Citations

184 Background: Patient age is often a significant factor in preoperative selection for major abdominal surgery. Its association with postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery(CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy(HIPEC) remains ill-defined. Methods: The US HIPEC Collaborative database(2000-2017) was reviewed for patients who underwent a CCR0/1 CRS/HIPEC. Age was categorized into < 65 or >65yrs. Primary outcomes were postoperative major complications, readmission, 30-day mortality, and non-home discharge(NHD). Analysis was stratified by disease histology: non-invasive(appendiceal LAMN/HAMN), and invasive(appendiceal/colorectal adenocarcinoma). Results: Of 1090pts identified, 22% were >65yrs(n = 240), 59% were female(n = 646), 25% had non-invasive(n = 276) and 51% had invasive(n = 555) histology. Median PCI was 13(IQR7-20). Patients >65yrs had a higher rate of major complications(37vs26%, p = 0.02), readmission(28vs22%,p = 0.05), 30-day mortality(3vs1%,p = 0.02), and NHD(12vs5%,p < 0.01) compared to those < 65yrs. On multivariable analysis accounting for extent of disease as measured by PCI, for non-invasive histology, age >65yrs was an independent predictor for NHD(OR:2.54,95%CI:1.08-5.99,p = 0.03), but not major complications. For invasive histology, even when accounting for PCI, age >65yrs was an independent predictor for both NHD(OR:2.54,95%CI:1.08-5.98,p = 0.03) and major complications(OR:2.04,95%CI:1.16-3.59,p = 0.05). Age was not associated with hospital readmission or 30-day mortality for any histology. Conclusions: Regardless of histology, patients >65yrs are nearly at three-fold increased risk for non-home discharge after CRS/HIPEC. For invasive histology, age >65yrs is also associated with increased major complication rates, but the procedure seems to be better tolerated when performed for indolent biology. These data inform preoperative counseling and risk stratification. Early planning for discharge disposition in this high-risk population can potentially translate to cost savings.

147 Background: Colorectal cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer related deaths with liver being most common site of CRC metastasis. More than 50% of the CRC patients will develop metastatic liver lesion that eventually leads to death in about 70% of them. In this retrospective review we reviewed the outcome of pts who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by resection of liver lesion for metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods: 304 pts who had preoperative chemotherapy were identified from 1045 metastatic colorectal cancer patients who had liver metastasectomy at Mayo Clinic between 1997 and 2018. A retrospective review was conducted by using data from electronic medical records. Statistical analyses utilized Kaplan-Meier method, Log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: There were 113 (37%) female and 191 (63%) male pts. Median age at primary disease diagnosis was 56.5 yrs. Two hundred forty-nine pts presented with stage IV metastatic colorectal cancer. Primary tumor locations were: 53 right-sided, 117 left-sided and 133 rectum. 152 (50%) pts had extrahepatic metastases. Two pts were found to be MSI-H, 113 MSS, 189 unknown. BRAF mutation was found in 6 patients. RAS mutation was present in 84 patients, with 124 unknown. Pts received chemotherapy for median of 2.82 months. Single agent fluoropyrimidine was administered in 38 (12%) pts and rest receiving chemotherapy doublet or triplet with fluropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin being most common regimen. The median overall survival from primary diagnosis for the entire group was 74.5 months. Median overall survival from liver metastasectomy was 60.0 months. In univariate analysis, metachronous disease, age < 60 yrs, and an absence of extrahepatic lesions led to statistically significant improvement of overall survival from primary diagnosis. Metachronous and extrahepatic lesions remained statistically significant in multivariate analysis. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by liver metastasectomy is beneficial for highly-selected metastatic colorectal cancer pts. Compared to a historical control of 30-36 months, our patient population had a median overall survival of about 5 years from resection.

Abstract Background Deafness and hearing loss are common conditions that can be seen independently or as part of a syndrome and are often mediated by genetic causes. We sought to develop and validate a hereditary hearing loss panel (HHLP) to detect single nucleotide variants (SNVs), insertions and deletions (indels), and copy number variants (CNVs) in 166 genes related to nonsyndromic and syndromic hearing loss. Methods We developed a custom-capture next-generation sequencing (NGS) reagent to detect all coding regions, ±10 flanking bp, for the 166 genes related to nonsyndromic and syndromic hearing loss. Our validation consisted of testing 52 samples to establish accuracy, reproducibility, and analytical sensitivity. In addition to NGS, supplementary methods, including multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification, long-range PCR, and Sanger sequencing, were used to ensure coverage of regions that had high complexity or homology. Results We observed 100% positive and negative percentage agreement for detection of SNVs (n = 362), small indels (1–22 bp, n = 25), and CNVs (gains, n = 8; losses, n = 17). Finally, we showed that this assay was able to detect variants with a variant allele frequency ≥20% for SNVs and indels and ≥30% to 35% for CNVs. Conclusions We validated an HHLP that detects SNVs, indels, and CNVs in 166 genes related to syndromic and nonsyndromic hearing loss. The results of this assay can be utilized to confirm a diagnosis of hearing loss and related syndromic disorders associated with known causal genes.

