Citations

Objectives: Noise pollution in pediatric intensive care units (PICU) contributes to poor sleep and may increase risk of developing delirium. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends <45 decibels (dB) in hospital environments. The objectives are to assess the degree of PICU noise pollution, to develop a delirium bundle targeted at reducing noise, and to assess the effect of the bundle on nocturnal noise pollution. Methods: This is a QI initiative at an academic PICU. Thirty-five sound sensors were installed in patient bed spaces, hallways, and common areas. The pediatric delirium bundle was implemented in 8 pilot patients (40 patient ICU days) while 108 non-pilot patients received usual care over a 28-day period. Results: A total of 20,609 hourly dB readings were collected. Hourly minimum, average, and maximum dB of all occupied bed spaces demonstrated medians [interquartile range] of 48.0 [39.0-53.0], 52.8 [48.1-56.2] and 67.0 [63.5-70.5] dB, respectively. Bed spaces were louder during the day (10AM to 4PM) than at night (11PM to 5AM) (53.5 [49.0-56.8] vs. 51.3 [46.0-55.3] dB, P < 0.01). Pilot patient rooms were significantly quieter than non-pilot patient rooms at night (n=210, 45.3 [39.7-55.9]) vs. n=1841, 51.2 [46.9-54.8] dB, P < 0.01). The pilot rooms compliant with the bundle had the lowest hourly nighttime average dB (44.1 [38.5-55.5]). Conclusions: Substantial noise pollution exists in our PICU, and utilizing the pediatric delirium bundle led to a significant noise reduction that can be perceived as half the loudness with hourly nighttime average dB meeting the EPA standards when compliant with the bundle.

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are listed for liver transplantation (LT) are often treated while on the waiting list with locoregional therapy (LRT), which is aimed at either preventing progression of HCC or reducing the measurable disease burden of HCC in order to receive increased allocation priority. We aimed to synthesize evidence regarding the effectiveness of LRT in the management of patients with HCC who were on the LT waitlist. We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases from 1996 to April 25, 2016, for studies that enrolled adults with cirrhosis awaiting LT and treated with bridging or down‐staging therapies before LT. Therapies included transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, transarterial radioembolization, ablation, and radiotherapy. We included both comparative and noncomparative studies. There were no randomized controlled trials identified. For adults with T1 HCC and waiting for LT, there were only two nonrandomized comparative studies, both with a high risk of bias, which reported the outcome of interest. In one series, the rate of dropout from all causes at 6 months in T1 HCC patients who underwent LRT was 5.3%, while in the other series of T1 HCC patients who did not receive LRT, the dropout rate at median follow‐up of 2.4 years and the progression rate to T2 HCC were 30% and 88%, respectively. For adults with T2 HCC awaiting LT, transplant with any bridging therapy showed a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of waitlist dropout due to progression (relative risk [RR], 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06‐1.85; I 2 = 0%) and of waitlist dropout from all causes (RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.060‐2.370; I 2 = 85.7%) compared to no therapy based on three comparative studies. The quality of evidence is very low due to high risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. There were five comparative studies which reported on posttransplant survival rates and 10 comparative studies which reported on posttransplant recurrence, and there was no significant difference seen in either of these endpoints. For adults initially with stage T3 HCC who received LRT, there were three studies reporting on transplant with any down‐staging therapy versus no downstaging, and this showed a significant increase in 1‐year (two studies, RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01‐1.23) and 5‐year (1 study, RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03‐1.32) post‐LT survival rates for patients who received LRT. The quality of evidence is very low due to serious risk of bias and imprecision. Conclusion: In patients with HCC listed for LT, the use of LRT is associated with a nonsignificant trend toward improved waitlist and posttransplant outcomes, though there is a high risk of selection bias in the available evidence. (H epatology 2018;67:381‐400).

