Citations

Mayo Clinic

Clear

169 citation(s) found for "Dunn, Ty B".

Impact of Excessive Weight Gain on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 1 Diabetes: Results From the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Study
Purnell, Jonathan Q. , Braffett, Barbara H. , Zinman, Bernard, Gubitosi‐Klug, Rose , Sivitz, William, Bantle, John P., Ziegler, Georgia, Cleary, Patricia A., Brunzell, John D. , Nathan, D.M., Zinman, B., Crofford, O., Genuth, S., Brown-Friday, J., Crandall, J., Engel, S., Martinez, H., Phillips, M., Reid, M., Shamoon, H., Sheindlin, J., Gubitosi-Klug, R., Mayer, L., Pendegast, S., Zegarra, H., Miller, D., Singerman, L., Smith-Brewer, S., Novak, M., Quin, J., Genuth, Saul, Palmert, M., Brown, E., McConnell, J., Pugsley, P., Crawford, P., Dahms, W., Gregory, N.S., Lackaye, M.E., Kiss, S., Chan, R., Orlin, A., Rubin, M., Brillon, D., Reppucci, V., Lee, T., Heinemann, M., Chang, S., Levy, B., Jovanovic, L., Richardson, M., Bosco, B., Dwoskin, A., Hanna, R., Barron, S., Campbell, R., Bhan, A., Krüger, D., Jones, J.K., Edwards, P.A., Bhan, A., Carey, J.D., Angus, E., Thomas, A., Galprin, A., McLellan, M., Whitehouse, F., Bergenstal, R., Johnson, M., Gunyou, K., Thomas, L., Laechelt, J., Hollander, P., Spencer, M., Kendall, D., Cuddihy, R., Callahan, P., List, S., Gott, J., Rude, N., Olson, B., Franz, M., Castle, G., Birk, R., Nelson, J., Freking, D., Gill, L., Mestrezat, W., Etzwiler, D., Morgan, K., Aiello, L.P., Golden, E., Arrigg, P., Asuquo, V., Beaser, R., Bestourous, L., Cavallerano, J., Cavicchi, R., Ganda, O., Hamdy, O., Kirby, R., Murtha, T., Schlossman, D., Shah, S., Sharuk, G., Silver, P., Silver, P., Stockman, M., Sun, J., Weimann, E., Wolpert, H., Aiello, L. M., Jacobson, A., Rand, L., Rosenzwieg, J., Nathan, D.M., Larkin, M.E., Christofi, M., Folino, K., Godine, J., Lou, P., Stevens, C., Anderson, E., Bode, H., Brink, S., Cornish, C., Cros, D., Delahanty, L., deManbey, A., Haggan, C., Lynch, J., McKitrick, C., Norman, D., Moore, D., Ong, M., Taylor, C., Zimbler, D., Crowell, S., Fritz, S., Hansen, K., Gauthier‐Kelly, C., Service, F. J., Ziegler, G., Barkmeier, A., Schmidt, L., French, B., Woodwick, R., Rizza, R., Schwenk, W. F., Haymond, M., Pach, J., Mortenson, J., Zimmerman, B., Lucas, A., Colligan, R., Luttrell, L., Lopes-Virella, M., Caulder, S., Pittman, C., Patel, N., Lee, K., Nutaitis, M., Fernandes, J., Hermayer, K., Kwon, S., Blevins, A., Parker, J., Colwell, J., Lee, D., Soule, J., Lindsey, P., Bracey, M., Farr, A., Elsing, S., Thompson, T., Selby, J., Lyons, T., Yacoub-Wasef, S., Szpiech, M., Wood, D., Mayfield, R., Molitch, M., Adelman, D., Colson, S., Jampol, L., Lyon, A., Gill, M., Strugula, Z., Kaminski, L., MIRZA, R., Simjanoski