Citations

Background: In the absence of high-quality evidence, there is a need for guidelines and multidisciplinary consensus recommendations on breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). The purpose of this expert consensus conference was to evaluate the existing evidence regarding the diagnosis and management of BIA-ALCL caused by textured implants. This article aims to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the management and prevention of BIA-ALCL. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, and supplemented by manual searches of relevant English-language articles and “related articles” sections. Studies focusing on breast surgery and lymphoma associated with breast implants were included for analysis. Meta-analyses were performed and reviewed by experts selected by the American Association of Plastic Surgeons using a Delphi consensus method. Results: A total of 840 articles published between January of 2011 and January of 2023 were initially identified and screened. The full text of 188 articles was assessed. An additional 43 articles were excluded for focus, and 145 articles were included in the synthesis of results, with 105 of them being case reports or case series. The analysis encompassed a comprehensive examination of the selected articles to determine the incidence, risk factors, clinical presentation, diagnostic approaches, and treatment modalities related to BIA-ALCL. Conclusions: Plastic surgeons should be aware of the elevated risks by implant surface type, implement appropriate patient surveillance, and follow the recommendations outlined in this statement to ensure patient safety and optimize outcomes. Ongoing research on the pathogenesis, genetic drivers, and preventative and prophylactic measures for BIA-ALCL is crucial for improving patient care. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, V.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the systemic therapy options for patients with advanced RCC and summarize the new clinical data evaluated by the NCCN panel for the recommended therapies in Version 2.2024 of the NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer.

PURPOSE Improving care transitions for patients with cancer discharged from the hospital is considered an important component of quality care. Digital monitoring has the potential to better the delivery of transitional care through improved patient-provider communication and enhanced symptom management. However, remote patient monitoring (RPM) interventions have not been widely implemented for oncology patients after discharge, an innovative setting in which to apply this technology. METHODS We implemented a RPM intervention which identifies medical oncology patients at discharge, monitors their symptoms for 10 days, and intervenes as necessary to manage symptoms. We evaluated the feasibility (>50% patient engagement with symptom assessment), appropriateness (symptom alerts), and acceptability (net promoter score >0.7) of the intervention and the initial effect on acute care visits and return on investment. RESULTS During the study period, January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2022, we evaluated 2,257 medical oncology discharges representing 1,857 unique patients. We found that 65.9% of patients discharged (N = 1,489) completed at least one symptom assessment postdischarge and of them, 45.5% (n = 678) generated a severe symptom alert that we helped to manage. Patients expressed high satisfaction with the intervention with a net promoter score of 84%. In preliminary analysis of patients with GI malignancies (n = 449), we found a nonsignificant decrease in 30-day readmissions for the intervention cohort (n = 269) by 5.8% as compared with the control (n = 180; from 33.3% to 27.5%; P = .22). CONCLUSION Digital transitional care management was feasible and demonstrated that patients transitioning from the hospital to home have a substantial symptom burden. The intervention was associated with high patient satisfaction but will require further refinement and evaluation to increase its impact on 30-day readmission.

According to the World Health Organization, cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death among women worldwide, yet its magnitude is often underestimated. Biological and gender differences affect health, diagnosis, and healthcare in numerous ways. The lack of sex and gender awareness in health research and healthcare is an ongoing issue that affects not only research but also treatment and outcomes. The importance of recognizing the impacts of both sex and gender on health and of knowing the differences between the two in healthcare is beginning to gain ground. There is more appreciation of the roles that biological differences (sex) and sociocultural power structures (gender) have, and both sex and gender affect health behavior, the development of diseases, their diagnosis, management, and the long-term effects of an illness. An important issue is the knowledge and awareness of women about vascular diseases. The risk of cardiovascular events is drastically underestimated by women themselves, as well as by those around them. The purpose of this review is to draw attention to improving the medical care and treatment of women with vascular diseases.

AbstractBackgroundRoutine defibrillation threshold testing (DFT) of transvenous implantable defibrillators (ICDs) has largely been in decline. In patients with non‐transvenous ICDs that utilize subcutaneous and pleural ICD leads, serial DFT testing can detect a significant number of failures. Data about the utility of follow‐up defibrillation safety margin testing (DSM) testing in pediatric patients and young adults with an epicardial ICD are lacking.MethodsPatients aged < 25 years old who underwent epicardial ICD placement at Mayo Clinic from 2014 to 2023 with at least one follow‐up DSM test were included. The patients were divided into a “routine” (R) and “clinically indicated” (CI) group based on the index of clinical concern. Inadequate DSM was defined as unsuccessful defibrillation at an output of less than 10 J below the maximum output of the device. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of follow‐up DSM testing.ResultsAn epicardial ICD system was placed in 122 patients. A total of 26 patients met inclusion criteria and underwent a total of 47 DSM follow up tests. Inadequate DSM occurred in 1/33 (3%) in the R group and 2/14 (14%) DSM tests in the CI group. The median follow‐up period was 54 and 36 months for the R and CI group, respectively.ConclusionsOur data suggest that epicardial ICDs are reliable and routine follow‐up DSM testing may not be necessary for all patients. DSM testing should be performed in individuals with epicardial ICD systems when there is clinical concern about lead or coil performance.

Abstract A variety of terms, such as “antiepileptic,” “anticonvulsant,” and “antiseizure” have been historically applied to medications for the treatment of seizure disorders. Terminology is important because using terms that do not accurately reflect the action of specific treatments may result in a misunderstanding of their effects and inappropriate use. The present International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) position paper used a Delphi approach to develop recommendations on English‐language terminology applicable to pharmacological agents currently approved for treating seizure disorders. There was consensus that these medications should be collectively named “antiseizure medications”. This term accurately reflects their primarily symptomatic effect against seizures and reduces the possibility of health care practitioners, patients, or caregivers having undue expectations or an incorrect understanding of the real action of these medications. The term “antiseizure” to describe these agents does not exclude the possibility of beneficial effects on the course of the disease and comorbidities that result from the downstream effects of seizures, whenever these beneficial effects can be explained solely by the suppression of seizure activity. It is acknowledged that other treatments, mostly under development, can exert direct favorable actions on the underlying disease or its progression, by having “antiepileptogenic” or “disease‐modifying” effects. A more‐refined terminology to describe precisely these actions needs to be developed.