ADOPTERs of Innovation in a Crisis: The History of Vera Gedroits, Kanehiro Takaki and the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905.

The 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War was the first "modern" conflict, using rapid-firing artillery and machine guns, fought over imperial ambitions in Korea and Manchuria. During the war, Princess Vera Gedroits pioneered early laparotomy for penetrating abdominal wounds with unprecedented success. Her techniques were then adopted by the Russian Society of Military Doctors. However, Allied forces took 10 years to adopt operative management of penetrating abdominal wounds over conservative management. Gedroits was later appointed in Kyiv as the world's first female Professor of Surgery. Kanehiro Takaki, a Japanese Naval surgeon, showed in 1884 a diet of barley, meat, milk, bread, and beans, rather than polished white rice, eliminated beriberi in the Japanese Navy. Despite this success, the Japanese Army failed to change the white rice rations until March 1905. During the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War, an estimated 250,000 Japanese soldiers developed beriberi, of whom 27,000 died. Japan's 1905 defeat of Russia sowed the seeds of discontent with Tsar Nicholas' rule, culminating in the 1917 Russian Revolution. Although the Russian Navy was destroyed, Japan ceded North Sakhalin Island to Russia in peace negotiations, and Russia seized Manchuria, South Sakhalin, and the Kuril Islands in 1945. We highlight the contributions of Gedroits and Takaki, 2 intellectual prodigies who respectively pioneered rapid triage and surgical management of trauma and a cure for beriberi. We aim to show how both these surgeons challenged entrenched dogma and the cultural and political zeitgeist, and risked their professional reputations and their lives in being ADOPTERs of innovation during a crisis.

Patients' and carers' views on research priorities in prehabilitation for cancer surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The views of patients and carers are important for the development of research priorities. This study aimed to determine and compare the top research priorities of cancer patients and carers with those of multidisciplinary clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study surveyed patients recovering from cancer surgery at a major tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia, and/or their carers between March and July 2023. Consenting patients and carers were provided a list of research priorities according to clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation, as determined in a recent International Delphi study. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each research priority using a 5-item Likert scale (ranging from 1 = very high research priority to 5 = very low research priority). RESULTS: A total of 101 patients and 50 carers participated in this study. Four areas were identified as research priorities, achieving consensus of highest importance (> 70% rated as "high" or "very high" priority) by patients, carers, and clinical experts. These were "optimal composition of prehabilitation programs" (77% vs. 82% vs. 88%), "effect of prehabilitation on surgical outcomes" (85% vs. 90% vs. 95%), "effect of prehabilitation on functional outcomes" (83% vs. 86% vs. 79%), and "effect of prehabilitation on patient reported outcomes" (78% vs. 84% vs. 79%). Priorities that did not reach consensus of high importance by patients despite reaching consensus of highest importance by experts included "identifying populations most likely to benefit from prehabilitation" (70% vs. 76% vs. 90%) and "defining prehabilitation core outcome measures" (66% vs. 74% vs. 87%). "Prehabilitation during neoadjuvant therapies" reached consensus of high importance by patients but not by experts or carers (81% vs. 68% vs. 69%). CONCLUSION: This study delineated the primary prehabilitation research priorities as determined by patients and carers, against those previously identified by clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation. It is recommended that subsequent high-quality research and resource allocation be directed towards these highlighted areas of importance.

An Unusual and Protracted Course of a Haggitt 3 Malignant Polyp Recurrence.

Timely detection of colorectal cancer recurrence is paramount, as treatment of early-stage recurrence greatly improves survival and outcomes. Current guidelines outline post-resection surveillance through endoscopy, CT imaging, and tumor markers for five years; however, there is minimal data to guide follow-up beyond this. We present the case of a 60-year-old female with locoregional recurrence 15 years after endoscopic mucosal resection of a low-grade Haggit level 3 sigmoid colon polyp. Unusually the recurrence was noted as an incidental finding following investigation of an elevated alpha-fetoprotein level post liver transplant, and a retrospective review of imaging revealed a calcified sigmoid mesentery mass. While surgical pathology revealed locoregional recurrence, there was no evidence of this on surveillance and preoperative colonoscopy. Through this case, we discuss the risk factors for late recurrence of colorectal cancer whilst exploring the literature and guidelines around this subset of patients. As new guidelines are developed, it may be important to consider late recurrence and individualize follow-up regimes based on risk factors.

Research Priorities in Prehabilitation for Patients Undergoing Cancer Surgery: An International Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the number of prehabilitation trials has increased significantly. The identification of key research priorities is vital in guiding future research directions. Thus, the aim of this collaborative study was to define key research priorities in prehabilitation for patients undergoing cancer surgery. METHODS: The Delphi methodology was implemented over three rounds of surveys distributed to prehabilitation experts from across multiple specialties, tumour streams and countries via a secure online platform. In the first round, participants were asked to provide baseline demographics and to identify five top prehabilitation research priorities. In successive rounds, participants were asked to rank research priorities on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was considered if > 70% of participants indicated agreement on each research priority. RESULTS: A total of 165 prehabilitation experts participated, including medical doctors, physiotherapists, dieticians, nurses, and academics across four continents. The first round identified 446 research priorities, collated within 75 unique research questions. Over two successive rounds, a list of 10 research priorities reached international consensus of importance. These included the efficacy of prehabilitation on varied postoperative outcomes, benefit to specific patient groups, ideal programme composition, cost efficacy, enhancing compliance and adherence, effect during neoadjuvant therapies, and modes of delivery. CONCLUSIONS: This collaborative international study identified the top 10 research priorities in prehabilitation for patients undergoing cancer surgery. The identified priorities inform research strategies, provide future directions for prehabilitation research, support resource allocation and enhance the prehabilitation evidence base in cancer patients undergoing surgery.