, E., Ryan, D., Johnson, C., Wallia, A., Ajroud-Driss, S., Astelford, P., Leloudes, N., Degillio, A., Schaefer, B., Mudaliar, S., Lorenzi, G., Goldbaum, M., Jones, K., Prince, M., Swenson, M., Grant, I., Reed, R., Lyon, R., Kolterman, O., Giotta, M, Clark, T., Friedenberg, G., Sivitz, W.I., Vittetoe, B., Kramer, J., Bayless, M., Zeitler, R., Schrott, H., Olson, N., Snetselaar, L., Hoffman, R., MacIndoe, J., Weingeist, T., Fountain, C., Miller, R., Johnsonbaugh, S., Patronas, M., Carney, M., Mendley, S., Salemi, P., Liss, R., Hebdon, M., Counts, D., Donner, T., Gordon, J., Hemady, R., Kowarski, A., Ostrowski, D., Steidl, S., Jones, B., Herman, W.H., Martin, C.L., Pop-Busui, R., Greene, D. A., Stevens, M.J., Burkhart, N., Sandford, T, Floyd, J., Bantle, J., Flaherty, N., Terry, J., Koozekanani, D., Montezuma, S., Wimmergren, N., Rogness, B., Mech, M., Strand, T., Olson, J., McKenzie, L., Kwong, C., Goetz, F., Warhol, R., Hainsworth, D., Goldstein, D., Hitt, S., Giangiacomo, J., Schade, D.S., Canady, J.L., Burge, M. R., Das, A., Avery, R.B., Ketai, L.H., Chapin, J.E., Schluter, M.L, Rich, J., Johannes, C., Hornbeck, D., Schutta, M., Bourne, P.A., Brucker, A., Braunstein, S., Schwartz, S., Maschak-Carey, B. J., Baker, L., Orchard, T., Cimino, L., Songer, T., Doft, B., Olson, S., Becker, D., Rubinstein, D., Bergren, R.L., Fruit, J., Hyre, R., Palmer, C., Silvers, N., Lobes, L., Rath, P. Paczan, Conrad, P. W., Yalamanchi, S., Wesche, J., Bratkowksi, M., Arslanian, S., Rinkoff, J., Warnicki, J., Curtin, D., Steinberg, D., Vagstad, G., Harris, R., Steranchak, L., Arch, J., Kelly, K., Ostrosaka, P., Guiliani, M., Good, M., Williams, T., Olsen, K., Campbell, A., Shipe, C., Conwit, R., Finegold, D., Zaucha, M., Drash, A., Morrison, A., Malone, J.I., Bernal, M.L., Pavan, P. R., Grove, N., Tanaka, E.A., McMillan, D., Vaccaro‐Kish, J., Babbione, L., Solc, H., DeClue, T.J., Dagogo-Jack, S., Wigley, C., Ricks, H., Kitabchi, A., Chaum, E., Murphy, M.B., Moser, S., Meyer, D., Iannacone, A., Yoser, S., Bryer‐Ash, M., Schüßler, S., Lambeth, H., Raskin, P., Strowig, S., Basco, M., Cercone, S., Zinman, B., Barnie, A., Devenyi, R., Mandelcorn, M., Brent, M., Rogers, S., Gordon, A., Bakshi, N., Perkins, B., Tuason, L., Perdikaris, F., Ehrlich, R., Daneman, D., Perlman, K., Ferguson, S., Palmer, J., Fahlstrom, R., Boer, I.H.de, Kinyoun, J., Ottingham, L. Van, Catton, S., Ginsberg, J., McDonald, C., Harth, J., Driscoll, M., Sheidow, T., Mahon, J., Canny, C., Nicolle, D., Colby, P., Dupre, J., Hramiak, I., Rodger, NW, Jenner, M., Smith, T., Brown, W., May, M., Hagan, J. Lipps, Agarwal, A., Adkins, T., Lorenz, R., Feman, S., Survant, L., White, N. H., Levandoski, L., Grand, G., Thomas, M., Joseph, D., Blinder, K., Shah, G., Burgess, D., Boniuk, I., Santiago, J., Tamborlane, W., Gatcomb, P., Stoessel, K., Ramos, P., Fong, K., Ossorio, P., Ahern, J., Meadema-Mayer, L., Beck, C., Farrell, K., Quin, J., Gaston, P., Trail, R., Lachin, J., Backlund, J., Bebu, I., Braffett, B., Diminick, L., Gao, X., Hsu, W., Klumpp, K., Trapani, Victoria