Citations

Abstract Background Proctocolectomy with ileal pouch–anal anastomosis (IPAA) is the surgical procedure of choice for medically refractory ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis. While rare, a pouch volvulus can occur. We aimed to determine the frequency, presentation, and management approach of pouch volvulus in patients with IPAA. Methods A systematic search of published literature was performed by a medical reference librarian on 10 August 2018 and two independent reviewers identified relevant publications, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality based on a validated tool. A retrospective review of the Mayo Clinic electronic medical records identified one case of pouch volvulus between January 2008 and August 2018. Results The frequency of pouch volvulus from one large published study reporting long-term outcomes of IPAA was 0.18% (3/1,700). A total of 22 patients (18 ulcerative colitis) were included (median age 32 years, 73% females). Median time to volvulus after IPAA was 36 months while median interval to volvulus diagnosis from symptom onset was 24 hours. Abdominal pain was the most commonly reported symptom (76%). The diagnosis was made primarily by abdominal computed tomography (13/17 patients, 76%). Endoscopic treatment was successful in 1 of 11 patients (9%). Surgery was performed in 20 patients and pouch-pexy and pouch excision were the most frequent surgical operations. A redo IPAA was performed in five patients (25%). Conclusion Pouch volvulus is a rare but serious complication of IPAA and should be suspected even in the absence of obstruction symptoms. Endoscopic treatment often fails and surgery is effective when performed early.

Abstract Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter, Phase II trial using response-adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk at least T2N0 breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR) at surgery. The goal is to identify regimens that have ≥ 85% Bayesian predictive probability of success in a 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial defined by hormone-receptor (HR) and HER2 status, and MammaPrint (MP). Regimens may leave the trial for futility (< 10% probability of success), maximum sample size accrual (with probability of success ≥ 10% and < 85%), or as recommended by the independent DSMB. For HER2- subjects the control arm is weekly paclitaxel x12 then doxorubicin & cyclophosphamide (AC) q2-3 weeks x4. For this arm, paclitaxel was omitted and replaced with maximum tolerated dose PARPi talazoparib with synergy dosed irinotecan (25mg/m2). Paclitaxel could be given adjuvantly for these subjects and non-responding subjects could be taken off of experimental therapy. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm were eligible for screening. MP low/HR+ tumors were ineligible. MRI scans (baseline, 3 cycles after start of therapy, prior to AC, and prior to surgery) were used in a longitudinal statistical model to predict pCR for individual patients. Talazoparib was given at 1mg daily with 25mg/m2 irinotecan q2wks. Analysis was intention to treat. Subjects who switched to non-protocol therapy count as non-pCR. Subjects on experimental therapy at time of arm closure are non-evaluable. Talazoparib/irinotecan (TI) was open only to HER2- tumors and eligible for graduation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+HER2- and HR-/HER2-. Results: TI did not meet criteria for graduation and was stopped at the recommendation of the DSMB based on expectations of limited activity beyond that seen with standard treatment. Maximum sample size had been reached at the time of this recommendation and subjects currently receiving TI were allowed to continue or change to standard therapy. Exploratory “as treated” analysis for response in gBRCA mutation carriers showed 6/10 gBRCA carriers attained a pCR in the TI arm. Except for 1 patient these gBRCA pCR subjects had >90% tumor reduction by MRI after TI and prior to AC (range: 68-96%). In the TI arm pCR rates were also higher in subjects with a PARPi7-High/MP2 gene expression signature (0.344 vs 0.146). Expected differences in toxicity were seen between arms including g3/4 peripheral neuropathy on control therapy which included paclitaxel (2.6% vs none) and g3/4 neutropenia with TI (30.2% vs 8.2%). Notably gBRCA mutation carriers receiving TI had higher rates of g3/4 neutropenia (60% vs 25.9%). Conclusion: The I-SPY2 study finds the probability that investigational regimens will be successful in a Phase III neoadjuvant trial; TI did not reach the efficacy threshold of 85% probability of success in Phase III in any of the 3 signatures. However by adding talazoparib with synergy dosed irinotecan