It has been suggested that "call-selective" neurons may play an important role in the encoding of vocalizations in primary auditory cortex (A1). For example, marmoset A1 neurons often respond more vigorously to natural than to time-reversed twitter calls, although the spectral energy distribution in the natural and time-reversed signals is the same. Neurons recorded in cat A1, in contrast, showed no such selectivity for natural marmoset calls. To investigate whether call selectivity in A1 can arise purely as a result of auditory experience, we recorded responses to marmoset calls in A1 of naive ferrets, as well as in ferrets that had been trained to recognize these natural marmoset calls. We found that training did not induce call selectivity for the trained vocalizations in A1. However, although ferret A1 neurons were not call selective, they efficiently represented the vocalizations through temporal pattern codes, and trained animals recognized marmoset twitters with a high degree of accuracy. These temporal patterns needed to be analyzed at timescales of 10 -50 ms to ensure efficient decoding. Training led to a substantial increase in the amount of information transmitted by these temporal discharge patterns, but the fundamental nature of the temporal pattern code remained unaltered. These results emphasize the importance of temporal discharge patterns and cast doubt on the functional significance of call-selective neurons in the processing of animal communication sounds at the level of A1.

No abstract

Given the association between CIMP-intermediate epigenotype and EMVI-positivity, and the subsequent disadvantage in pathological stage, requirement for adjuvant therapy and worse survival, tumour epigenotyping could potentially play an important role in personalising patients' cancer care. Further work is required to understand the mechanisms that underlie the observed effect, with the hope that they may provide novel opportunities for intervention and inform treatment decisions in rectal cancer.

Background The multidisciplinary perioperative and anaesthetic management of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is essential for good surgical outcomes. No clear guidelines have been established, and there is wide variation in clinical practice internationally. This consensus statement consolidates clinical experience and best practice collectively, and systematically addresses key domains in the perioperative and anaesthetic management. Methods The modified Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus from the PelvEx Collaborative. The process included one round of online questionnaire involving controlled feedback and structured participant response, two rounds of editing, and one round of web-based voting. It was held from December 2019 to February 2020. Consensus was defined as more than 80 per cent agreement, whereas less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. Results The final consensus document contained 47 voted statements, across six key domains of perioperative and anaesthetic management in pelvic exenteration, comprising preoperative assessment and preparation, anaesthetic considerations, perioperative management, anticipating possible massive haemorrhage, stress response and postoperative critical care, and pain management. Consensus recommendations were developed, based on consensus agreement achieved on 34 statements. Conclusion The perioperative and anaesthetic management of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration is best accomplished by a dedicated multidisciplinary team with relevant domain expertise in the setting of a specialized tertiary unit. This consensus statement has addressed key domains within the framework of current perioperative and anaesthetic management among patients undergoing pelvic exenteration, with an international perspective, to guide clinical practice, and has outlined areas for future clinical research.

This document outlines the important aspects of caring for patients who have been diagnosed with advanced pelvic cancer. It is primarily aimed at those who are establishing a service that adequately caters to this patient group. The relevant literature has been summarized and an attempt made to simplify the approach to management of these complex cases.

In this study, the pre-operative NLR and PLR were both predictive of major post-operative septic complications. A pre-operative NLR of less than 4 was strongly negative predictor of post-operative complications in rectal cancer surgery. It can be regarded as a predictive and prognostic factor for these patients.

No abstract

PurposeThe pathological and prognostic importance of CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) in rectal cancer, as a sub-population of colorectal cancer, is unknown. A meta-analysis was preformed to estimate the prognostic significance of CIMP in rectal cancer.MethodsA systematic search was performed of PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Cochrane electronic databases for articles pertaining to CIMP and rectal cancer. Articles were analysed and data extracted according to PRISMA standards.ResultsSix studies including 1529 patients were included in the analysis. Following dichotomisation, the prevalence of CIMP-positive tumours was 10 to 57%, with a median of 12.5%. Meta-analysis demonstrated the pooled odds ratio for all-cause death for CIMP-positive tumours vs CIMP-negative tumours was 1.24 (95% CI 0.88–1.74). Z test for overall effect was 1.21 (p = 0.23). Heterogeneity between the studies was low (X2 5.96, df 5, p = 0.31, I2 = 16%). A total of 15 different loci were used for assessing CIMP across the studies, with a median of 6.5 loci (range 5–8).ConclusionsNo significant association between CIMP and poor outcomes in rectal cancer was demonstrated. There was a high degree of heterogeneity in CIMP assessment methodologies and in study populations. Rectal cancer datasets were frequently not extractable from larger colorectal cohorts, limiting analysis.