Citations

AbstractObjective:To develop clinical practice guidelines for the management of patients with primary aldosteronism.Participants:The Task Force included a chair, selected by the Clinical Guidelines Subcommittee of the Endocrine Society, six additional experts, a methodologist, and a medical writer. The guideline was cosponsored by American Heart Association, American Association of Endocrine Surgeons, European Society of Endocrinology, European Society of Hypertension, International Association of Endocrine Surgeons, International Society of Endocrinology, International Society of Hypertension, Japan Endocrine Society, and The Japanese Society of Hypertension. The Task Force received no corporate funding or remuneration.Evidence:We searched for systematic reviews and primary studies to formulate the key treatment and prevention recommendations. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation group criteria to describe both the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. We used “recommend” for strong recommendations and “suggest” for weak recommendations.Consensus Process:We achieved consensus by collecting the best available evidence and conducting one group meeting, several conference calls, and multiple e-mail communications. With the help of a medical writer, the Endocrine Society's Clinical Guidelines Subcommittee, Clinical Affairs Core Committee, and Council successfully reviewed the drafts prepared by the Task Force. We placed the version approved by the Clinical Guidelines Subcommittee and Clinical Affairs Core Committee on the Endocrine Society's website for comments by members. At each stage of review, the Task Force received written comments and incorporated necessary changes.Conclusions:For high-risk groups of hypertensive patients and those with hypokalemia, we recommend case detection of primary aldosteronism by determining the aldosterone-renin ratio under standard conditions and recommend that a commonly used confirmatory test should confirm/exclude the condition. We recommend that all patients with primary aldosteronism undergo adrenal computed tomography as the initial study in subtype testing and to exclude adrenocortical carcinoma. We recommend that an experienced radiologist should establish/exclude unilateral primary aldosteronism using bilateral adrenal venous sampling, and if confirmed, this should optimally be treated by laparoscopic adrenalectomy. We recommend that patients with bilateral adrenal hyperplasia or those unsuitable for surgery should be treated primarily with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist.

AbstractBackgroundThe optimal treatment for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection in adult immunocompromised patients is unknown. We assessed the management of RSV and other non‐influenza respiratory viruses in Midwestern transplant centers.MethodsA survey assessing strategies for RSV and other non‐influenza respiratory viral infections was sent to 13 centers.ResultsMultiplex polymerase chain reaction assay was used for diagnosis in 11/12 centers. Eight of 12 centers used inhaled ribavirin (RBV) in some patient populations. Barriers included cost, safety, lack of evidence, and inconvenience. Six of 12 used intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), mostly in combination with RBV. Inhaled RBV was used more than oral, and in the post‐stem cell transplant population, patients with lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI), graft‐versus‐host disease, and more recent transplantation were treated at higher rates. Ten centers had experience with lung transplant patients; all used either oral or inhaled RBV for LRTI, 6/10 treated upper respiratory tract infection (URTI). No center treated non‐lung solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with URTI; 7/11 would use oral or inhaled RBV in the same group with LRTI. Patients with hematologic malignancy without hematopoietic stem cell transplantation were treated with RBV at a similar frequency to non‐lung SOT recipients. Three of 12 centers, in severe cases, treated parainfluenza and metapneumovirus, and 1/12 treated coronavirus.ConclusionsTreatment of RSV in immunocompromised patients varied greatly. While most centers treat LRTI, treatment of URTI was variable. No consensus was found regarding the use of oral versus inhaled RBV, or the use of IVIG. The presence of such heterogeneity demonstrates the need for further studies defining optimal treatment of RSV in immunocompromised hosts.

AbstractAimSurgery aims to prevent cancer‐related morbidity for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) associated dysplasia. The literature varies widely regarding the likelihood of dysplastic progression to higher grades of dysplasia or cancer. The aim of this study was to characterize the likelihood of the development of colorectal cancer (CRC) of patients with UC‐associated dysplasia who chose to defer surgery.MethodA retrospective review was carried out of patients undergoing surgery for UC at the Mayo Clinic, who were diagnosed to have dysplasia between August 1993 and July 2012. The relationships between grade of dysplasia, time to surgery and the detection of unsuspected carcinoma were investigated.ResultsIn all, 175 patients underwent surgery at a median of 4.9 (interquartile range 2.5–8.9) months after a diagnosis of dysplasia. Their median age was 52 (interquartile range 43−59) years. An initial diagnosis of indeterminate dysplasia was not associated with CRC [0/23; 17.7 (8.1−29.6) months]. Thirty‐six patients who had an initial diagnosis of dysplasia progressed from indeterminate to low‐grade dysplasia [24.2 (11.0−30.4) months]. Low‐grade dysplasia was associated with a 2% (1/56; T2N0M0) risk of CRC when present in random surveillance biopsies and a 3% (2/61; T1N0M0, T4N0M0) risk if detected in endoscopically visible lesions [7.4 (5.2−33.3) months]. Eighteen patients progressed from indeterminate to high‐grade dysplasia [19.1 (9.2−133.9) months]. Seventeen patients progressed from low to high‐grade dysplasia [11.0 (5.8−30.1) months]. None of the patients with high‐grade dysplasia (0/35) progressed to CRC [4.5 (1.7−9.9) months].ConclusionDysplasia was associated with a low incidence of node negative CRC if surgery was deferred for up to 5 years. These findings may help inform the decision‐making process for asymptomatic patients who are having to decide between intensive surveillance or surgery for UC‐associated dysplasia.