we were able to omit paclitaxel and observe similar estimated pCR rates. This informs current work to evolve the I-SPY2 trial design to reduce toxicity without compromising outcomes and develop successful combinations targeted to biology, including DNA repair deficiency. Citation Format: Richard Schwab, Amy S. Clark, Christina Yau, Nola Hylton, Wen Li, Denise Wolfe, A Jo Chien, Anne M. Wallace, Andres Forero-Torres, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Rita Nanda, Nora Jaskowiak, Judy Boughey, Tufia Haddad, Heather S. Han, Catherine Lee, Kathy Albain, Claudine Isaacs, Anthony D. Elias, Erin D. Ellis, Payal Shah, Julie E. Lang, Janice Lu, Debasish Tripathy, Kathleen Kemmer, Douglas Yee, Barbara Haley, Melanie Majure, Erin Roesch, Christos Vaklavas, Cheryl Ewing, Teresa Helsten, W Fraser Symmans, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S. Rugo, Michelle Melisko, Amy Wilson, Ruby Singhrao, Laura van 't Veer, Angela DeMichele, Smita Asare, Don Berry, Laura J. Esserman. Evaluation of talazoparib in combination with irinotecan in early stage, high-risk HER2 negative breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT136.

Abstract Background: Pembrolizumab (Pembro), an anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, has been approved for the treatment of a variety of cancers. Pembro was recently evaluated in HER2- breast cancer patients in the neoadjuvant I-SPY 2 TRIAL and graduated in the triple negative (TN), HR+HER2-, and HER2- signatures. TN breast cancers tend to have high numbers of immune infiltrates, including T cells and tumor associated macrophages (TAMs). We utilized multiplex multispectral imaging to evaluate the presence and spatial proximity of various immune cell populations as specific predictors of response to Pembro. Methods: Pre-treatment biopsies were available from 54 patients. FFPE sections were immunostained using Opal fluorescence reagent kits on a fully automated Ventana Discovery platform and imaged with a Vectra automated imaging system. Image analyses were performed with a variety of software packages. Immune biomarkers included CD3, CD8, FoxP3, CD68, PD-1, PD-L1, and cytokeratins. Cell densities were determined per area of tissue. Spatial analyses were performed to quantitate proximity of cell types. We used logistic regression with the likelihood ratio test to evaluate associations between pathologic complete response (pCR) with immune cell counts, ratios, and spatial proximity measurements. This analysis was also performed adjusting for HR status, and within receptor subsets, sample size permitting. Our statistics are descriptive rather than inferential and do not adjust for multiple hypothesis testing or multiplicities of other biomarkers outside this study. Results: Densities of CD3+ T cells ranged from 193-5155 cells/mm2, with CD8+ cytotoxic T cells (Tc) ranging from 103 to 3774 cells/mm2 and FoxP3+ Tregs from 0-416 cells/mm2. Densities of PD-1+ T cells and PD-1+ Tc cells ranged from 0-1341 cells/mm2 and 0-698 cells/mm2, respectively. Macrophage cell densities ranged from 84-2644 cells/mm2. PD-L1+ tumor cell densities ranged from 0-2981 cells/mm2. High PD-L1 expression (>=10% of tumor cells positive for PD-L1) was observed in 12% of the cases. Overall T cell density was positively associated with pathological complete response (pCR), as were Treg cell density and PD-1+ T cell density. The ratio of macrophages to Tc cells was negatively associated with response. Finally, the spatial distribution of CD3+ T cells in proximity to cancer cells correlated positively with pCR. Conclusion: Cell density, immune cell ratios and spatial resolution provide insight to response and resistance. We confirmed the observation that T cell density predicts pCR, but more specifically that Treg and PD1+ T cell densities increase the chance of pCR. An increase in macrophages relative to cytotoxic T cells predicts resistance. The closer the T cells are to the tumor, the better the response. These results demonstrate the utility of characterizing the immune microenvironment, in the context of therapy with immuno-oncology agents, not only to predict response, but to gain insight and learn now to potentiate agents and combinations. Citation Format: Michael J. Campbell, Christina Yau, Jennifer Bolen, Scott Vandenberg, Clifford Hoyt, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Gillian Hirst, Rita Nanda, Minetta Liu, Smita Asare, Laura van'tVeer, Douglas Yee, Angie DeMichele, Don Berry, Laura Esserman, I SPY 2 TRIAL Investigators. Analysis of immune cell infiltrates as predictors of response to the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab in the neoadjuvant I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT003.

