Citations

AbstractBackgroundDue to duty hour regulations, patient safety and inadequate operative time simulation have become a necessary part of surgical education and training in residency. Currently, there is no formal adoption of simulators for the use of surgical education or assessment in hand surgery. This literature review analyzes that the simulation techniques established thus far in hand surgery.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was performed on PubMed. Search results were filtered by title and abstract to isolate articles that were relevant to simulation in hand surgery. Articles that were nonspecific to the hand, non‐English and cadaveric were excluded. Additional articles were identified through references from the initial search.ResultsA total of 1192 articles were yielded from the initial query. After the application of the inclusion criteria, this was narrowed down to 28 articles. Another 8 additional articles were excluded as they did not pertain to the hand although the simulators could be adapted for hand surgery. A total of 20 articles were included in this study.ConclusionsSurgical simulation is a growing and essential field of surgical education. Simulators in hand surgery are limited and require further research and validation. Like other surgical subspecialties, hand surgery may benefit from the adoption of an official simulation curriculum for the assessment of residents and enhancement of technical skills.

ABSTRACT Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) is a progressive, debilitating genetic disease in which skeletal muscle and connective tissue is episodically replaced by heterotopic bone. Discovery of surrogate biomarkers of disease (genotype)-related and flare-up-associated activity of FOP in a readily accessible matrix, such as plasma, would facilitate an understanding of the complex pathophysiology of FOP, aid patient care, and provide a valuable tool for the development and monitoring of potential therapeutics. In a case–control study, using a carefully collected and curated set of plasma samples from 40 FOP patients with the classic ACVR1R206H mutation and 40 age- and sex-matched controls, we report the identification of disease-related and flare-up-associated biomarkers of FOP using a multiplex analysis of 113 plasma-soluble analytes. Adiponectin (implicated in hypoxia, inflammation, and heterotopic ossification) as well as tenascin-C (an endogenous activator of innate immune signaling through the TLR4 pathway and a substrate for kallikrein-7) were highly correlated with FOP genotype, while kallikrein-7 was highly correlated with acute flare-up status. Plasma-soluble biomarkers for FOP support a flare-up-related acute inflammatory phase of disease activity superimposed on a genotypic background of chronic inflammation. © 2021 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

AbstractGenetic variants are vital in informing clinical phenotypes, aiding physical diagnosis, guiding genetic counseling, understanding the molecular basis of disease, and potentially stimulating drug development. Here we describe two families with an ultrarare ACVR1 gain‐of‐function pathogenic variant (codon 375, Arginine > Proline; ACVR1R375P) responsible for a mild nonclassic fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) phenotype. Both families include people with the ultrarare ACVR1R375P variant who exhibit features of FOP while other individuals currently do not express any clinical signs of FOP. Thus, the mild ACVR1R375P variant greatly expands the scope and understanding of this rare disorder.

Abstract Introduction: Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) constitutes ~40% of hematologic malignancies and, in 2020, resulted in 19,940 deaths in the USA. The most common NHL subtypes are diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), including primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), and follicular lymphoma (FL). Although a majority of patients respond to standard-of-care therapy, many patients with NHL eventually relapse, highlighting the need for additional treatments. Real-world data regarding the safety and efficacy of emerging therapies in the relapsed/refractory (R/R) population, and the association between treatment patterns and patient outcomes, are limited. These data could provide unique insights to clinical and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in patients with DLBCL, FL, or PMBCL treated with emerging therapies, especially novel options such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapies. Methods: The Connect ® Lymphoma Disease Registry (NCT04982471) is a US-based, multicenter, prospective observational cohort study of patients with R/R NHL (DLBCL, FL, and PMBCL). Approximately 2100 patients ≥ 18 years of age from ~200 community oncology (~80%) or academic (~20%) sites will be enrolled over a ~3-year period. Patients with histologically confirmed NHL subtypes will be enrolled into 1 of 4 cohorts: first R/R DLBCL, second R/R DLBCL, first R/R FL, or first R/R PMBCL (Figure). Patients will be required to have begun second- (first R/R) or third- (second R/R) line systemic treatment within 60 days prior to enrollment. Patients receiving treatment for any active malignancy other than DLBCL, FL, or PMBCL at the time of enrollment, or who are diagnosed with any other malignancy in the 6 months prior to enrollment, will be excluded. All treatment and management decisions will be determined by the practicing clinicians. Patients may undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, CAR T cell therapy, or other treatments at other sites while participating in this study. Patients will be followed from enrollment for up to 5 years or until death, withdrawal of consent, loss to follow-up, or study termination, whichever occurs first. Data collection will occur at enrollment (baseline) and then every ~3 months. The main objectives of the Connect ® Registry are to describe patient characteristics, practice patterns, and factors associated with treatment choice, sequencing, and effectiveness in NHL subtypes. Secondary objectives include describing treatment regimen safety, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including HRQoL, and healthcare resource utilization outcomes. Exploratory objectives include tumor and blood biomarker evaluation and understanding the availability of social support and its impact on long-term treatment decision-making. Case report forms will be used to collect clinical and treatment data, including baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment details and response, and socioeconomic factors. Outcome measures for efficacy will be progression-free survival, event-free survival, objective response rate, time to next treatment, and overall survival. The availability of social support will be assessed via a specific questionnaire administered at baseline. General (EQ-5D-5L) and disease-specific (FACT-Lym) questionnaires will also be administered. Patients may also optionally agree to release tumor biopsies and blood samples for biomarker analysis. Clinicians will be required to report serious adverse events (AEs), secondary primary malignancies, and confirmed COVID-19 infections within 24 hours. Non-serious AEs of interest include grade 1-3 cytokine release syndrome, grade 1-3 neurotoxicity, grade 3 colitis, grade 3 arrhythmia, grade 3 hemorrhage. Other AEs of interest to be collected include grade 3 hypogammaglobulinemia, prolonged grade 3 cytopenia, and grade 3 infections. Data collected in the Connect ® Registry will increase understanding of the association between emerging therapies and patient outcomes for R/R DLBCL, FL, and PMBCL. Study support: Bristol Myers Squibb Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Flowers: Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Biopharma: Consultancy; Ziopharm: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Iovance: Research Funding; Allogene: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; EMD: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Adaptimmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Epizyme, Inc.: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; 4D: Research Funding; Denovo: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Guardant: Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; SeaGen: Consultancy; Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: CPRIT Scholar in Cancer Research: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Andorsky: Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Other: served on steering committees; Epizyme: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Burke: SeaGen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kymera: Consultancy. Cerhan: Genentech: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration. Grinblatt: Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Toomey: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Zelenetz: Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; MEI Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; SecuraBio: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; LFR: Other; Genentech/Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; NCCN: Other; MethylGene: Research Funding; Beigene: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene/JUNO: Honoraria, Other; Amgen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Sullivan: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Flick: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment. Kiselev: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Kaplan: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment. Ahn: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment.

