BackgroundThe gut microbiota is an important modulator of immune, metabolic, psychological and cognitive mechanisms. Chemotherapy adversely affects the gut microbiota, inducing acute dysbiosis, and alters physiological and psychological function. Cancer among young adults has risen 38% in recent decades. Understanding chemotherapy’s long-term effects on gut microbiota and psycho-physiological function is critical to improve survivors’ physical and mental health, but remains unexamined. Restoration of the gut microbiota via targeted therapies (e.g. probiotics) could potentially prevent or reverse the psycho-physiological deficits often found in young survivors following chemotherapy, ultimately leading to reduced symptom burden and improved health.MethodsThis longitudinal study investigates chemotherapy induced long-term gut dysbiosis, and associations between gut microbiota, and immune, metabolic, cognitive and psychological parameters using data collected at < 2 month (T1), 3–4 months (T2), and 5–6 months (T3) post-chemotherapy. Participants will be 18–39 year old blood or solid tumor cancer survivors (n = 50), and a healthy sibling, partner or friend as a control (n = 50). Gut microbiota composition will be measured from fecal samples using 16 s RNA sequencing. Psychological and cognitive patient reported outcome measures will include depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, pain, fatigue, and social and cognitive function. Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) will be used to measure fat and lean mass, and bone mineral concentration. Pro-inflammatory cytokines, C-reactive protein (CRP), lipopolysaccharide (LPS), serotonin, and brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) will be measured in serum, and long-term cortisol will be assayed from hair. Regression and linear mixed model (LMM) analyses will examine associations across time points (T1 – T3), between groups, and covariates with gut microbiota, cognitive, psychological, and physiological parameters.ConclusionKnowing what bacterial species are depleted after chemotherapy, how long these effects last, and the physiological mechanisms that may drive psychological and cognitive issues among survivors will allow for targeted, integrative interventions to be developed, helping to prevent or reverse some of the late-effects of treatment that many young cancer survivors face. This protocol has been approved by the Health Research Ethics Board of Alberta Cancer Committee (ID: HREBA.CC-19-0018).

No abstract

Macrophages are present in healthy oral mucosa and their numbers increase dramatically during disease. They can exhibit a diverse range of phenotypes characterised as a functional spectrum from pro-inflammatory to anti-inflammatory (regulatory) subsets. This review illustrates the role of these subsets in the oral inflammatory disease lichen planus, and the immunosuppressive disease oral squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). We conclude that the role of macrophages in driving progression in oral disease identifies them as potential therapeutic targets for a range of oral pathologies.

Background Limited research has been conducted about the perspectives of oncology health care providers (hcps) concerning the use of cannabis in cancer care and their potential role in advising patients. We sought to determine the barriers encountered by hcps with respect to medical cannabis and their preferred practices in this area. Methods An anonymous survey about cannabis was distributed to oncology hcps at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre in Calgary, Alberta. The 45-question survey measured the opinions of hcps about cannabis use and authorization in oncology. Results Of 103 oncology hcps who participated in the study, 75% were women. By hcp type, the most commonly reported professional groups were oncology nurse (40%), radiation therapist (9%), and pharmacist 6%); and 75% reported providing direct care to cancer patients. More than half (69%) had spoken to a patient about cannabis in the preceding month, and 84% believed that they lacked sufficient knowledge about cannabis to make recommendations. Barriers such as monitoring the patient’s use of cannabis (54%), prescribing an accurate dose (61%) or strain (53%), and having insufficient research (50%) were most commonly reported. More than half of hcps (53%) would be interested in receiving more information or training about the use of cannabis in oncology. Conclusions The survey indicated that this group of oncology hcps believed that they lacked sufficient knowledge about cannabis to make recommendations to patients. In addition to that lack of knowledge, a number of notable barriers were reported, and more than half the hcps indicated interest in learning more about cannabis in the future.

No abstract