Abstract Purpose: Delta-like protein 3 (DLL3) is being developed as a predictive biomarker to identify small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients for treatment with the DLL3-targeting antibody-drug conjugate rovalpituzumab tesirine (Rova-T). Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is an aggressive neuroendocrine carcinoma of the skin, associated with Merkel cell polyomavirus. Given the neuroendocrine features of SCLC and MCC, we sought to evaluate DLL3 expression, its association with common clinicopathological factors, and its prognostic role in MCC. Methods: A total of 65 formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded MCC cases were consecutively identified from an institutional biospecimen repository and were cut at 5 µm. Each case was stained for DLL3 protein with SC16.65 mouse monoclonal antibody at 3 µg/mL with the FLEX+ system (DAKO). Slides were then scanned at 20X with AT2 (Leica/Aperio) and read out for percentage of positive tumor cells with 1+, 2+, and 3+ intensity side-by-side with isotype control (IgG2a). Any subcellular staining pattern (membranous, cytoplasmic or punctate) was counted as overall positive. Polyomavirus status was determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) using an antibody that binds to MCPyV large T-antigen (sc-136172, Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc.). A generalized additive model was used to visualize the trend between common clinical factors and overall survival (OS). A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was applied to assess the association between DLL3 expression and OS. The association between DLL3 expression and other clinicopathological factors was evaluated with median and t tests. Results: A total of 67 patients were included with a median age of 74 years. Thirty-six (55%) had stage I/II disease; 29 (45%) had stage III/IV disease. Thirty-five (52%) patients died from MCC. Among the 65 cases with successful DLL3 stain, the median H-score of DLL3 expression was 60 (interquartile range: 30-100). Fifty-eight cases (89%) had ≥1% tumor cells positive for DLL3 expression with any intensity, of which the median DLL3 expression was 50% (interquartile range: 25-70%). Thirty-four cases (52%) had ≥50% tumor cells positive for DLL3 expression with any intensity. Older age significantly predicted shorter overall survival (p = 0.03). However, higher AJCC stage did not predict shorter OS (p = 0.3). H-score of DLL3 expression was not associated with AJCC stages (p = 0.4). However, higher H-score of DLL3 expression was associated with higher polyomavirus nuclear expression (p = 0.02) when it was dichotomized to 0/1+ and 2+/3+. In a multivariable Cox regression analysis, H-score of DLL3 expression did not predict OS of patients with MCC (p = 0.8). Conclusions: DLL3 overexpression is very common in MCC by IHC. DLL3 expression was significantly associated with Merkel cell polyomavirus expression but was not prognostic for OS in this cohort. The high levels of DLL3 expression in a subset of MCC may potentially be used to select patients to receive Rova-T. Citation Format: Hao Xie, Kumiko Isse, Yan Sun, Johanna Ramoth, Dorothy M. French, Laura R. Saunders, Aaron S. Mansfield. Delta-like protein 3 expression in Merkel cell carcinoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 3171.