Purpose To analyze failure rate in 2‐year increments to determine if graft choice changed over time and graft failure rate. Methods A prospective 2002‐2008 database was used to identify risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) retear. Subjects who had primary ACL retear with no history of contralateral surgery and 2‐year follow‐up were included. Subjects who underwent a multiligament reconstruction were excluded. Graft type, age, sex, smoking status, body mass index, Marx activity level at index surgery, medial and lateral meniscus status at time of ACL retear, sport played after ACL reconstruction, and clinical site were evaluated. Analysis was repeated using 2002‐2003 (early) and 2007‐2008 (late) 2‐year databases. Analysis of variance with post hoc analysis was performed to detect significant differences in age and Marx score by graft type over time. Results Two‐year follow‐up for graft failure was obtained on 2,497 of 2,692 (93%) subjects. There were 112 of 2,497 (4.5%) ACL retears identified at 2‐year follow‐up. The only predictor that changed between early/late periods was allograft use. Allograft odds ratio decreased from 13.1 to 9.5 ( P < .01). Allografts were used in older patients (31‐40 years) and with lower Marx scores (10‐8) from early to late periods. The mean age of subjects who received bone–patellar tendon–bone autografts did not significantly change over time (22.8‐23.5). The mean age of subjects who received hamstring autografts fell (27.9‐25.5). The mean age of subjects who received allografts rose significantly (31.3‐39.8, P < .01). The mean Marx score of subjects who received bone–patellar tendon–bone and hamstring autografts did not significantly change over time. The mean Marx score of subjects who received allografts decreased significantly ( P < .01). Conclusions After early recognition, allograft use in young active patients was a risk factor for retear; graft choice by surgeons changed in the late period to use of allografts in older and less‐active patients, which correlated with a significant decrease in retear risk. Level of Evidence Level III, case control study.

Hypothesis It has been hypothesized that high fungiform papillae density may be a risk factor for developing the taste and pain alterations characteristic of burning mouth syndrome. Objective Evaluate whether fungiform papillae density, taste sensitivity, and mechanical pain sensitivity differ between burning mouth syndrome cases and controls. Study Design This case‐control study compared cases diagnosed with primary burning mouth syndrome with pain‐free controls. Methods Participants (17 female cases and 23 female controls) rated the intensity of sucrose, sodium chloride, citric acid, and quinine applied separately to each side of the anterior tongue and sampled whole mouth. Mechanical pain sensitivity was assessed separately for each side of the tongue using weighted pins. Digital photographs of participants' tongues were used to count fungiform papillae. Results Burning mouth syndrome cases had increased whole mouth taste intensity. Cases also had increased sensitivity to quinine on the anterior tongue, as well as increased mechanical pain sensitivity on the anterior tongue. Fungiform papillae density did not differ significantly between cases and controls. Fungiform papillae density on the left and right sides of the tongue were correlated in controls; however, there was no left/right side correlation in cases. Conclusion Cases had increased pain and taste perception on the anterior tongue. The lack of correlation between left and right fungiform papillae density in cases may be an indication of asymmetrical lingual innervation in these patients. Level of Evidence 3b. Laryngoscope , 128:841–846, 2018

AbstractGenetic counselors are trained to provide personalized genetic information and support to clients and their families. When requests for counseling comes from the counselor's own family member, should that counselor still provide service? There is a paucity of literature regarding genetic counselors counseling their own family members and no specific recommendations regarding how to reply to requests for genetic information from relatives. The purpose of this mixed methods study was to report genetic counselors’ and genetic counseling students’ perspectives and experiences providing genetic counseling to relatives. In the present study, 423 genetic counselors and genetic counseling students completed a 70‐item web‐based survey that explored genetic counselors’ experiences counseling family members outside of a clinic setting. The majority (73%; n = 301/410) of respondents have been asked to provide genetic counseling. Over half (57%; n = 257/423) provided counseling, personalized genetic information or risk assessment to family members. Only a small fraction of respondents (11%; n = 45/420) responded that they received any formal training in their graduate education, or in any other capacity that addressed the issue of how genetic counselors should respond to genetic counseling requests made family members. Those who have were less likely to provide genetic counseling to a family member (p < 0.05). Respondents who provided genetic counseling to relatives were significantly more likely to think their colleagues would do the same. Those who never provided genetic counseling to relatives were more likely to think their colleagues would refer to an unrelated genetic counselor (p < 0.0001). We highlight how our results have clinical and professional implications and provide suggestions to generate discussion among genetic counselors on how they might respond to requests for counseling from family members.