R., Trapani, V., Cleary, P., McGee, P., Sun, W. , Villavicencio, S., Anderson, K., Dews, L., Younes, Naji , Rutledge, B., Chan, K., Rosenberg, D. , Petty, B., Determan, A., Kenny, D., Williams, C., Cowie, C., Siebert, C., Steffes, M., Arends, V., Bucksa, J., Nowicki, M., Chavers, B., O’Leary, D., Polák, J. (Jaroslav), Harrington, A., Funk, L., Crow, R., Gloeb, B., Thomas, S., O’Donnell, C., Soliman, EZ, Zhang, Z.M., Li, Y., Campbell, C., Keasler, L., Hensley, S., Hu, J., Barr, M., Taylor, T., Prineas, R., Feldman, E.L., Albers, J.W., Low, P., Sommer, C., Nickander, K., Speigelberg, T., Pfiefer, M., Schumer, M., Moran, M., Farquhar, J., Ryan, C., Sandstrom, D., Geckle, M., Cupelli, E., Thoma, F., Burzuk, B., Woodfill, T., Danis, R., Blodi, B., Lawrence, D., Wabers, H., Gangaputra, S., Neill, S., Burger, M., Dingledine, J., Gama, V., Sussman, R., Davis, M., Hubbard, L., Budoff, M., Darabian, S., Rezaeian, P., Wong, N., Fox, M., Oudiz, R., Kim, L., Detrano, R., Cruickshanks, K., Bainbridg, K., Lima, J., Bluemke, D., Turkbey, E., Geest, R. J. van der, Liu, C., Malayeri, A., Jain, A., Miao, C., Chahal, H., Jarboe, R., Nathan, D.M., Monnier, V., Sell, D., Strauch, C., Hazen, S., Pratt, A., Tang, W., Brunzell, J., Purnell, J., Purnell, J., Natarajan, R., Miao, F., Zhang, L., Chen, Z., Paterson, A., Boright, A., Bull, S., Sun, L., Scherer, S., Lyons, T.J., Jenkins, A., Klein, R., Virella, G., Jaffa, A., Carter, R., Stoner, J., Garvey, W.T., Lackland, D., Brabham, M., McGee, D., Zheng, D., Mayfield, R. K., Maynard, J., Wessells, H., Sarma, A., Dunn, R., Holt, S., Hotaling, J., Kim, C., Clemens, Q., McVary, Kevin T. , Cuddihy, Robert , Paterson, Andrew D. , Gubitosi-Klug, Rose A , Paterson, Andrew , Zinman, Bernard , Sivitz, William I. , Ziegler, G., Nathan, D.M., Engel, Samuel S. , Reid, M., Genuth, Saul, McConnell, J., Campbell, R., Carey, J.D., Dd, Etzwiler, Cavallerano, Jerry D. , Larkin, M.E., DeManbey, Andrea, Ajroud-Driss, S., Mudaliar, S., Herman, W.H., Pop-Busui, R., Mech, Michael, Schade, D.S., Schwartz, S., Becker, Dj., Arch, J., Shipe, C., Drash, A L, Pavan, P R , DeClue, Terry J., Raskin, P., Rogers, S., Boer, I.H. de, Dupre, J, Tamborlane, W., Gatcomb, P., Bebu, I., Cleary, P., McGee, P., Steffes, M., Arends, V., Bm, Chavers, Polak, J., Feldman, E. L., Nickander, K. K., Pfiefer, M., Dittz, Dalton , Virella, Gabriel, Mayfield, R. K., Brown, Jonathan D. , Cuddihy, Robert M

