Chen, James L.

This case describes a 74-year-old woman who developed post-surgical acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) after Photodynamic Bone Stabilization System (PBSS) a balloon rupture with extravasation of approximately 20 mL of monomeric resin. The ARDS likely resulted from 2 possibilities: (1) displacement of fat or tumor embolism from PBSS insertion/inflation, displacement from bioinert monomers, or orthopedic screws; or (2) chemical inflammation/pneumonitis due to intravascular dissemination of bioinert monomeric resin. Though balloon rupture and/or fat embolism is a stated manufacturer risk, (IlluminOss. Accessed May 19, 2025. https://illuminoss.com/uploads/nuggets/60e47f517ee33862a5fcaab8/900356_T.pdf) this is the first published human case report of ARDS as a complication of PBSS balloon rupture.

This case report describes a 29-year-old patient with cerebral palsy whose mother, for safety reasons, requested that before extubation in the postanesthesia care unit, her son be transferred from the padded stretcher to his personal motorized wheelchair. Using a sling lift, we safely transferred the anesthetized, intubated patient from a supine position to an upright sitting position. Although sling lifts are often used in critical care and rehabilitation environments, use in the perioperative space is rare. In this case report, we demonstrate how a sling lift can enhance safety for patients and perioperative staff.

Background In this open-label, randomized, non-comparative, multicenter phase II study (Alliance A091401) we report on three expansion cohorts treated with nivolumab (N) with and without ipilimumab (N+I) and provide a multi-omic correlative analysis of actionable biomarkers. Methods Patients were randomized (non-comparative) to receive either N or N+I. The primary endpoint was a 6-month confirmed response rate (CRR) defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary endpoints included treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), progression-free survival, and overall survival. Multi-omic correlative analyses were conducted using samples from both the primary and expansion cohorts. Results A total of 66 patients were evaluated for the primary endpoint with disease including gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST, n=18), undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS, n=24), and dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS, n=24). Neither N nor N+I achieved a complete or partial response in the GIST expansion cohort. In DDLPS and UPS, the primary response endpoint of CRR was met with N+I (both 16.6%, 2/12) but not with N alone (both 8.3%, 1/12). In the GIST cohort, TRAE was higher with N+I treatment, halting enrollment as required per protocol. In a correlative analysis of patients for the expansion cohort and the original cohort (n=86), traditional biomarkers of immunotherapy response were not correlated with response in any histological subtype. Markers of genomic instability including the presence of gene fusions and increased subclonal mutations correlated with improved clinical outcomes. Conclusions This expansion cohort reaffirms the outcomes of A091401. There remains a pressing need to determine the role of and predictive biomarkers for immunotherapy in sarcoma. Trial registration number NCT02500797.

Hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsies (HNPP) is an autosomal dominant demyelinating neuropathy characterized by an increased susceptibility to peripheral nerve injury from trauma, compression, or shear forces. Patients with this condition are unique, necessitating distinct considerations for anesthesia and surgical teams. This review describes the etiology, prevalence, clinical presentation, and management of HNPP and presents contemporary evidence and recommendations for optimal care for HNPP patients in the perioperative period. While the incidence of HNPP is reported at 7–16:100,000, this figure may be an underestimation due to underdiagnosis, further complicating medicolegal issues. With the subtle nature of symptoms associated with HNPP, patients with this condition may remain unrecognized during the perioperative period, posing significant risks. Several aspects of caring for this population, including anesthetic choices, intraoperative positioning, and monitoring strategy, may deviate from standard practices. As such, a tailored approach to caring for this unique population, coupled with meticulous preoperative planning, is crucial and requires a multidisciplinary approach.

