Citations

ObjectiveRhinoplasty, a surgical procedure that alters the shape or appearance of the nose while preserving or enhancing the nasal airway, ranks among the most commonly performed cosmetic procedures in the United States, with >200,000 procedures reported in 2014. While it is difficult to calculate the exact economic burden incurred by rhinoplasty patients following surgery with or without complications, the average rhinoplasty procedure typically exceeds $4000. The costs incurred due to complications, infections, or revision surgery may include the cost of long‐term antibiotics, hospitalization, or lost revenue from hours/days of missed work.The resultant psychological impact of rhinoplasty can also be significant. Furthermore, the health care burden from psychological pressures of nasal deformities/aesthetic shortcomings, surgical infections, surgical pain, side effects from antibiotics, and nasal packing materials must also be considered for these patients. Prior to this guideline, limited literature existed on standard care considerations for pre‐ and postsurgical management and for standard surgical practice to ensure optimal outcomes for patients undergoing rhinoplasty. The impetus for this guideline is to utilize current evidence‐based medicine practices and data to build unanimity regarding the peri‐ and postoperative strategies to maximize patient safety and to optimize surgical results for patients.PurposeThe primary purpose of this guideline is to provide evidence‐based recommendations for clinicians who either perform rhinoplasty or are involved in the care of a rhinoplasty candidate, as well as to optimize patient care, promote effective diagnosis and therapy, and reduce harmful or unnecessary variations in care. The target audience is any clinician or individual, in any setting, involved in the management of these patients. The target patient population is all patients aged ≥15 years. The guideline is intended to focus on knowledge gaps, practice variations, and clinical concerns associated with this surgical procedure; it is not intended to be a comprehensive reference for improving nasal form and function after rhinoplasty. Recommendations in this guideline concerning education and counseling to the patient are also intended to include the caregiver if the patient is <18 years of age.Action StatementsThe Guideline Development Group made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should ask all patients seeking rhinoplasty about their motivations for surgery and their expectations for outcomes, should provide feedback on whether those expectations are a realistic goal of surgery, and should document this discussion in the medical record. (2) Clinicians should assess rhinoplasty candidates for comorbid conditions that could modify or contraindicate surgery, including obstructive sleep apnea, body dysmorphic disorder, bleeding disorders, or chronic use of topical vasoconstrictive intranasal drugs. (3) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, should evaluate the rhinoplasty candidate for nasal airway obstruction during the preoperative assessment. (4) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, should educate rhinoplasty candidates regarding what to expect after surgery, how surgery might affect the ability to breathe through the nose, potential complications of surgery, and the possible need for future nasal surgery. (5) The clinician, or the clinician’s designee, should counsel rhinoplasty candidates with documented obstructive sleep apnea about the impact of surgery on nasal airway obstruction and how obstructive sleep apnea might affect perioperative management. (6) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, should educate rhinoplasty patients before surgery about strategies to manage discomfort after surgery. (7) Clinicians should document patients’ satisfaction with their nasal appearance and with their nasal function at a minimum of 12 months after rhinoplasty.The Guideline Development Group made recommendations against certain actions: (1) When a surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, chooses to administer perioperative antibiotics for rhinoplasty, he or she should not routinely prescribe antibiotic therapy for a duration >24 hours after surgery. (2) Surgeons should not routinely place packing in the nasal cavity of rhinoplasty patients (with or without septoplasty) at the conclusion of surgery.The panel group made the following statement an option: (1) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, may administer perioperative systemic steroids to the rhinoplasty patient.

ObjectiveRhinoplasty, a surgical procedure that alters the shape or appearance of the nose while preserving or enhancing the nasal airway, ranks among the most commonly performed cosmetic procedures in the United States, with >200,000 procedures reported in 2014. While it is difficult to calculate the exact economic burden incurred by rhinoplasty patients following surgery with or without complications, the average rhinoplasty procedure typically exceeds $4000. The costs incurred due to complications, infections, or revision surgery may include the cost of long‐term antibiotics, hospitalization, or lost revenue from hours/days of missed work.The resultant psychological impact of rhinoplasty can also be significant. Furthermore, the health care burden from psychological pressures of nasal deformities/aesthetic shortcomings, surgical infections, surgical pain, side effects from antibiotics, and nasal packing materials must also be considered for these patients. Prior to this guideline, limited literature existed on standard care considerations for pre‐ and postsurgical management and for standard surgical practice to ensure optimal outcomes for patients undergoing rhinoplasty. The impetus for this guideline is to utilize current evidence‐based medicine practices and data to build unanimity regarding the peri‐ and postoperative strategies to maximize patient safety and to optimize surgical results for patients.PurposeThe primary purpose of this guideline executive summary is to provide evidence‐based recommendations for clinicians who either perform rhinoplasty or are involved in the care of a rhinoplasty candidate, as well as to optimize patient care, promote effective diagnosis and therapy, and reduce harmful or unnecessary variations in care. The target audience is any clinician or individual, in any setting, involved in the management of these patients. The target patient population is all patients aged ≥15 years. The guideline is intended to focus on knowledge gaps, practice variations, and clinical concerns associated with this surgical procedure; it is not intended to be a comprehensive reference for improving nasal form and function after rhinoplasty. Recommendations in this guideline concerning education and counseling to the patient are intended to include the caregiver if the patient is <18 years of age.Action StatementsThe Guideline Development Group made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should ask all patients seeking rhinoplasty about their motivations for surgery and their expectations for outcomes, should provide feedback on whether those expectations are a realistic goal of surgery, and should document this discussion in the medical record. (2) Clinicians should assess rhinoplasty candidates for comorbid conditions that could modify or contraindicate surgery, including obstructive sleep apnea, body dysmorphic disorder, bleeding disorders, or chronic use of topical vasoconstrictive intranasal drugs. (3) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, should evaluate the rhinoplasty candidate for nasal airway obstruction during the preoperative assessment. (4) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, should educate rhinoplasty candidates regarding what to expect after surgery, how surgery might affect the ability to breathe through the nose, potential complications of surgery, and the possible need for future nasal surgery. (5) The clinician, or the clinician’s designee, should counsel rhinoplasty candidates with documented obstructive sleep apnea about the impact of surgery on nasal airway obstruction and how obstructive sleep apnea might affect perioperative management. (6) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, should educate rhinoplasty patients before surgery about strategies to manage discomfort after surgery. (7) Clinicians should document patient satisfaction with their nasal appearance and with their nasal function at a minimum of 12 months after rhinoplasty.The guideline development group made recommendations against certain actions: (1) When a surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, chooses to administer perioperative antibiotics for rhinoplasty, he or she should not routinely prescribe antibiotic therapy for a duration >24 hours after surgery. (2) Surgeons should not routinely place packing in the nasal cavity of rhinoplasty patients (with or without septoplasty) at the conclusion of surgery.The panel group made the following statement an option: (1) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, may administer perioperative systemic steroids to the rhinoplasty patient.