Diabetes Care | November 15, 2017 | Volume: 40 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 1756-1762

10.2337/dc16-2523 | PMID 29138273 Get It

OBJECTIVE Intensive treatment (INT) of type 1 diabetes reduces the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events compared with conventional treatment (CONV), but it also results in more weight gain. Our objective was to examine whether excessive weight gain from INT of type 1 diabetes is independently associated with subsequent CVD events. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Quartiles (Q) of weight gain in 1,213 participants aged 18 years and older at enrollment in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) were determined within randomized treatment groups (INT vs. CONV) using change in BMI from baseline to the closeout DCCT visits. Effects of this weight gain on CVD risk factors and outcomes during an additional 20 years of observational follow-up were then determined. RESULTS The Q4 INT group experienced greater proportional weight gain (median change in BMI, 6.08 kg/m2), increases in CVD risk factors, and need for medications for hypertension and lipids compared with the Q1–3 INT and comparable CONV groups. Over a mean of 26 years of follow-up, the numbers of major and total CVD events were not statistically different in Q4 compared with Q1–3 of either the INT or CONV group. By year 14, however, the incident CVD event curve became significantly higher in the Q4 INT group than in the Q1–3 INT groups (P = 0.024) and was similar to that for the CONV group. CONCLUSIONS For the first 13 years after DCCT, INT for type 1 diabetes reduced macrovascular events compared with CONV, even when excessive weight gain occurred. After this, total CVD events significantly increased in the Q4 INT group, becoming equivalent to those in the CONV group. Longer follow-up is needed to determine whether this trend continues and results in more major CVD events.
PDX-MI: Minimal Information for Patient-Derived Tumor Xenograft Models
Meehan, Terrence F. , Goldstein, Theodore C. , Murakami, Mark A. , Brabetz, Sebastian , Gu, Zhiping , Wiser, Jeffrey A., Dunn, Patrick , Begley, Dale A. , Krupke, Debra M. , Bertotti, Andrea , Bruna, Alejandra , Brush, Matthew , Byrne, Annette T. , Caldas, Carlos , Christie, Amanda L., Clark, Dominic A. , Dowst, Heidi , Dry, Jonathan R. , Doroshow, James H. , Duchamp, Olivier, Ferretti, Stéphane , Frese, Kristopher K. , Goodwin, Neal , Greenawalt, Danielle M., Haendel, Melissa , Hermans, Els , Houghton, Peter J. , Jonkers, Jos , Kemper, Kristel , Khor, Tin Oo, Lloyd, K. C. Kent , Mason, Jeremy , Médico, Enzo , Olson, James M. , Peeper, Daniel S. , Seong, Je Kyung , Trusolino, Livio , Vinolo, Emilie, Wechsler‐Reya, Robert J. , Weinstock, David M. , Welm, Alana L. , Weroha, S. John , Pfister, Stefan M. , Kool, Marcel , Parkinson, Helen , Butte, Atul J. , Bult, Carol J. , Haendel, Melissa , Caldas, Carlos , Pfister, Stefan M , Conte, Nathalie , Inghirami, Giorgio , Evrard, Yvonne A. , Lewis, Michael T. , Neuhauser, Steven B. , Rueda, Oscar M. , Amant, Frédéric

Cancer Research | November 1, 2017 | Volume: 77 | Issue: 21 | Pages: e62-e66

10.1158/0008-5472.can-17-0582 | PMID 29092942 Get It

Abstract Patient-derived tumor xenograft (PDX) mouse models have emerged as an important oncology research platform to study tumor evolution, mechanisms of drug response and resistance, and tailoring chemotherapeutic approaches for individual patients. The lack of robust standards for reporting on PDX models has hampered the ability of researchers to find relevant PDX models and associated data. Here we present the PDX models minimal information standard (PDX-MI) for reporting on the generation, quality assurance, and use of PDX models. PDX-MI defines the minimal information for describing the clinical attributes of a patient's tumor, the processes of implantation and passaging of tumors in a host mouse strain, quality assurance methods, and the use of PDX models in cancer research. Adherence to PDX-MI standards will facilitate accurate search results for oncology models and their associated data across distributed repository databases and promote reproducibility in research studies using these models. Cancer Res; 77(21); e62–66. ©2017 AACR.
Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines on Surgical Resection for the Treatment of Patients With Vestibular Schwannomas
Hadjipanayis, Constantinos G., Carlson, Matthew L. , Link, Michael J. , Rayan, Tarek, Parish, John, Atkins, Tyler , Asher, Anthony L. , Dunn, Ian F. , Corrales, C. Eduardo , Sughrue, Michael E. , Rayan, Tarek A, Parish, John, Gompel, Jamie J. Van , Olson, Jeffrey J.