Abstract Background: Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), generally considered aggressive with few options beyond standard chemotherapy, is currently experiencing a period of optimism, with multiple trials showing increased efficacy of platinum containing regimens (with and without PARP-inhibition), and more recently, immunotherapy. In I-SPY 2, veliparib/carboplatin (VC) and the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Pembro) graduated in the TN subtype. As part of the I-SPY 2 biomarker program, we previously identified the signature PARPi7, a measure of DNA repair deficiency (DRD), as predicting response to VC. As well, immune signatures, including one representing dendritic cells, predicted response to Pembro. Here we investigate the overlap between these biomarkers to identify patient subgroups more likely to respond to immunotherapy or platinum-based therapy and estimate response rates to VC and Pembro in patients positive for one, both, or neither biomarker. Methods: 153 TNBC patients (Control: 85; VC: 39; Pembro: 29) were considered in this analysis. Continuous DNA repair deficiency and immune signatures assayed at the pre-treatment time point were evaluated as published (Wolf, 2017; Danaher, 2017). To identify optimal dichotomizing thresholds, 2-fold cross-validation was repeated 500 times. Bayesian logistic regression was used to estimate pCR rates by arm for patient subsets defined by biomarker combinations. Our study is exploratory with no claims for generalizability; and this analysis does not adjust for multiplicities. Results: Using the optimal dichotomizing cutpoints, 54% of TNBC patients are classified as DRD+, and 67% Immune+. As expected, DRD+ patients have a high estimated pCR rate to VC (75%); and Immune+ patients have a high estimated pCR rate to Pembro (82%). Combining these biomarkers, 40% of TNBC are positive for both biomarkers, 40% for only one biomarker (26% Immune+/DRD-, 14% Immune-/DRD+), and 20% for neither. The Immune+/DRD+ TN subset predicted sensitive to both VC and Pembro has a higher estimated pCR rate to both VC and Pembro relative to control (estimated pCR rates: VC: 75%, Pembro: 73% vs. control: 18%). In contrast, the Immune+/DRD- group, predicted to be sensitive to Pembro, has the highest pCR rate to Pembro (VC: 48%, Pembro: 83% vs. control 21%), whereas the Immune-/DRD+ group is most responsive to VC (VC: 63%, Pembro: 41% vs. control 29%). For the 20% of Immune-/DRD- TNBC patients, their estimated response rates are lower than the biomarker-positive patients (VC: 27%, Pembro: 43% vs. control: 19%). Conclusion: Molecular phenotypes capturing immune activation and DNA repair deficiency may predict response of TNBC and help prioritize selection of platinum or immunotherapy containing regimens. Citation Format: Denise M. Wolf, Christina Yau, Julia Wulfkuhle, Emanuel Petricoin, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Gillian Hirst, Smita Asare, I-SPY 2 Consortium, Douglas Yee, Angela DeMichele, Hope Rugo, Olufunmilayo Olopade, Rita Nanda, Minetta Liu, Laura Esserman, Laura van t' Veer. Integration of DNA repair deficiency and immune biomarkers to predict which early-stage triple-negative breast cancer patients are likely to respond to platinum-containing regimens vs. immunotherapy: The neoadjuvant I-SPY 2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 2679.

Background and aims: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) will become increasingly important as primary endpoints in future clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the combination of patient-reported clinical symptoms (ClinPRO2) and Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods: We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study of 90 consecutive UC patients who were scheduled for sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. All patients completed the following questionnaires: (1) self-rated rectal bleeding and stool frequency (ClinPRO2); (2) Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (SIBDQ); (3) European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 3-Level (EQ5D3L); (4) Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire (WPAI); (5) Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F); and (6) Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The endoscopic images were graded according to the MES. “No symptoms” was defined as a symptom score of 0, and “mucosal healing” was defined as MES score of 0–1. Correlations between the combined ClinPRO2 and MES with HRQoL were assessed using Spearman’s correlation coefficients. Results: The combination of the ClinPRO2 and MES was well correlated to SIBDQ (r = −0.70), EQ5D3L (r = −0.51), WPAI (r = 0.62), FACIT-F (r = −0.58), and HADS-depression (r = 0.45). SIBDQ scores had strong correlations with FACIT-F (r = 0.86), WPAI (r = −0.80), and HADS-depression (r = −0.75) (p < 0.05 for all correlations). Patients with no symptoms reported the greatest all HRQoL scores. Conclusions: In patients with ulcerative colitis, the combination of a ClinPRO2 and the MES had good correlation with the SIBDQ. In addition, SIBDQ was well correlated to the various HRQoL.