Accurate risk stratification of smooth muscle tumors (SMTs) is essential for appropriate patient management. Yet, the rarity of SMTs of the vagina and vulva makes development of a prognostically meaningful classification system challenging. While 2 classification methods for vulvar SMTs and 1 for vaginal SMTs have been proposed, it is our experience that many pathologists tend to apply criteria for uterine SMTs when evaluating vulvovaginal tumors. We retrospectively reviewed a large cohort of vulvovaginal SMTs with clinical follow-up and evaluated which method most accurately classified tumors according to patient outcome. A total of 71 tumors, 53 vaginal (75%) and 18 vulvar (25%), from 71 patients were identified. All tumors were centrally examined for degree of cytologic atypia, morphology (spindled, epithelioid, myxoid), mitotic index per 10 high power fields, atypical mitotic figures, tumor cell necrosis, ischemic necrosis, tumor interface (circumscribed or infiltrative) and margin status. Clinical features were recorded for each patient. Follow-up was available for 63 patients (89%), and ranged from 1 to 234 months (median: 64 mo). While site-specific and uterine criteria showed equally excellent sensitivity in classifying smooth muscle neoplasms as leiomyosarcoma according to patient outcome, uterine criteria showed improved specificity relatively to site-specific methods in classifying tumors as nonsarcoma according to patient outcome. We recommend that uterine SMT criteria and nomenclature be adopted for evaluation and classification of vulvovaginal SMTs.

Assessment of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in histopathologic specimens can provide important prognostic information in diverse solid tumor types, and may also be of value in predicting response to treatments. However, implementation as a routine clinical biomarker has not yet been achieved. As successful use of immune checkpoint inhibitors and other forms of immunotherapy become a clinical reality, the need for widely applicable, accessible, and reliable immunooncology biomarkers is clear. In part 1 of this review we briefly discuss the host immune response to tumors and different approaches to TIL assessment. We propose a standardized methodology to assess TILs in solid tumors on hematoxylin and eosin sections, in both primary and metastatic settings, based on the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group guidelines for TIL assessment in invasive breast carcinoma. A review of the literature regarding the value of TIL assessment in different solid tumor types follows in part 2. The method we propose is reproducible, affordable, easily applied, and has demonstrated prognostic and predictive significance in invasive breast carcinoma. This standardized methodology may be used as a reference against which other methods are compared, and should be evaluated for clinical validity and utility. Standardization of TIL assessment will help to improve consistency and reproducibility in this field, enrich both the quality and quantity of comparable evidence, and help to thoroughly evaluate the utility of TILs assessment in this era of immunotherapy.

Assessment of the immune response to tumors is growing in importance as the prognostic implications of this response are increasingly recognized, and as immunotherapies are evaluated and implemented in different tumor types. However, many different approaches can be used to assess and describe the immune response, which limits efforts at implementation as a routine clinical biomarker. In part 1 of this review, we have proposed a standardized methodology to assess tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in solid tumors, based on the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarkers Working Group guidelines for invasive breast carcinoma. In part 2 of this review, we discuss the available evidence for the prognostic and predictive value of TILs in common solid tumors, including carcinomas of the lung, gastrointestinal tract, genitourinary system, gynecologic system, and head and neck, as well as primary brain tumors, mesothelioma and melanoma. The particularities and different emphases in TIL assessment in different tumor types are discussed. The standardized methodology we propose can be adapted to different tumor types and may be used as a standard against which other approaches can be compared. Standardization of TIL assessment will help clinicians, researchers and pathologists to conclusively evaluate the utility of this simple biomarker in the current era of immunotherapy.