Abstract In July 2022, these guidelines were reviewed by an expert work group convened by ASH. Review included limited searches for new evidence and discussion of the search results. Following this review, the ASH Committee on Quality agreed to continue monitoring the supporting evidence rather than revise or retire these guidelines at this time. Limited searches and expert review will be repeated annually going forward until these guidelines are revised or retired. Background: Red cell transfusions remain a mainstay of therapy for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), but pose significant clinical challenges. Guidance for specific indications and administration of transfusion, as well as screening, prevention, and management of alloimmunization, delayed hemolytic transfusion reactions (DHTRs), and iron overload may improve outcomes. Objective: Our objective was to develop evidence-based guidelines to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about transfusion support for SCD and the management of transfusion-related complications. Methods: The American Society of Hematology formed a multidisciplinary panel that was balanced to minimize bias from conflicts of interest and that included a patient representative. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes. The Mayo Clinic Evidence-Based Practice Research Program supported the guideline development process. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to form recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel developed 10 recommendations focused on red cell antigen typing and matching, indications, and mode of administration (simple vs red cell exchange), as well as screening, prevention, and management of alloimmunization, DHTRs, and iron overload. Conclusions: The majority of panel recommendations were conditional due to the paucity of direct, high-certainty evidence for outcomes of interest. Research priorities were identified, including prospective studies to understand the role of serologic vs genotypic red cell matching, the mechanism of HTRs resulting from specific alloantigens to inform therapy, the role and timing of regular transfusions during pregnancy for women, and the optimal treatment of transfusional iron overload in SCD.

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) has been recently recognized by the World Health Organization classification of prostatic tumors as a distinct entity, most often occurring concurrently with invasive prostatic adenocarcinoma (PCa). Whether documented admixed with PCa or in its rare pure form, numerous studies associate this entity with clinical aggressiveness. Despite increasing clinical experience and requirement of IDC-P documentation in protocols for synoptic reporting, the specifics of its potential contribution to assessment of grade group (GG) and cancer quantitation of PCa in both needle biopsies (NBx) and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens remain unclear. Moreover, there are no standard guidelines for incorporating basal cell marker immunohistochemistry (IHC) in the diagnosis of IDC-P, either alone or as part of a cocktail with AMACR/racemase. An online survey containing 26 questions regarding diagnosis, reporting practices, and IHC resource utilization, focusing on IDC-P, was undertaken by 42 genitourinary subspecialists from 9 countries. The degree of agreement or disagreement regarding approaches to individual questions was classified as significant majority (>75%), majority (51% to 75%), minority (26% to 50%) and significant minority (≤25%). IDC-P with or without invasive cancer is considered a contraindication for active surveillance by the significant majority (95%) of respondents, although a majority (66%) also agreed that the clinical significance/behavior of IDC-P on NBx or RP with PCa required further study. The majority do not upgrade PCa based on comedonecrosis seen only in the intraductal component in NBx (62%) or RP (69%) specimens. Similarly, recognizable IDC-P with GG1 PCa was not a factor in upgrading in NBx (78%) or RP (71%) specimens. The majority (60%) of respondents include readily recognizable IDC-P in assessment of linear extent of PCa at NBx. A significant majority (78%) would use IHC to confirm or exclude intraductal carcinoma if other biopsies showed no PCa, while 60% would use it to confirm IDC-P with invasive PCa in NBx if it would change the overall GG assignment. Nearly half (48%, a minority) would use IHC to confirm IDC-P for accurate Gleason pattern 4 quantitation. A majority (57%) report the percentage of IDC-P when present, in RP specimens. When obvious Gleason pattern 4 or 5 PCa is present in RP or NBx, IHC is rarely to almost never used to confirm the presence of IDC-P by the significant majority (88% and 90%, respectively). Most genitourinary pathologists consider IDC-P to be an adverse prognostic feature independent of the PCa grade, although recommendations for standardization are needed to guide reporting of IDC-P vis a vis tumor quantitation and final GG assessment. The use of IHC varies widely and is performed for a multitude of indications, although it is used most frequently in scenarios where confirmation of IDC-P would impact the GG assigned. Further study and best practices recommendations are needed to provide guidance with regards to the most appropriate indications for IHC use in scenarios regarding IDC-P.