Hundreds of medications commonly prescribed for anticancer treatments and some infections are known to cause hearing damage, referred to as ototoxicity. Preventing or minimizing ototoxicity is critical in order to preserve quality of life for patients receiving treatment and to reduce the societal burden of hearing loss. Current clinical evaluations are restricted to a limited frequency range (≤8 kHz); however, this approach does not permit the earliest detection of ototoxicity, most likely to be observed at the highest frequencies (9–20 kHz). Distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) offer a noninvasive, objective approach to monitor cochlear health in those unable to respond via conventional methods. The current report analyzes different DPOAE paradigms used in patients undergoing chemotherapy treatments with various platinum derivatives. Individualized serial monitoring protocols were completed at the highest frequencies with measurable DPOAEs. This allowed the exploration of potential clinical translation opportunities for further quantification of the earliest signs of underlying cochlear damage, which may go undetected with conventional methods. Clinical practice has the potential to be enhanced by emerging DPOAE applications, including targeted monitoring protocols and high-frequency stimuli to assess cochlear function, especially at the highest frequencies, and advanced calibration techniques to ensure the stability of serial measurements.

Objective Sudden hearing loss is a frightening symptom that often prompts an urgent or emergent visit to a health care provider. It is frequently, but not universally, accompanied by tinnitus and/or vertigo. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss affects 5 to 27 per 100,000 people annually, with about 66,000 new cases per year in the United States. This guideline update provides evidence‐based recommendations for the diagnosis, management, and follow‐up of patients who present with sudden hearing loss. It focuses on sudden sensorineural hearing loss in adult patients aged 18 and over and primarily on those with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Prompt recognition and management of sudden sensorineural hearing loss may improve hearing recovery and patient quality of life. The guideline update is intended for all clinicians who diagnose or manage adult patients who present with sudden hearing loss. Purpose The purpose of this guideline update is to provide clinicians with evidence‐based recommendations in evaluating patients with sudden hearing loss and sudden sensorineural hearing loss, with particular emphasis on managing idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The guideline update group recognized that patients enter the health care system with sudden hearing loss as a nonspecific primary complaint. Therefore, the initial recommendations of this guideline update address distinguishing sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss at the time of presentation with hearing loss. They also clarify the need to identify rare, nonidiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss to help separate those patients from those with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss, who are the target population for the therapeutic interventions that make up the bulk of the guideline update. By focusing on opportunities for quality improvement, this guideline should improve diagnostic accuracy, facilitate prompt intervention, decrease variations in management, reduce unnecessary tests and imaging procedures, and improve hearing and rehabilitative outcomes for affected patients. Methods Consistent with the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation’s Clinical Practice Guideline Development Manual, Third Edition , the guideline update group was convened with representation from the disciplines of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery, otology, neurotology, family medicine, audiology, emergency medicine, neurology, radiology, advanced practice nursing, and consumer advocacy. A systematic review of the literature was performed, and the prior clinical practice guideline on sudden hearing loss was reviewed in detail. Key action statements (KASs) were updated with new literature, and evidence profiles were brought up to the current standard. Research needs identified in the original clinical practice guideline and data addressing them were reviewed. Current research needs were identified and delineated. Results The guideline update group made strong recommendations for the following: clinicians should distinguish sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss when a patient first presents with sudden hearing loss (KAS 1); clinicians should educate patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss about the natural history of the condition, the benefits and risks of medical interventions, and the limitations of existing evidence regarding efficacy (KAS 7); and clinicians should counsel patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss who have residual hearing loss and/or tinnitus about the possible benefits of audiological rehabilitation and other supportive measures (KAS 13). These strong recommendations were modified from the initial clinical practice guideline