Citations

OBJECTIVE Spinal stereotactic radiosurgery (SSRS) is an established treatment modality for spinal metastatic disease. A common complication of SSRS is postradiation pathologic fracture. The authors evaluated the risk of pathologic fracture in sacral SSRS. METHODS All patients receiving SSRS in 1 to 5 fractions to 1 or more sacral levels between 2011 and 2020 at participating institutions were included. Demographic, histological, anatomical, and outcome data were obtained from electronic medical records. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 28. RESULTS Of 67 total patients, 50 (74.6%) were men and 17 (25.4%) were women. The most common tumor histologies were prostate adenocarcinoma (n = 16 [23.9%]) and renal cell carcinoma (n = 12 [17.9%]). Median (range) age at treatment was 63 (8–87) years. The mean ± SD (range) number of levels treated was 1.5 ± 0.7 (1–4) levels. Mean ± SD (range) bone density at S1 was 208.0 ± 74.4 (−3.0 to 443.3) Hounsfield units (HUs). Median (range) follow-up was 16.6 (1.5–132) months, median ± SD (range) overall survival was 24 ± 21.0 (1.7–83.3) months, and the 1-year local control rate was 83.6%. Fourteen patients (20.9%) experienced fracture within the radiation field. There was no association between fracture and patient sex (p = 0.32), age (p = 0.40), S1 HU (p = 0.28), tumor location according to Denis classification (p = 0.87), presence of pain (p = 0.66), single versus multifraction radiation (p = 0.44), or number of levels treated (p = 0.52). Patients experiencing in-field progression were more likely to experience fracture (61.5% vs 10.2%, p < 0.001), and patients experiencing fracture had a higher average Spine Instability Neoplastic Score than patients without fracture (5.7 vs 4.3, p = 0.049). Only local control remained as a factor associated with sacral fracture in the multivariate analysis. Of the patients experiencing fracture, 10 (71.4%) were symptomatic and 3 of those (30.0%) underwent post-SSRS surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS Pathologic fracture may occur after sacral SSRS in a significant number of patients and is significantly associated with failure of local control.

INTRODUCTION Gastroesophageal reflux is common in respiratory disease, but the interplay between gastrointestinal mechanisms that expose individuals to reflux and potentially aspiration, and lung mechanics and function remain incompletely understood. Our aim was to investigate this in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) interstitial lung disease (non-IPF ILD), and compare with our published findings in IPF. METHODS Fifty-seven patients with COPD (aged: 34–75 years) and 64 with non-IPF ILD (22–75 years) who underwent high-resolution impedance manometry and 24-hour pH impedance together with pulmonary function assessment were compared with 35 IPF patients (51–84 years). RESULTS COPD patients were less likely to exhibit ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and/or absent contractility ( P = 0.009; P = 0.028), and tended to exhibit esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO) and/or hypercontractility ( P = 0.09, P = 0.14) than IPF and non-IPF ILD patients. Notably, integrated relaxation pressure correlated with esophageal length index (ELI) ( P = 0.048) and inspiratory LESP ( P = 0.003), with latter 2 correlating with each other ( P < 0.001). EGJOO patients tended to have fewer proximal reflux events and reduced pulmonary function, with the latter inversely correlating with ELI ( P < 0.05). Non-IPF ILD patients were less likely to exhibit EGJOO than COPD patients ( P = 0.27), and less likely to exhibit IEM ( P = 0.07) than IPF patients. However, those with IEM or EGJOO exhibited greater proportions of reflux events reaching the proximal esophagus than those with normal motility ( P < 0.03), which in contrast to IPF, seemed not to associate with worse pulmonary function. DISCUSSION Associations between esophageal motility, and lung mechanics and function, and consequently reflux, are very disease-specific.

