Introduction Radical cystectomy (RC) is the standard treatment for patients with non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer, as well as for patients with therapy refractory high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. However, 50–65% of patients undergoing RC experience perioperative complications. The risk, severity and impact of these complications is associated with a patient’s preoperative cardiorespiratory fitness, nutritional and smoking status and presence of anxiety and depression. There is emerging evidence supporting multimodal prehabilitation as a strategy to reduce the risk of complications and improve functional recovery after major cancer surgery. However, for bladder cancer the evidence is still limited. The aim of this study is to investigate the superiority of a multimodal prehabilitation programme versus standard-of-care in terms of reducing perioperative complications in patients with bladder cancer undergoing RC.Methods and analysis This multicentre, open label, prospective, randomised controlled trial, will include 154 patients with bladder cancer undergoing RC. Patients are recruited from eight hospitals in The Netherlands and will be randomly (1:1) allocated to the intervention group receiving a structured multimodal prehabilitation programme of approximately 3–6 weeks, or to the control group receiving standard-of-care. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who develop one or more grade ≥2 complications (according to the Clavien-Dindo classification) within 90 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes include cardiorespiratory fitness, length of hospital stay, health-related quality of life, tumour tissue biomarkers of hypoxia, immune cell infiltration and cost-effectiveness. Data collection will take place at baseline, before surgery and 4 and 12 weeks after surgery.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Medical Ethics Committee NedMec (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) under reference number 22–595/NL78792.031.22. Results of the study will be published in international peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number NCT05480735.
Being able to classify experienced emotions by identifying distinct neural responses has tremendous value in both fundamental research (e.g. positive psychology, emotion regulation theory) and in applied settings (clinical, healthcare, commercial). We aimed to decode the neural representation of the experience of two discrete emotions: sadness and disgust, devoid of differences in valence and arousal. In a passive viewing paradigm, we showed emotion evoking images from the International Affective Picture System to participants while recording their EEG. We then selected a subset of those images that were distinct in evoking either sadness or disgust (20 for each), yet were indistinguishable on normative valence and arousal. Event-related potential analysis of 69 participants showed differential responses in the N1 and EPN components and a support-vector machine classifier was able to accurately classify (58%) whole-brain EEG patterns of sadness and disgust experiences. These results support and expand on earlier findings that discrete emotions do have differential neural responses that are not caused by differences in valence or arousal.
BACKGROUND: The concept of osteoarthritis (OA) heterogeneity is evolving and gaining renewed interest. According to this concept, distinct subtypes of OA need to be defined that will likely require recognition in research design and different approaches to clinical management. Although seemingly plausible, a wide range of views exist on how best to operationalize this concept. The current project aimed to provide consensus-based definitions and recommendations that together create a framework for conducting and reporting OA phenotype research.METHODS: A panel of 25 members with expertise in OA phenotype research was composed. First, panel members participated in an online Delphi exercise to provide a number of basic definitions and statements relating to OA phenotypes and OA phenotype research. Second, panel members provided input on a set of recommendations for reporting on OA phenotype studies.RESULTS: Four Delphi rounds were required to achieve sufficient agreement on 11 definitions and statements. OA phenotypes were defined as subtypes of OA that share distinct underlying pathobiological and pain mechanisms and their structural and functional consequences. Reporting recommendations pertaining to the study characteristics, study population, data collection, statistical analysis, and appraisal of OA phenotype studies were provided.CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a number of consensus-based definitions and recommendations relating to OA phenotypes. The resulting framework is intended to facilitate research on OA phenotypes and increase combined efforts to develop effective OA phenotype classification. Success in this endeavor will hopefully translate into more effective, differentiated OA management that will benefit a multitude of OA patients.
MULTIFILE