for clarity and timing of intervention. The guideline update group made strong recommendation against the following: clinicians should not order routine computed tomography of the head in the initial evaluation of a patient with presumptive sudden sensorineural hearing loss (KAS 3); clinicians should not obtain routine laboratory tests in patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss (KAS 5); and clinicians should not routinely prescribe antivirals, thrombolytics, vasodilators, or vasoactive substances to patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss (KAS 11). The guideline update group made recommendations for the following: clinicians should assess patients with presumptive sudden sensorineural hearing loss through history and physical examination for bilateral sudden hearing loss, recurrent episodes of sudden hearing loss, and/or focal neurologic findings (KAS 2); in patients with sudden hearing loss, clinicians should obtain, or refer to a clinician who can obtain, audiometry as soon as possible (within 14 days of symptom onset) to confirm the diagnosis of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (KAS 4); clinicians should evaluate patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss for retrocochlear pathology by obtaining a magnetic resonance imaging or auditory brainstem response (KAS 6); clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, intratympanic steroid therapy when patients have incomplete recovery from sudden sensorineural hearing loss 2 to 6 weeks after onset of symptoms (KAS 10); and clinicians should obtain follow‐up audiometric evaluation for patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss at the conclusion of treatment and within 6 months of completion of treatment (KAS 12). These recommendations were clarified in terms of timing of intervention and audiometry, as well as method of retrocochlear workup. The guideline update group offered the following KASs as options: clinicians may offer corticosteroids as initial therapy to patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss within 2 weeks of symptom onset (KAS 8); clinicians may offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, hyperbaric oxygen therapy combined with steroid therapy within 2 weeks of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (KAS 9a); and clinicians may offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, hyperbaric oxygen therapy combined with steroid therapy as salvage therapy within 1 month of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (KAS 9b). Differences from Prior Guideline Incorporation of new evidence profiles to include quality improvement opportunities, confidence in the evidence, and differences of opinion Included 10 clinical practice guidelines, 29 new systematic reviews, and 36 new randomized controlled trials Highlights the urgency of evaluation and initiation of treatment, if treatment is offered, by emphasizing the time from symptom occurrence Clarification of terminology by changing potentially unclear statements; use of the term sudden sensorineural hearing loss to mean idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss to emphasize that over 90% of sudden sensorineural hearing loss is idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss and to avoid confusion in nomenclature for the reader Changes to the key action statements (KASs) from the original guideline: KAS 1: When a patient first presents with sudden hearing loss, conductive hearing loss should be distinguished from sensorineural. KAS 2: The utility of history and physical examination when assessing for modifying factors is emphasized. KAS 3: The word routine is added to clarify that this statement addresses a nontargeted head computed tomography scan that is often ordered in the emergency room setting for patients presenting with sudden hearing loss. It does not refer to targeted scans such as a temporal bone computed tomography scan to assess for temporal bone pathology. KAS 4: The importance of audiometric confirmation of hearing status as soon as possible and within 14 days of symptom onset is emphasized. KAS 5: New studies were added to confirm the lack of benefit of nontargeted laboratory testing in sudden sensorineural hearing loss. KAS 6: Audiometric follow‐up is excluded as a reasonable workup for retrocochlear pathology. Magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography scan if magnetic resonance imaging cannot be done, or, secondarily, auditory brainstem response evaluation are the modalities recommended. A time frame for such testing is not specified, nor is it specified which clinician should be ordering this workup; however, it is implied that it would be the general or subspecialty otolaryngologist. KAS 7: The importance of shared decision making is highlighted, and salient points are emphasized. KAS 8: The option for corticosteroid intervention within 2 weeks of symptom onset is emphasized. KAS 9: Changed to KAS 9a and 9b; hyperbaric oxygen therapy remains an option but only when combined with steroid therapy for either initial treatment (9a) or for salvage therapy (9b). The timing is within 2 weeks of onset for initial therapy and within 1 month of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss for salvage therapy. KAS 10: Intratympanic steroid therapy for salvage is recommended within 2 to 6 weeks following onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The time to treatment is defined and emphasized. KAS 11: Antioxidants were removed from the list of interventions that the clinical practice guideline recommends against using. KAS 12: Follow‐up audiometry at conclusion of treatment and also within 6 months posttreatment is added. KAS 13: This statement on audiologic rehabilitation includes patients who have residual hearing loss and/or tinnitus who may benefit from treatment. Addition of an algorithm outlining KASs Enhanced emphasis on patient education and shared decision making with tools provided to assist in the same

