Search

Neurotensin (NTS) is a physiologically occurring hormone which affects the function of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. In recent years, NTS, acting through its cellular receptors (NTSR), has been implicated in the carcinogenesis of several cancers. In colorectal cancer (CRC), a significant body of evidence, from in vitro and in vivo studies, is available which elucidates the molecular biology of NTS/NTSR signalling and the resultant growth of CRC cells. There is growing clinical data from human studies which corroborate the role NTS/NTSR plays in the development of human CRC. Furthermore, blockade and modulation of the NTS/NTSR signalling pathways appears to reduce CRC growth in cell cultures and animal studies. Lastly, NTS/NTSR also shows potential of being utilised as a diagnostic biomarker for cancers as well as targets for functional imaging. We summarise the existing evidence and understanding of the role of NTS and its receptors in CRC.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. It has been estimated that more than one-third of patients are diagnosed when CRC has already spread to the lymph nodes. One out of five patients is diagnosed with metastatic CRC. The stage of diagnosis influences treatment outcome and survival. Notwithstanding the recent advances in multidisciplinary management and treatment of CRC, patients are still reluctant to undergo screening tests because of the associated invasiveness and discomfort (e.g., colonoscopy with biopsies). Moreover, the serological markers currently used for diagnosis are not reliable and, even if they were useful to detect disease recurrence after treatment, they are not always detected in patients with CRC (e.g., CEA). Recently, translational research in CRC has produced a wide spectrum of potential biomarkers that could be useful for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of these patients. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the newer noninvasive or minimally invasive biomarkers of CRC. Here, we discuss imaging and biomolecular diagnostics ranging from their potential usefulness to obtain early and less-invasive diagnosis to their potential implementation in the development of a bespoke treatment of CRC.

There is an ever-growing need, with the ongoing developments in research and the progress towards patient centered care, to delineate standardized protocols of management of anal cancer. However, guidelines from different societies show some degree of disagreement. This is a systematicreview of the literature to identify similarities and discrepancies between the guidelines for the management of anal cancer drafted by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). We found essentially similar management for investigation, diagnosis, chemotherapy regimens, and radiotherapy doses in both ESMO and NCCN recommendations in the management of anal cancer. There were few differences, which included the levels of evidence and grades of recommendations, the delineation of radiotherapy fields, and the treatment of the elderly and personalized medicine based on genetics. The follow-up regime is also marginally different in the first 2 years. Even if the observed differences may be justified by a different implementation of evidence-based medicine among different countries for particular management modalities of anal cancer, we identified the grey areas which need further study. In addition, these facets should be assessed more carefully when planning future guidelines.

Aim Social media (SM) can provide information and medical knowledge to patients. Our aim was to review the literature and web-based content on SM that is used by Colorectal Cancer (CRC) patients, as well as surgeons’ interaction with SM. Method Studies published between 2006 and 2016 were assessed. We also assessed the impact of several hashtags on Twitter with a freeware (Symplur). Results Nine studies were included assessing Twitter (78%), Forums/Cancer-survivor networks (33%), and Facebook (22%). Aims included use of SM by CRC patients (67%), cancer-specific usage of SM with different types of cancer (44%), content credibility (33%), and influence in CRC awareness (33%). Prevention was the most common information that CRC patients looked for, followed by treatment side-effects. Only 2% of CRC SM users are doctors. SM use by colorectal consultants was suboptimal. Only 38% of surgeons had a LinkedIn account (most with less than 50 connections), and 3% used Twitter. A steep increase of tweets was observed for searched Hashtags over time, which was more marked for #ColonCancer (+67%vs+38%, #Coloncancer vs #RectalCancer). Participants engaged with colon cancer increased by 85%, whereas rectal cancer ones increased by 29%. The hashtag ‘#RectalCancer’ was mostly tweeted by colorectal surgeons. The official twitter account of American Society of Colorectal Surgeons (@fascrs_updates) was the most active account. Conclusion CRC patients and relatives are increasingly engaging with SM. CRC surgeons’ participation is poor, but we confirm a trend toward a greater involvement. Most SM lack of authoritative validation and the quality of shared content still is largely anecdotic and not scientifically evidenced-based. However, SM may offer several advantages over conventional information sharing sources for CRC patients and surgeons, and create connections with mutual enrichment.