Neurosurgery | October 27, 2017 | Volume: 82 | Issue: 2 | Pages: E40-E43

10.1093/neuros/nyx512 | PMID 29309632 Get It

Abstract Please see the full-text version of this guideline (https://www.cns.org/guidelines/guidelines-management-patients-vestibular-schwannoma/chapter_8) for the target population of each recommendation listed below. QUESTION 1 What surgical approaches for vestibular schwannomas (VS) are best for complete resection and facial nerve (FN) preservation when serviceable hearing is present? RECOMMENDATION There is insufficient evidence to support the superiority of either the middle fossa (MF) or the retrosigmoid (RS) approach for complete VS resection and FN preservation when serviceable hearing is present. QUESTION 2 Which surgical approach (RS or translabyrinthine [TL]) for VS is best for complete resection and FN preservation when serviceable hearing is not present? RECOMMENDATION There is insufficient evidence to support the superiority of either the RS or the TL approach for complete VS resection and FN preservation when serviceable hearing is not present. QUESTION 3 Does VS size matter for facial and vestibulocochlear nerve preservation with surgical resection? RECOMMENDATION Level 3: Patients with larger VS tumor size should be counseled about the greater than average risk of loss of serviceable hearing. QUESTION 4 Should small intracanalicular tumors (<1.5 cm) be surgically resected? RECOMMENDATION There are insufficient data to support a firm recommendation that surgery be the primary treatment for this subclass of VSs. QUESTION 5 Is hearing preservation routinely possible with VS surgical resection when serviceable hearing is present? RECOMMENDATION Level 3: Hearing preservation surgery via the MF or the RS approach may be attempted in patients with small tumor size (<1.5 cm) and good preoperative hearing. QUESTION 6 When should surgical resection be the initial treatment in patients with neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2)? RECOMMENDATION There is insufficient evidence that surgical resection should be the initial treatment in patients with NF2. QUESTION 7 Does a multidisciplinary team, consisting of neurosurgery and neurotology, provides the best outcomes of complete resection and facial/vestibulocochlear nerve preservation for patients undergoing resection of VSs? RECOMMENDATION There is insufficient evidence to support stating that a multidisciplinary team, usually consisting of a neurosurgeon and a neurotologist, provides superior outcomes compared to either subspecialist working alone. QUESTION 8 Does a subtotal surgical resection of a VS followed by stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) to the residual tumor provide comparable hearing and FN preservation to patients who undergo a complete surgical resection? RECOMMENDATION There is insufficient evidence to support subtotal resection (STR) followed by SRS provides comparable hearing and FN preservation to patients who undergo a complete surgical resection. QUESTION 9 Does surgical resection of VS treat preoperative balance problems more effectively than SRS? RECOMMENDATION There is insufficient evidence to support either surgical resection or SRS for treatment of preoperative balance problems. QUESTION 10 Does surgical resection of VS treat preoperative trigeminal neuralgia more effectively than SRS? RECOMMENDATION Level 3: Surgical resection of VSs may be used to better relieve symptoms of trigeminal neuralgia than SRS. QUESTION 11 Is surgical resection of VSs more difficult (associated with higher facial neuropathies and STR rates) after initial treatment with SRS? RECOMMENDATION Level 3: If microsurgical resection is necessary after SRS, it is recommended that patients be counseled that there is an increased likelihood of a STR and decreased FN function. The full guideline can be found at: https://www.cns.org/guidelines/guidelines-management-patients-vestibular-schwannoma/chapter_8.
Randomized, Open-Label Phase II Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Talimogene Laherparepvec in Combination With Ipilimumab Versus Ipilimumab Alone in Patients With Advanced, Unresectable Melanoma
Chesney, Jason , Collichio, Frances A. , Milhem, Mohammed , Hamid, Omid , Ross, Merrick I. , Friedlander, Philip , Garbe, Claus , Logan, Theodore F. , Chen, Lisa , Gansert, Jennifer, Andtbacka, Robert H.I. , Singh, Parminder , Collichio, Frances, Milhem, Mohammed M, Glaspy, John, Ross, Merrick, Hauschild, Axel, Lebbe, Celeste, Kim, Jenny J, Kaufman, Howard L, Milhem, Mohammed M , Puzanov, Igor , Singh, Parminder Pal , Glaspy, John A. , Hauschild, Axel , Lebbé, Célèste , Kim, Jaeyeon , Kaufman, Howard L. , Singh, Parminder