Objective Sudden hearing loss is a frightening symptom that often prompts an urgent or emergent visit to a health care provider. It is frequently but not universally accompanied by tinnitus and/or vertigo. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss affects 5 to 27 per 100,000 people annually, with about 66,000 new cases per year in the United States. This guideline update provides evidence‐based recommendations for the diagnosis, management, and follow‐up of patients who present with sudden hearing loss. It focuses on sudden sensorineural hearing loss in adult patients aged ≥18 years and primarily on those with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Prompt recognition and management of sudden sensorineural hearing loss may improve hearing recovery and patient quality of life. The guideline update is intended for all clinicians who diagnose or manage adult patients who present with sudden hearing loss. Purpose The purpose of this guideline update is to provide clinicians with evidence‐based recommendations in evaluating patients with sudden hearing loss and sudden sensorineural hearing loss, with particular emphasis on managing idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The guideline update group recognized that patients enter the health care system with sudden hearing loss as a nonspecific primary complaint. Therefore, the initial recommendations of this guideline update address distinguishing sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss at the time of presentation with hearing loss. They also clarify the need to identify rare, nonidiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss to help separate those patients from those with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss, who are the target population for the therapeutic interventions that make up the bulk of the guideline update. By focusing on opportunities for quality improvement, this guideline should improve diagnostic accuracy, facilitate prompt intervention, decrease variations in management, reduce unnecessary tests and imaging procedures, and improve hearing and rehabilitative outcomes for affected patients. Methods Consistent with the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation's “Clinical Practice Guideline Development Manual, Third Edition” (Rosenfeld et al. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg . 2013;148[1]:S1‐S55), the guideline update group was convened with representation from the disciplines of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery, otology, neurotology, family medicine, audiology, emergency medicine, neurology, radiology, advanced practice nursing, and consumer advocacy. A systematic review of the literature was performed, and the prior clinical practice guideline on sudden hearing loss was reviewed in detail. Key Action Statements (KASs) were updated with new literature, and evidence profiles were brought up to the current standard. Research needs identified in the original clinical practice guideline and data addressing them were reviewed. Current research needs were identified and delineated. Results The guideline update group made strong recommendations for the following: (KAS 1) Clinicians should distinguish sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss when a patient first presents with sudden hearing loss. (KAS 7) Clinicians should educate patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss about the natural history of the condition, the benefits and risks of medical interventions, and the limitations of existing evidence regarding efficacy. (KAS 13) Clinicians should counsel patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss who have residual hearing loss and/or tinnitus about the possible benefits of audiologic rehabilitation and other supportive measures. These strong recommendations were modified from the initial clinical practice guideline for clarity and timing of intervention. The guideline update group made strong recommendations against the following: (KAS 3) Clinicians should not order routine computed tomography of the head in the initial evaluation of a patient with presumptive sudden sensorineural hearing loss. (KAS 5) Clinicians should not obtain routine laboratory tests in patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss. (KAS 11) Clinicians should not routinely prescribe antivirals, thrombolytics, vasodilators, or vasoactive substances to patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The guideline update group made recommendations for the following: (KAS 2) Clinicians should