Objective To compare the efficacy of abatacept to placebo for the treatment of relapsing, nonsevere granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA). Methods In this multicenter trial, eligible patients with relapsing, nonsevere GPA were randomized to receive abatacept 125 mg subcutaneously once a week or placebo, both together with prednisone 30 mg/day (or equivalent), tapered and discontinued at week 12. Patients already taking methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate, or leflunomide continued this medication at a stable dose. Patients achieving remission remained on their randomized assignment until relapse, early termination, or the common close date 12 months after enrollment of the last patient. Those who had a nonsevere relapse, had nonsevere worsening, or were not in remission by month 6 had the option to receive open‐label abatacept. The primary end point was the rate of treatment failure, defined as relapse, disease worsening, or failure to achieve a Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score for Wegener's Granulomatosis (BVAS/WG) of 0 or 1 by six months. Results Sixty‐five patients were randomized; 34 received abatacept and 31 received placebo. No statistical difference in the treatment failure rate was found between those who received abatacept and those who received placebo ( P = 0.853). Treatment with abatacept did not demonstrate any statistical difference from placebo in key secondary end points, including time to full remission (BVAS/WG = 0), duration of glucocorticoid‐free remission, relapse severity, prevention of damage, and patient‐reported quality‐of‐life outcomes. There was no difference in the frequency or severity of adverse events between treatment arms, including infection. Conclusion In patients with relapsing, nonsevere GPA, abatacept did not reduce the risk of relapse, severe worsening, or failure to achieve remission.

ABSTRACTObjectivesTo achieve consensus among expert laser surgeons on standards for the prevention and management of adverse events from fully ablative laser resurfacing of the face.Materials and MethodsDelphi study with two rounds of ratings and revisions until consensus was achieved. The draft set of statements was developed by a steering committee based on expert clinical experience. This was followed by two rounds of rating and revisions completed by an expert panel, then a virtual consensus meeting. In both rounds, respondents rated the draft statements on a 9‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 9 = strongly agree) and optionally provided comments. The consensus meeting was supplemented by the results of a systematic review of the literature (from 2000 to 2023).ResultsTwo rounds of Delphi survey were completed by 34 participants across four countries. Represented specialties were dermatology, facial plastic surgery, plastic surgery, and oculoplastic surgery. The initial 105 statements from round 1 expanded to 112 in round 2, with 96 statements achieving consensus. These included possible adverse events (11 statements); absolute and relative contraindications to treatment (5 statements); preoperative care and antimicrobial prophylaxis precautions (16 statements); intraoperative precautions (17 statements); postoperative care (21 statements); monitoring for and management of infection (16 statements); management of pigmentation changes (6 statements); and management of scarring and incipient scarring (4 statements).ConclusionAn international consensus statement was developed for the prevention and management of complications associated with fully ablative laser resurfacing of the face. While expert practices vary, key factors for optimizing outcomes include careful patient selection, counseling, and meticulous pre‐ and postoperative care. Further research will improve our understanding of this treatment technique.

Despite significant improvements in survival of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), outcomes remain heterogeneous, and a significant proportion of patients experience suboptimal outcomes. Importantly, traditional prognostic factors based on data from patients treated with older therapies no longer capture prognosis accurately in the contemporary era of novel triplet or quadruplet therapies. Therefore, risk stratification requires refinement in the context of available and investigational treatment options in routine practice and clinical trials, respectively. The current identification of high-risk MM (HRMM) in routine practice is based on the Revised International Staging System, which stratifies patients using a combination of widely available serum biomarkers and chromosomal abnormalities assessed via fluorescence in situ hybridization. In recent years, a substantial body of evidence concerning additional clinical, biological, and molecular/genomic prognostic factors has accumulated, along with new MM risk stratification tools and consensus reports. The International Myeloma Society, along with the International Myeloma Working Group, convened an Expert Panel with the primary aim of revisiting the definition of HRMM and formulating a practical and data-driven consensus definition, based on new evidence from molecular/genomic assays, updated clinical data, and contemporary risk stratification concepts. The Panel proposes the following Consensus Genomic Staging (CGS) of HRMM which relies upon the presence of at least one of these abnormalities: (1) del(17p), with a cutoff of >20% clonal fraction, and/or TP53 mutation; (2) an IgH translocation including t(4;14), t(14;16), or t(14;20) along with 1q+ and/or del(1p32); (3) monoallelic del(1p32) along with 1q+ or biallelic del(1p32); or (4) β2 microglobulin ≥5.5 mg/L with normal creatinine (<1.2 mg/dL).