Abstract The burden of HCC is substantial. To address gaps in HCC care, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) aimed to develop a standard set of process‐based measures and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) along the HCC care continuum. We identified candidate process and outcomes measures for HCC care based on structured literature review. A 13‐member panel with content expertise across the HCC care continuum evaluated candidate measures on importance and performance gap using a modified Delphi approach (two rounds of rating) to define the final set of measures. Candidate PROs based on a structured scoping review were ranked by 74 patients with HCC across 7 diverse institutions. Out of 135 measures, 29 measures made the final set. These covered surveillance (6 measures), diagnosis (6 measures), staging (2 measures), treatment (10 measures), and outcomes (5 measures). Examples included the use of ultrasound (± alpha‐fetoprotein [AFP]) every 6 months, need for surveillance in high‐risk populations, diagnostic testing for patients with a new AFP elevation, multidisciplinary liver tumor board (MLTB) review of Liver Imaging‐Reporting and Data System 4 lesions, standard evaluation at diagnosis, treatment recommendations based on Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging, MLTB discussion of treatment options, appropriate referral for evaluation of liver transplantation candidacy, and role of palliative therapy. PROs include those related to pain, anxiety, fear of treatment, and uncertainty about the best individual treatment and the future. The AASLD PMC has developed a set of explicit quality measures in HCC care to help bridge the gap between guideline recommendations and measurable processes and outcomes. Measurement and subsequent implementation of these metrics could be a central step in the improvement of patient care and outcomes in this high‐risk population.

Abstract Background Children with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] are disproportionally affected by recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection [rCDI]. Although faecal microbiota transplantation [FMT] has been used with good efficacy in adults with IBD, little is known about outcomes associated with FMT in paediatric IBD. Methods We performed a retrospective review of FMT at 20 paediatric centres in the USA from March 2012 to March 2020. Children with and without IBD were compared with determined differences in the efficacy of FMT for rCDI. In addition, children with IBD with and without a successful outcome were compared with determined predictors of success. Safety data and IBD-specific outcomes were obtained. Results A total of 396 paediatric patients, including 148 with IBD, were included. Children with IBD were no less likely to have a successful first FMT then the non-IBD affected cohort [76% vs 81%, p = 0.17]. Among children with IBD, patients were more likely to have a successful FMT if they received FMT with fresh stool [p = 0.03], were without diarrhoea prior to FMT [p = 0.03], or had a shorter time from rCDI diagnosis until FMT [p = 0.04]. Children with a failed FMT were more likely to have clinically active IBD post-FMT [p = 0.002] and 19 [13%] patients had an IBD-related hospitalisation in the 3-month follow-up. Conclusions Based on the findings from this large US multicentre cohort, the efficacy of FMT for the treatment of rCDI did not differ in children with IBD. Failed FMT among children with IBD was possibly related to the presence of clinically active IBD.

AbstractObjectiveThe objective of this study is to determine if Aquablation therapy can maintain its effectiveness in treating men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with large‐volume (80–150 cc) prostates at 3 years.Subjects and MethodsOne hundred one men with moderate‐to‐severe BPH symptoms and prostate volumes between 80 and 150 cc were enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter, international clinical trial in late 2017. Baseline, procedural, and follow‐up parameters were recorded at baseline and scheduled postoperative visits. IPSS, Qmax, and treatment failure are reported at 3 years.ResultsThe mean prostate volume was 107 cc (range 80–150). Mean IPSS improved from 23.2 at baseline to 6.5 at 3 years (16.3‐point improvement, p < 0.0001). Mean IPSS quality of life improved from 4.6 at baseline to 1.1 at 3 years (improvement of 3.4 points, p < 0.0001). Maximum urinary flow increased from 8.7 to 18.5 cc/s. At 3 year follow‐up, 6% of treated patients needed BPH medication and an additional 3% required surgical retreatment for LUTS.ConclusionsThree‐year follow‐up demonstrates a sustained symptom reduction response along with low irreversible complications to Aquablation in men with LUTS due to BPH and prostates of 80–150 cc. Current treatment options available for men with prostates of this size have similar efficacy outcomes but are burdened with high rates of irreversible complications. There are now numerous clinical studies with Aquablation used in various prostates sizes, and it should be offered as an option to men with LUTS due to BPH.