, 179 patients were identified with a median age of 72 (IQR 61, 81) and follow-up of 44 days (IQR 42, 45). Forty-one percent were female and the overall mortality was 37%. Twenty-nine percent had HM and of these, those treated with chemotherapy in the preceding 28 days to COVID-19 diagnosis had worse outcome compared with solid malignancy (SM): 62% versus 19% died [HR 8.33 (95% CI, 2.56-25), p  < 0.001]. Definite or probable nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission accounted for 16% of cases and was associated with increased risk of death (HR 2.47, 95% CI 1.43-4.29, p  = 0.001). Patients with haematological malignancies and those who acquire nosocomial transmission are at increased risk of death. Therefore, there is an urgent need to reassess shielding advice, reinforce stringent infection control, and ensure regular patient and staff testing to prevent nosocomial transmission.

Background: Screening with cardiac non-invasive stress studies (NISS) prior to listing for kidney transplantation can help in identifying treatable coronary disease and is considered an integral part of pre-kidney transplant evaluation. However, few studies assessed their effectiveness in all patients evaluated for transplantation in clinical practice. To evaluate the role of NISS in pre-kidney transplant evaluation we analyzed their impact prior to waitlisting in 1053 adult CKD-5 patients consecutively evaluated in Greater Manchester, UK during a 6-year period., Methods: 918 waitlisted patients were grouped based on presence or absence of Diabetes or Cardio-Vascular Disease (CVD): Group-1 (255 DM-/CVD-/NISS-), Group-2 (368 DM-/CVD-/NISS+) and Group-3 (295 with DM or CVD)., Results: Group-2 patients had longer 'time-to-listing' (5.5months in Group-1 vs 6.9months in 'Normal-NISS' vs 9.9months in 'Abnormal-NISS', p<0.01) but none with 'Abnormal-NISS' needed coronary revascularization before listing. NISS was followed by revascularization in 8 Group-3 patients (3%). In multi-variate analyses, there was no association of NISS on death or MACE in listed patients. During follow up, Transplantation was the most significant factor associated with improved outcomes in all subgroups (HR:0.97, p<0.001). 135 patients were considered unsuitable for waitlisting, with NISS influencing management in 11 of these patients (8%)., Conclusions: Pre-kidney transplant evaluation with NISS influenced clinical management in 19 of 1053 (2%) patients. Screening with NISS added limited benefit but contributes to significant delays in listing and adding resource implications. Further studies are needed to assess clinical and cost effectiveness of NISS in pretransplant evaluation to optimize outcomes and resources., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Objectives: To investigate the effect of sarcopenia on postoperative mortality in patients undergoing emergency abdominal procedures and to compare postoperative mortality in patients with sarcopenia undergoing emergency abdominal procedures with those undergoing elective abdominal procedures., Methods: A search of electronic information sources was conducted to identify all observational studies comparing sarcopenia with no sarcopenia in a) emergency abdominal surgery and b) elective abdominal surgery. We also identified the available cohort of patients in the literature with sarcopenia undergoing abdominal procedures and divided the entire cohort into two groups based on exposure to emergency surgery or elective surgery. The primary outcome measure of this study was postoperative 30-day mortality., Results: Overall, 4 studies, enrolling a total of 734 patients, were eligible for the comparison in emergency setting and 16 studies, enrolling a total of 4590 patients, were eligible for the comparison in elective setting. Sarcopenia is associated with significantly higher risk of 30-day mortality (RR: 2.15, P < 0.0001), 1-year mortality (RR:1.97, P < 0.0001), total complications (RR:2.07, P = 0.0008), and need for ICU admission (RR:1.38, P = 0.003) and significantly longer length of ICU stay (MD:2.26, P = 0.006) and length of hospital stay (MD:2.46, P < 0.00001) compared to no sarcopenia in patients undergoing emergency abdominal procedures. Sarcopenia was also associated with significantly higher risk of 30-day mortality in patients undergoing elective abdominal procedures (RR:2.15, P = 0.002). Emergency abdominal surgery in patients with sarcopenia was associated with significantly higher risk of 30-day mortality compared to elective surgery (OR:12.00, P < 0.00001)., Conclusions: Sarcopenia is an independent predictor of postoperative mortality in emergency abdominal surgery., (Copyright © 2018 Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (Scottish charity number SC005317) and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)