Submission to: Strategic Review of Health and Medical Research (Australia) otherwise known as the McKeon Review

Public submission # 247 to the McKeon Review. The submission addresses the terms of reference on: How can we optimise translation of health and medical research into better health and wellbeing? (Terms of Reference 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11)

Transdisciplinary collaboration in wound care research

The highly complex disorder of chronic wounds is a significant problem. Information is often lacking, dynamically changing, or contradictory and thus acts to impede the progression of research and its translation into clinical care. Transdisciplinary collaboration may play an important role in chronic wound research, permitting key stakeholders with a single, central goal to take a unified approach towards addressing the problem. While transdisciplinary collaboration is not a new concept, its implementation within chronic wound research is relatively new. This is because the research area is still largely dominated by single-discipline researchers or by multiple disciplines working in isolation. Transdisciplinary research is a transcending approach, requiring a greater level of understanding between disciplines and may represent the next leap forward in wound care research. This approach necessitates a deeper understanding by all team members of the co-disciplines involved; where key stakeholders are better equipped to respond to dynamic changes and problems that arise in chronic wound research. In this paper, we illustrate what a transdisciplinary approach in wound care research may entail, with the ultimate goal of such an undertaking to improve understanding of the complexities of wound care, which could lead to potential benefits in wound management.

Circulating tumor cells: Isolation, expansion, characterization and translation to clinic

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are the seeds for cancer metastases development, which is responsible for >90% of cancer-related deaths. Accurate quantification of CTCs in human fluids could be an invaluable tool for understanding cancer prognosis, delivering personalized medicine to prevent metastasis and finding cancer therapy effectiveness. Although CTCs were first discovered more than 200 years ago, until now it has been a nightmare for clinical practitioners to capture and diagnose CTCs in clinical settings. Our society needs rapid, sensitive, and reliable assays to identify the CTCs from blood in order to help save millions of lives. Due to the phenotypic EMT transition, CTCs are undetected for more than one-third of metastatic breast cancer patients in clinics. To tackle the above challenges, the first volume in “Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs): Detection Methods, Health Impact and Emerging Clinical Challenges discusses recent developments of different technologies, which have the capability to target and elucidate the phenotype heterogenity of CTCS. It contains seven chapters written by world leaders in this area, covering basic science to possible device design which can have beneficial applications in society. This book is unique in its design and content, providing an in-depth analysis to elucidate biological mechanisms of cancer disease progression, CTC detection challenges, possible health effects and the latest research on evolving technologies which have the capability to tackle the above challenges. It describes the broad range of coverage on understanding CTCs biology from early predictors of the metastatic spread of cancer, new promising technology for CTC separation and detection in clinical environment and monitoring therapy efficacy via finding the heterogeneous nature of CTCs. (Imprint: Nova Biomedical)

The research capacity and culture of Australian podiatrists

Background Best practice clinical health care is widely recognised to be founded on evidence based practice. Enhancing evidence based practice via the rapid translation of new evidence into every day clinical practice is fundamental to the success of health care and in turn health care professions. There is little known about the collective research capacity and culture of the podiatry profession across Australia. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the research capacity and culture of the podiatry profession within Australia and determine if there were any differences between podiatrists working in different health sectors and workplaces. Method All registered podiatrists were eligible to participate in a cross-sectional online survey. The Australian Podiatry Associations disseminated the survey and all podiatrists were encouraged to distribute it to colleagues. The Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) tool was used to collect all research capacity and culture item variables using a 10-point scale (1 = lowest; 10 = highest). Additional demographic, workplace and health sector data variables were also collected. Mann–Whitney-U, Kruskal–Wallis and logistic regression analyses were used to determine any difference between health sectors and workplaces. Word cloud analysis was used for qualitative responses of individual motivators and barriers to research culture. Results There were 232 fully completed surveys (6% of Australian registered podiatrists). Overall respondents reported low success or skills (Median rating < 4) on the majority of individual success or skill items. Podiatrists working in multi-practitioner workplaces reported higher individual success or skills in the majority of items compared with sole practitioners (p < 0.05). Non-clinical and public health sector podiatrists reported significantly higher post-graduate study enrolment or completion, research activity participation, provisions to undertake research and individual success or skill than those working privately. Conclusions This study suggests that podiatrists in Australia report similar low levels of research success or skill to those reported in other allied health professions. The workplace setting and health sector seem to play key roles in self reported research success and skills. This is important knowledge for podiatrists and researchers aiming to translate research evidence into clinical practice.

Concise review: Humanized models of tumor immunology in the 21st century: Convergence of cancer research and tissue engineering

Despite positive testing in animal studies, more than 80% of novel drug candidates fail to proof their efficacy when tested in humans. This is primarily due to the use of preclinical models that are not able to recapitulate the physiological or pathological processes in humans. Hence, one of the key challenges in the field of translational medicine is to “make the model organism mouse more human.” To get answers to questions that would be prognostic of outcomes in human medicine, the mouse's genome can be altered in order to create a more permissive host that allows the engraftment of human cell systems. It has been shown in the past that these strategies can improve our understanding of tumor immunology. However, the translational benefits of these platforms have still to be proven. In the 21st century, several research groups and consortia around the world take up the challenge to improve our understanding of how to humanize the animal's genetic code, its cells and, based on tissue engineering principles, its extracellular microenvironment, its tissues, or entire organs with the ultimate goal to foster the translation of new therapeutic strategies from bench to bedside. This article provides an overview of the state of the art of humanized models of tumor immunology and highlights future developments in the field such as the application of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine strategies to further enhance humanized murine model systems.