BACKGROUNDThe objective of the current study was to establish a process for validating immunohistochemistry (IHC) protocols for use on the Cellient cell block (CCB) system.METHODSThirty antibodies were initially tested on CCBs using IHC protocols previously validated on formalin‐fixed, paraffin‐embedded tissue (FFPE). Cytology samples were split to generate thrombin cell blocks (TCB) and CCBs. IHC was performed in parallel. Antibody immunoreactivity was scored, and concordance or discordance in immunoreactivity between the TCBs and CCBs for each sample was determined. Criteria for validation of an antibody were defined as concordant staining in expected positive and negative cells, in at least 5 samples each, and concordance in at least 90% of the samples total. Antibodies that failed initial validation were retested after alterations in IHC conditions.RESULTSThirteen of the 30 antibodies (43%) did not meet initial validation criteria. Of those, 8 antibodies (calretinin, clusters of differentiation [CD] 3, CD20, CDX2, cytokeratin 20, estrogen receptor, MOC‐31, and p16) were optimized for CCBs and subsequently validated. Despite several alterations in conditions, 3 antibodies (Ber‐EP4, D2‐40, and paired box gene 8 [PAX8]) were not successfully validated.CONCLUSIONSNearly one‐half of the antibodies tested in the current study failed initial validation using IHC conditions that were established in the study laboratory for FFPE material. Although some antibodies subsequently met validation criteria after optimization of conditions, a few continued to demonstrate inadequate immunoreactivity. These findings emphasize the importance of validating IHC protocols for methanol‐fixed tissue before clinical use and suggest that optimization for alcohol fixation may be needed to obtain adequate immunoreactivity on CCBs. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2016;124:89‐99. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer have not attained the same improvements in overall survival as either younger children or older adults. One possible reason for this disparity may be that the AYA cancers exhibit unique biologic characteristics, resulting in differences in clinical and treatment resistance behaviors. This report from the biologic component of the jointly sponsored National Cancer Institute and LiveStrong Foundation workshop entitled “Next Steps in Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology” summarizes the current status of biologic and translational research progress for 5 AYA cancers; colorectal cancer breast cancer, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, melanoma, and sarcoma. Conclusions from this meeting included the need for basic biologic, genomic, and model development for AYA cancers as well as translational research studies to elucidate any fundamental differences between pediatric, AYA, and adult cancers. The biologic questions for future research are whether there are mutational or signaling pathway differences (for example, between adult and AYA colorectal cancer) that can be clinically exploited to develop novel therapies for treating AYA cancers and to develop companion diagnostics. Cancer 2016;122:1017–1028. © 2016 American Cancer Society

BACKGROUNDAlthough colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines recommend initiating screening at age 50 years, the percentage of cancer cases in younger patients is increasing. To the authors' knowledge, the national treatment patterns and outcomes of these patients are largely unknown.METHODSThe current study was a population‐based, retrospective cohort study of the nationally representative Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry for patients diagnosed with CRC from 1998 through 2011. Patients were categorized as being younger or older than the recommended screening age. Differences with regard to stage of disease at diagnosis, patterns of therapy, and disease‐specific survival were compared between age groups using multinomial regression, multiple regression, Cox proportional hazards regression, and Weibull survival analysis.RESULTSOf 258,024 patients with CRC, 37,847 (15%) were aged <50 years. Young patients were more likely to present with regional (relative risk ratio, 1.3; P<.001) or distant (relative risk ratio, 1.5; P<.001) disease. Patients with CRC with distant metastasis in the younger age group were more likely to receive surgical therapy for their primary tumor (adjusted probability: 72% vs 63%; P<.001), and radiotherapy also was more likely in younger patients with CRC (adjusted probability: 53% vs 48%; P<.001). Patients younger than the recommended screening age had better overall disease‐specific survival (hazards ratio, 0.77; P<.001), despite a larger percentage of these individuals presenting with advanced disease.CONCLUSIONSPatients with CRC diagnosed at age <50 years are more likely to present with advanced‐stage disease. However, they receive more aggressive therapy and achieve longer disease‐specific survival, despite the greater percentage of patients with advanced‐stage disease. These findings suggest the need for improved risk assessment and screening decisions for younger adults. Cancer 2016;122:929–34. © 2016 American Cancer Society.