Cameron Callaghan

Comparison of sorafenib-loaded poly (lactic/glycolic) acid and DPPC liposome nanoparticles in the in vitro treatment of renal cell carcinoma.

The objective of this study is to develop and compare several Sorafenib-loaded biocompatible nanoparticle models in order to optimize drug delivery and tumor cellular kill thereby improving the quality of Sorafenib-regimented chemotherapy. Sorafenib-loaded poly (lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA), 1,2-dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DPPC) liposomes, and hydrophobically modified chitosan (HMC)-coated DPPC liposomes were evaluated for several characteristics including zeta potential, drug loading, and release profile. Cytotoxicity and uptake trials were also studied using cell line RCC 786-0, a human metastatic clear cell histology renal cell carcinoma cell line. Sorafenib-loaded PLGA particles and HMC-coated DPPC liposomes exhibited significantly improved cell kill compared to Sorafenib alone at lower concentrations, namely 10-15 and 5-15 μM from 24 to 96 h, respectively. At maximum dosage and time (15 μM and 96 h), Sorafenib-loaded PLGA and HMC-coated liposomes killed 88.3 ± 1.8% and 98 ± 1.1% of all tumor cells, significant values compared with Sorafenib 81.8 ± 1.7% (p < 0.01). Likewise, HMC coating substantially improved cell kill for liposome model for all concentrations (5-15 μM) and at time points (24-96 h) (p < 0.01). PLGA and HMC-coated liposomes are promising platforms for drug delivery of Sorafenib. Because of different particle characteristics of PLGA and liposomes, each model can be further developed for unique clinical modalities.

Nanotechnology applications in urology: a review

The objectives of this review are to discuss the current literature and summarise some of the promising areas with which nanotechnology may improve urological care. A Medline literature search was performed to elucidate all relevant studies of nanotechnology with specific attention to its application in urology. Urological applications of nanotechnology include its use in medical imaging, gene therapy, drug delivery, and photothermal ablation of tumours. In vitro and animal studies have shown initial encouraging results. Further study of nanotechnology for urological applications is warranted to bridge the gap between preclinical studies and translation into clinical practice, but nanomedicine has shown significant potential to improve urological patient care.

Nanotechnology combined therapy: tyrosine kinase-bound gold nanorod and laser thermal ablation produce a synergistic higher treatment response of renal cell carcinoma in a murine model.

To investigate tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and gold nanorods (AuNRs) paired with photothermal ablation in a human metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) mouse model. Nanoparticles have been successful as a platform for targeted drug delivery in the treatment of urological cancers. Likewise, the use of nanoparticles in photothermal tumour ablation, although early in its development, has provided promising results. Our previous in vitro studies of nanoparticles loaded with both TKI and AuNRs and activated with photothermal ablation have shown significant synergistic cell kill greater than each individual arm alone. This study is a translation of our initial findings to an in vivo model.

Outcomes Comparison for Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction in Specialty Surgery Hospitals Versus Tertiary Care Facilities

Background: Postoperative monitoring is crucial in the care of free flap breast reconstruction patients. Tertiary care facilities (TCFs) provide postoperative monitoring in an ICU after surgery. Specialty surgery hospitals (SSHs) do not have ICUs, but these facilities perform free flap breast reconstruction as well. Are outcomes comparable between the 2 facilities in terms of flap reexploration times and overall success? Methods: Retrospective study including 163 SSH and 157 TCF patients. Primary predictor was facility in which the procedure was performed. Secondary predictors included operative, demographic, and comorbidity data. Primary outcomes were flap take back rate and flap failures. Secondary outcomes were total time from adverse event noticed in the flap to returning to the operating room (OR) and total time from decision made to return to the OR to returning to the OR (decision made). Tertiary outcomes were length of stay, operative times, and blood loss. Results: Patients at the TCF were generally less healthy than SSH patients. Salvage rates and failure rates were similar between the 2 institutions. Adverse event noticed and decision made times did not differ between the 2 facilities. Overall flap success rate was 98.22% at SSH and 98.81% at TCF. No primary or secondary predictors had a significant correlation with increased odds for flap failure. Conclusion: SSHs can offer similar outcomes in free flap breast reconstruction with just as effective clinical response times to endangered flaps as found in a TCF. However, surgery at an SSH may best be reserved for healthier patients.