This research analyzes immunological response patterns to SARS-CoV-2 infection in blood and urine in individuals with serum cotinine-confirmed exposure to nicotine. Samples of blood and urine were obtained from a total of 80 patients admitted to hospital within 24 h of admission (tadm), 48 h later (t48h), and 7 days later (t7d) if patients remained hospitalized or at discharge. Serum cotinine above 3.75 ng/mL was deemed as biologically significant exposure to nicotine. Viral load was measured with serum SARS-CoV-2 S-spike protein. Titer of IgG, IgA, and IgM against S- and N-protein assessed specific antiviral responses. Cellular destruction was measured by high mobility group box protein-1 (HMGB-1) serum levels and heat shock protein 60 (Hsp-60). Serum interleukin 6 (IL-6), and ferritin gauged non-specific inflammation. The immunological profile was assessed with O-link. Serum titers of IgA were lower at tadm in smokers vs. nonsmokers (p = 0.0397). IgM at t48h was lower in cotinine-positive individuals (p = 0.0188). IgG did not differ between cotinine-positive and negative individuals. HMGB-1 at admission was elevated in cotinine positive individuals. Patients with positive cotinine did not exhibit increased markers of non-specific inflammation and tissue destruction. The blood immunological profile had distinctive differences at admission (MIC A/B↓), 48 h (CCL19↓, MCP-3↓, CD28↑, CD8↓, IFNγ↓, IL-12↓, GZNB↓, MIC A/B↓) or 7 days (CD28↓) in the cotinine-positive group. The urine immunological profile showed a profile with minimal overlap with blood as the following markers being affected at tadm (CCL20↑, CXCL5↑, CD8↑, IL-12↑, MIC A/B↑, GZNH↑, TNFRS14↑), t48h (CCL20↓, TRAIL↓) and t7d (EGF↑, ADA↑) in patients with a cotinine-positive test. Here, we showed a distinctive immunological profile in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with confirmed exposure to nicotine.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE Uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS) is an aggressive subtype of soft-tissue sarcoma with frequent metastatic relapse after curative surgery. Chemotherapy provides limited benefit for advanced disease. Multiomics profiling studies have identified homologous recombination deficiency in uLMS. In preclinical studies where olaparib and temozolomide provided modest activity, the combination was highly effective for inhibiting uLMS tumor growth. PATIENTS AND METHODS NCI Protocol 10250 is a single-arm, open-label, multicenter, phase II study evaluating olaparib and temozolomide in advanced uLMS. Patients with progression on ≥1 prior line received temozolomide 75 mg/m2 orally once daily with olaparib 200 mg orally twice a day both on days 1-7 in 21-day cycles. The primary end point was the best objective response rate (ORR) within 6 months. A one-stage binomial design was used. If ≥5 of 22 responded, the treatment would be considered promising (93% power; α = .06). All patients underwent paired biopsies that were evaluated with whole-exome sequencing (WES)/RNAseq and a RAD51 foci formation assay. RESULTS Twenty-two patients were evaluable. The median age was 55 years, and 59% had received three or more prior lines. Best ORR within 6 months was 23% (5 of 22). The overall ORR was 27% (6 of 22). The median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.4 months to not estimable). Hematologic toxicity was common (grade 3/4 neutropenia: 75%; thrombocytopenia: 32%) but manageable with dose modification. Five of 16 (31%) of tumors contained a deleterious homologous recombination gene alteration by WES, and 9 of 18 (50%) were homologous recombination-deficient by the RAD51 assay. In an exploratory analysis, mPFS was prolonged for patients with homologous recombination-deficient versus homologous recombination-proficient tumors (11.2 v 5.4 months, P = .05) by RAD51. CONCLUSION Olaparib and temozolomide met the prespecified primary end point and provided meaningful clinical benefit in patients with advanced, pretreated uLMS.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

PURPOSE Antitumor activity in preclinical models and a phase I study of patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DD-LPS) was observed with selinexor. We evaluated the clinical benefit of selinexor in patients with previously treated DD-LPS whose sarcoma progressed on approved agents. METHODS SEAL was a phase II-III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients age 12 years or older with advanced DD-LPS who had received two-five lines of therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to selinexor (60 mg) or placebo twice weekly in 6-week cycles (crossover permitted). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02606461 ). RESULTS Two hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled (selinexor, n = 188; placebo, n = 97). PFS was significantly longer with selinexor versus placebo: hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.95; one-sided P = .011; medians 2.8 v 2.1 months), as was time to next treatment: HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66; one-sided P < .0001; medians 5.8 v 3.2 months). With crossover, no difference was observed in overall survival. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade versus grade 3 or 4 with selinexor were nausea (151 [80.7%] v 11 [5.9]), decreased appetite (113 [60.4%] v 14 [7.5%]), and fatigue (96 [51.3%] v 12 [6.4%]). Four (2.1%) and three (3.1%) patients died in the selinexor and placebo arms, respectively. Exploratory RNA sequencing analysis identified that the absence of CALB1 expression was associated with longer PFS with selinexor compared with placebo (median 6.9 v 2.2 months; HR, 0.19; P = .001). CONCLUSION Patients with advanced, refractory DD-LPS showed improved PFS and time to next treatment with selinexor compared with placebo. Supportive care and dose reductions mitigated side effects of selinexor. Prospective validation of CALB1 expression as a predictive biomarker for selinexor in DD-LPS is warranted.