Journal of Clinical Oncology | October 5, 2017 | Volume: 36 | Issue: 17 | Pages: 1658-1667

10.1200/jco.2017.73.7379 | PMID 28981385 Get It

Purpose We evaluated the combination of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase II study. To our knowledge, this was the first randomized trial to evaluate addition of an oncolytic virus to a checkpoint inhibitor. Methods Patients with unresectable stages IIIB to IV melanoma, with no more than one prior therapy if BRAF wild-type, no more than two prior therapies if BRAF mutant, measurable/injectable disease, and without symptomatic autoimmunity or clinically significant immunosuppression were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. Talimogene laherparepvec treatment began in week 1 (first dose, ≤ 4 mL × 10 6 plaque-forming units/mL; after 3 weeks, ≤ 4 mL × 10 8 plaque-forming units/mL every 2 weeks). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; up to four doses) began week 1 in the ipilimumab alone arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was objective response rate evaluated by investigators per immune-related response criteria. Results One hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab (n = 98), or ipilimumab alone (n = 100). Thirty-eight patients (39%) in the combination arm and 18 patients (18%) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 5.5; P = .002). Responses were not limited to injected lesions; visceral lesion decreases were observed in 52% of patients in the combination arm and 23% of patients in the ipilimumab arm. Frequently occurring adverse events (AEs) included fatigue (combination, 59%; ipilimumab alone, 42%), chills (combination, 53%; ipilimumab alone, 3%), and diarrhea (combination, 42%; ipilimumab alone, 35%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was 45% and 35%, respectively. Three patients in the combination arm had fatal AEs; none were treatment related. Conclusion The study met its primary end point; the objective response rate was significantly higher with talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone. These data indicate that the combination has greater antitumor activity without additional safety concerns versus ipilimumab.
Role of the External Urethral Sphincter in the Normal Bladder and Cord Bladder
Emmett, John L., Baut, Richard V., Dunn, Judi

Journal of Urology | June 30, 2017 | Volume: 59 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 439-454

10.1016/s0022-5347(17)69396-0 | PMID 18903557 Get It

Branched Renal Calculi
Priestley, James T., Dunn, Judi

Journal of Urology | June 30, 2017 | Volume: 61 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 194-203

10.1016/s0022-5347(17)69052-9 | PMID 18111841 Get It

Toxicity, quality of life outcomes, and dosimetric impact in phase III trial of hypofractionated or standard fractionated proton therapy for low-risk prostate cancer patients: PCG GU 002.
Schmidt, Matthew Q. , Vargas, Carlos , Hartsell, William F. , Dunn, Megan, Keole, Sameer R., Doh, Lucius, Chang, J. , Sinesi, Christopher, Larson, Gary, Dunn, Megan

Journal of Clinical Oncology | March 29, 2017 | Volume: 35 | Issue: 6_suppl | Pages: 48-48

