Citations

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BI-ALCL) is a rare T-cell lymphoma that arises around breast implants. Most patients manifest with periprosthetic effusion, whereas a subset of patients develops a tumor mass or lymph node involvement (LNI). The aim of this study is to describe the pathologic features of lymph nodes from patients with BI-ALCL and assess the prognostic impact of LNI. Clinical findings and histopathologic features of lymph nodes were assessed in 70 patients with BI-ALCL. LNI was defined by the histologic demonstration of ALCL in lymph nodes. Fourteen (20%) patients with BI-ALCL had LNI, all lymph nodes involved were regional, the most frequent were axillary (93%). The pattern of involvement was sinusoidal in 13 (92.9%) cases, often associated with perifollicular, interfollicular, and diffuse patterns. Two cases had Hodgkin-like patterns. The 5-year overall survival was 75% for patients with LNI and 97.9% for patients without LNI at presentation (P=0.003). Six of 49 (12.2%) of patients with tumor confined by the capsule had LNI, compared with LNI in 8/21 (38%) patients with tumor beyond the capsule. Most patients with LNI achieved complete remission after various therapeutic approaches. Two of 14 (14.3%) patients with LNI died of disease compared with 0/56 (0%) patients without LNI. Twenty percent of patients with BI-ALCL had LNI by lymphoma, most often in a sinusoidal pattern. We conclude that BI-ALCL beyond capsule is associated with a higher risk of LNI. Involvement of lymph nodes was associated with decreased overall survival. Misdiagnosis as Hodgkin lymphoma is a pitfall.

Purpose To identify common and overlapping themes among the interpersonal and communication skills (ICS), practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI), professionalism (PROF), and systems-based practice (SBP) milestones of the transitional year and 26 specialties. Method In May 2017, milestones were accessed from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education specialties website. A thematic analysis of the ICS, PBLI, PROF, and SBP milestones was performed to determine unique and common themes across these competencies and across specialties. Keywords from the common program requirements were initially applied as codes to the milestones. Codes were then grouped into common themes. Results Twenty-two themes were identified: 15 (68%) were unique to a given competency (3 related to ICS, 4 related to PBLI, 5 related to PROF, and 3 related to SBP), and 7 (32%) appeared in the milestones of more than one core competency. Eleven themes (50%) were used by 20 or more specialties, and 6 themes (27%) by 10 or fewer specialties. No theme was present across all specialties. Conclusions The ICS, PBLI, PROF, and SBP milestones contain multiple themes with areas of overlap among these four competencies and substantial variability across specialties. This variability may create differential expectations of residents across specialties, complicate faculty development, and make sharing assessment tools difficult. The thematic analysis provides important insights into how individual specialties interpret and operationalize the ICS, PBLI, PROF, and SBP competency domains and can inform future revisions of milestones to enable harmonization and shared understanding of these competencies across specialties where appropriate.

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.

Abstract Purpose: To determine the dose limiting toxicities (DLT), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of veliparib in combination with weekly topotecan in patients with solid tumors. Correlative studies were included to assess the impact of topotecan and veliparib on poly(ADP-ribose) levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, serum pharmacokinetics of both agents, and potential association of germline repair gene mutations with outcome. Experimental Design: Eligible patients had metastatic nonhematologic malignancies with measurable disease. Using a 3 + 3 design, patients were treated with veliparib orally twice daily on days 1–3, 8–10, and 15–17 and topotecan intravenously on days 2, 9, and 16 every 28 days. Tumor responses were assessed by RECIST. Results: Of 58 patients enrolled, 51 were evaluable for the primary endpoint. The MTD and RP2D was veliparib 300 mg twice daily on days 1–3, 8–10, and 15–17 along with topotecan 3 mg/m2 on days 2, 9, and 16 of a 28-day cycle. DLTs were grade 4 neutropenia lasting >5 days. The median number of cycles was 2 (1–26). The objective response rate was 10%, with 1 complete and 4 partial responses. Twenty-two patients (42%) had stable disease ranging from 4 to 26 cycles. Patients with germline BRCA1, BRCA2, or RAD51D mutations remained on study longer than those without homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene mutations (median 4 vs. 2 cycles). Conclusions: Weekly topotecan in combination with veliparib has a manageable safety profile and appears to warrant further investigation.

Background In US clinical practice, many patients who undergo placement of an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator ( ICD ) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death receive dual‐chamber devices. The superiority of dual‐chamber over single‐chamber devices in reducing the risk of inappropriate ICD shocks in clinical practice has not been established. The objective of this study was to compare risk of adverse outcomes, including inappropriate shocks, between single‐ and dual‐chamber ICD s for primary prevention. Methods and Results We identified patients receiving a single‐ or dual‐chamber ICD for primary prevention who did not have an indication for pacing from 15 hospitals within 7 integrated health delivery systems in the Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillators from 2006 to 2009. The primary outcome was time to first inappropriate shock. ICD shocks were adjudicated for appropriateness. Other outcomes included all‐cause hospitalization, heart failure hospitalization, and death. Patient, clinician, and hospital‐level factors were accounted for using propensity score weighting methods. Among 1042 patients without pacing indications, 54.0% (n=563) received a single‐chamber device and 46.0% (n=479) received a dual‐chamber device. In a propensity‐weighted analysis, device type was not significantly associated with inappropriate shock (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.59–1.38 [ P =0.65]), all‐cause hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.87–1.21 [ P =0.76]), heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.72–1.21 [ P =0.59]), or death (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.93–1.53 [ P =0.17]). Conclusions Among patients who received an ICD for primary prevention without indications for pacing, dual‐chamber devices were not associated with lower risk of inappropriate shock or differences in hospitalization or death compared with single‐chamber devices. This study does not justify the use of dual‐chamber devices to minimize inappropriate shocks.