No abstract

Omental milky spots (OMSs), small lymphoid structures positioned in the greater omentum, are involved in peritoneal immune homeostasis and the formation of omental metastases. Sympathetic nerve activity is known to regulate immune function in other lymphoid organs (e.g. spleen and lymph nodes) and to create a favourable microenvironment for various tumour types. However, it is still unknown whether OMSs receive sympathetic innervation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to establish whether OMSs of the adult human greater omentum receive sympathetic innervation. A total of 18 OMSs were isolated from five omenta, which were removed from 3% formaldehyde‐perfused cadavers (with a median age of 84 years, ranging from 64 to 94). OMSs were embedded in paraffin, cut and stained with a general (PGP9.5) and sympathetic nerve marker (TH and DBH), and evaluated by bright field microscopy. A T‐cell, B‐cell, and macrophage staining was performed to confirm OMS identity. In 50% of the studied OMSs, sympathetic nerve fibres were observed at multiple levels of the same OMS. Nerve fibres were represented as dots or elongated structures and often observed in relation to small vessels and occasionally as individual structures residing between lymphoid cells. The current study shows that 50% of the investigated OMSs contain sympathetic nerve fibres. These findings may contribute to our understanding of neural regulation of peritoneal immune response and the involvement of OMSs in omental metastases.

Introduction Guidelines on chronic kidney disease (CKD) recommend that nephrologists use clinical prediction models (CPMs). However, the actual use of CPMs seems limited in clinical practice. We conducted a national survey study to evaluate: 1) to what extent CPMs are used in Dutch CKD practice, 2) patients’ and nephrologists’ needs and preferences regarding predictions in CKD, and 3) determinants that may affect the adoption of CPMs in clinical practice. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with CKD patients to inform the development of two online surveys; one for CKD patients and one for nephrologists. Survey participants were recruited through the Dutch Kidney Patient Association and the Dutch Federation of Nephrology. Results A total of 126 patients and 50 nephrologists responded to the surveys. Most patients (89%) reported they had discussed predictions with their nephrologists. They most frequently discussed predictions regarded CKD progression: when they were expected to need kidney replacement therapy (KRT) (n = 81), and how rapidly their kidney function was expected to decline (n = 68). Half of the nephrologists (52%) reported to use CPMs in clinical practice, in particular CPMs predicting the risk of cardiovascular disease. Almost all nephrologists (98%) reported discussing expected CKD trajectories with their patients; even those that did not use CPMs (42%). The majority of patients (61%) and nephrologists (84%) chose a CPM predicting when patients would need KRT in the future as the most important prediction. However, a small portion of patients indicated they did not want to be informed on predictions regarding CKD progression at all (10–15%). Nephrologists not using CPMs (42%) reported they did not know CPMs they could use or felt that they had insufficient knowledge regarding CPMs. According to the nephrologists, the most important determinants for the adoption of CPMs in clinical practice were: 1) understandability for patients, 2) integration as standard of care, 3) the clinical relevance. Conclusion Even though the majority of patients in Dutch CKD practice reported discussing predictions with their nephrologists, CPMs are infrequently used for this purpose. Both patients and nephrologists considered a CPM predicting CKD progression most important to discuss. Increasing awareness about existing CPMs that predict CKD progression may result in increased adoption in clinical practice. When using CPMs regarding CKD progression, nephrologists should ask whether patients want to hear predictions beforehand, since individual patients’ preferences vary.

No abstract