assess patients with presumptive sudden sensorineural hearing loss through history and physical examination for bilateral sudden hearing loss, recurrent episodes of sudden hearing loss, and/or focal neurologic findings. (KAS 4) In patients with sudden hearing loss, clinicians should obtain, or refer to a clinician who can obtain, audiometry as soon as possible (within 14 days of symptom onset) to confirm the diagnosis of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. (KAS 6) Clinicians should evaluate patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss for retrocochlear pathology by obtaining magnetic resonance imaging or auditory brainstem response. (KAS 10) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, intratympanic steroid therapy when patients have incomplete recovery from sudden sensorineural hearing loss 2 to 6 weeks after onset of symptoms. (KAS 12) Clinicians should obtain follow‐up audiometric evaluation for patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss at the conclusion of treatment and within 6 months of completion of treatment. These recommendations were clarified in terms of timing of intervention and audiometry and method of retrocochlear workup. The guideline update group offered the following KASs as options : (KAS 8) Clinicians may offer corticosteroids as initial therapy to patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss within 2 weeks of symptom onset. (KAS 9a) Clinicians may offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, hyperbaric oxygen therapy combined with steroid therapy within 2 weeks of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. (KAS 9b) Clinicians may offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, hyperbaric oxygen therapy combined with steroid therapy as salvage therapy within 1 month of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Differences from Prior Guideline Incorporation of new evidence profiles to include quality improvement opportunities, confidence in the evidence, and differences of opinion Included 10 clinical practice guidelines, 29 new systematic reviews, and 36 new randomized controlled trials Highlights the urgency of evaluation and initiation of treatment, if treatment is offered, by emphasizing the time from symptom occurrence Clarification of terminology by changing potentially unclear statements; use of the term sudden sensorineural hearing loss to mean idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss to emphasize that >90% of sudden sensorineural hearing loss is idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss and to avoid confusion in nomenclature for the reader Changes to the KASs from the original guideline: KAS 1—When a patient first presents with sudden hearing loss, conductive hearing loss should be distinguished from sensorineural. KAS 2—The utility of history and physical examination when assessing for modifying factors is emphasized. KAS 3—The word “routine” is added to clarify that this statement addresses nontargeted head computerized tomography scan that is often ordered in the emergency room setting for patients presenting with sudden hearing loss. It does not refer to targeted scans, such as temporal bone computerized tomography scan, to assess for temporal bone pathology. KAS 4—The importance of audiometric confirmation of hearing status as soon as possible and within 14 days of symptom onset is emphasized. KAS 5—New studies were added to confirm the lack of benefit of nontargeted laboratory testing in sudden sensorineural hearing loss. KAS 6—Audiometric follow‐up is excluded as a reasonable workup for retrocochlear pathology. Magnetic resonance imaging, computerized tomography scan if magnetic resonance imaging cannot be done, and, secondarily, auditory brainstem response evaluation are the modalities recommended. A time frame for such testing is not specified, nor is it specified which clinician should be ordering this workup; however, it is implied that it would be the general or subspecialty otolaryngologist. KAS 7—The importance of shared decision making is highlighted, and salient points are emphasized. KAS 8—The option for corticosteroid intervention within 2 weeks of symptom onset is emphasized. KAS 9—Changed to KAS 9A and 9B. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy remains an option but only when combined with steroid therapy for either initial treatment (9A) or salvage therapy (9B). The timing of initial therapy is within 2 weeks of onset, and that of salvage therapy is within 1 month of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. KAS 10—Intratympanic steroid therapy for salvage is recommended within 2 to 6 weeks following onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The time to treatment is defined and emphasized. KAS 11—Antioxidants were removed from the list of interventions that the clinical practice guideline recommends against using. KAS 12—Follow‐up audiometry at conclusion of treatment and also within 6 months posttreatment is added. KAS 13—This statement on audiologic rehabilitation includes patients who have residual hearing loss and/or tinnitus who may benefit from treatment. Addition of an algorithm outlining KASs Enhanced emphasis on patient education and shared decision making with tools provided to assist in same