10.1200/jco.2017.35.6_suppl.48 Get It

48 Background: The purpose of this study is to identify differences in toxicity, quality of life (QOL), and dosimetric endpoints among patients with low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma treated with either standard fractionation or hypofractionation proton-beam therapy. Methods: We analyzed the results of the first 75 patients treated in our phase III trial comparing 38Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in 5 fractions (fx) (n = 46) vs. 79.2Gy (RBE) in 44 fx. (n = 29). All patients had low-risk prostate cancer and were treated with proton radiation using fiducial markers and daily image guidance. We evaluated American Urological Association (AUA) Symptom Index, adverse events (AEs), and Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC) domains at pretreatment and 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36 and 48 months. Doses to the prostate were selected based on similar long term effects to normal tissue based on an α/β = 3.5 for an EQD2 of 76Gy. Results: The median follow-up was 36 months for both groups; 23 (30%) patients reached a follow-up of 48 months. We observed a small difference in AUA score (3.2 vs. 8.6, p = 0.002) at 1-year favoring the 79.2Gy arm. AUA scores were not statistically different at 18 months and after. Similarly, EPIC Urinary symptoms favored the 79.2Gy arm at 1 year (92.3 vs. 84.5, p = 0.009) and 18 months (92.3 vs. 85.3, p = 0.03); bother scores were not significantly different at any other time points. G2 or higher GU toxicity was similar between arms (p = 0.8). No differences in EPIC Bowel symptoms, EPIC Sexual symptoms, or bowel G2 or higher toxicities were seen. One death was observed in the 38Gy arm due to an unrelated case of multiple myeloma. The bladder V80 (79.2Gy arm, p = 0.04) and V39 (38Gy arm, p = 0.05) were predictive for G2 or higher GU AE. There was no association observed between rectal dose and G2 or higher rectal toxicity. Conclusions: Patients treated in the hypofractionated and standard arms tolerated treatment well. A small and temporary difference in the GU domain was seen favoring the standard arm. As predicted long term effects on the GU domain and bowel were similar for both arms, suggesting that the α/β is similar to 3.5 for long term effects. Clinical trial information: 01230866.
A multicenter study to define sarcopenia in patients with end‐stage liver disease
Carey, Elizabeth J. , Wang, Connie W. , Lobach, Iryna , Montaño‐Loza, Aldo J. , Dunn, Michael A. , Wang, Connie W , Lai, Jennifer C. , Dasarathy, Srinivasan , Montano-Loza, Aldo J

Liver Transplantation | February 27, 2017 | Volume: 23 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 625-633

10.1002/lt.24750 | PMID 28240805 Get It

Sarcopenia is associated with increased wait‐list mortality, but a standard definition is lacking. In this retrospective study, we sought to determine the optimal definition of sarcopenia in end‐stage liver disease (ESLD) patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT). Included were 396 patients newly listed for LT in 2012 at 5 North American transplant centers. All computed tomography scans were read by 2 individuals with interobserver correlation of 98%. Using image analysis software, the total cross‐sectional area (cm 2 ) of abdominal skeletal muscle at the third lumbar vertebra was measured. The skeletal muscle index (SMI), which normalizes muscle area to patient height, was then calculated. The primary outcome was wait‐list mortality, defined as death on the waiting list or removal from the waiting list for reasons of clinical deterioration. Sex‐specific potential cutoff values to define sarcopenia were determined with a grid search guided by log‐rank test statistics. Optimal search methods identified potential cutoffs to detect survival differences between groups. The overall median SMI was 47.6 cm 2 /m 2 : 50.0 in men and 42.0 in women. At a median of 8.8 months follow‐up, mortality was 25% in men and 36% in women. Patients who died had lower SMI than those who survived (45.6 versus 48.5 cm 2 /m 2 ; P < 0.001), and SMI was associated with wait‐list mortality (hazard ratio, 0.95; P < 0.001). Optimal search method yielded SMI cutoffs of 50 cm 2 /m 2 for men and 39 cm 2 /m 2 for women; these cutoff values best combined statistical significance with a sufficient number of events to detect survival differences between groups. In conclusion, we recommend that an SMI < 50 cm 2 /m 2 for men and < 39 cm 2 /m 2 for women be used to define sarcopenia in patients with ESLD awaiting LT. Liver Transplantation 23 625–633 2017 AASLD .