Abstract Background: The precise mechanism by which the immune system is adversely affected in cancer patients remains poorly understood, but the accumulation of immunosuppressive/protumorigenic myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) is thought to be a prominent mechanism contributing to immunologic tolerance of malignant cells in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). To this end, we hypothesized genetic variation in MDSC pathway genes would be associated with survival after EOC diagnoses. Methods: We measured the hazard of death due to EOC within 10 years of diagnosis, overall and by invasive subtype, attributable to SNPs in 24 genes relevant in the MDSC pathway in 10,751 women diagnosed with invasive EOC. Versatile Gene-based Association Study and the admixture likelihood method were used to test gene and pathway associations with survival. Results: We did not identify individual SNPs that were significantly associated with survival after correction for multiple testing (P &lt; 3.5 × 10−5), nor did we identify significant associations between the MDSC pathway overall, or the 24 individual genes and EOC survival. Conclusions: In this well-powered analysis, we observed no evidence that inherited variations in MDSC-associated SNPs, individual genes, or the collective genetic pathway contributed to EOC survival outcomes. Impact: Common inherited variation in genes relevant to MDSCs was not associated with survival in women diagnosed with invasive EOC. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(3); 420–4. ©2016 AACR.

Abstract Known gene mutations account for approximately 50% of the hereditary risk for breast cancer. Moderate and low penetrance variants, discovered by genomic approaches, account for an as-yet-unknown proportion of the remaining heritability. A truncating mutation c.325C&gt;T:p.Arg109* (R109X) in the ATP-dependent helicase ERCC3 was observed recurrently among exomes sequenced in BRCA wild-type, breast cancer–affected individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. Modeling of the mutation in ERCC3-deficient or CRISPR/Cas9-edited cell lines showed a consistent pattern of reduced expression of the protein and concomitant hypomorphic functionality when challenged with UVC exposure or treatment with the DNA alkylating agent IlludinS. Overexpressing the mutant protein in ERCC3-deficient cells only partially rescued their DNA repair–deficient phenotype. Comparison of frequency of this recurrent mutation in over 6,500 chromosomes of breast cancer cases and 6,800 Ashkenazi controls showed significant association with breast cancer risk (ORBC = 1.53, ORER+ = 1.73), particularly for the estrogen receptor–positive subset (P &lt; 0.007). Significance: A functionally significant recurrent ERCC3 mutation increased the risk for breast cancer in a genetic isolate. Mutated cell lines showed lower survival after in vitro exposure to DNA-damaging agents. Thus, similar to tumors arising in the background of homologous repair defects, mutations in nucleotide excision repair genes such as ERCC3 could constitute potential therapeutic targets in a subset of hereditary breast cancers. Cancer Discov; 6(11); 1267–75. ©2016 AACR. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1197

Abstract Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) cause an increasingly important chronic and debilitating lung disease in older adults. Diagnosis is often delayed, although awareness among clinicians and patients is increasing. When necessary, treatment often lasts 18–24 months and consists of three or four antibiotics that can have serious side effects. Relapses are common and commonly require resumption of prolonged therapy. Given the need for improved diagnostic techniques and clinical trials to identify new therapies or to improve existing therapies, a group of North American clinicians and researchers formed the NTM Research Consortium (NTMRC) in 2014. The NTMRC recognized the importance of including the patient voice in determining research priorities for NTM. In November 2015, patients, caregivers, patient advocates, clinical experts, and researchers gathered for a 1-day meeting in Portland, Oregon funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The meeting goal was to define patient-centered research priorities for NTM lung infections. Patients expressed frustration with the number of people who have endured years of missed diagnoses or inadequate treatment of NTM. Participants identified as top research priorities the prevention of NTM infection; approval of more effective treatments with fewer side effects and easier administration; understanding the best chest physiotherapy methods; validating and using tools to measure quality of life; and developing a disease-specific activity and severity assessment tool. Workshop participants agreed that two complementary objectives are critical to ensure the best achievable outcomes for patients: (1) additional clinician education to improve screening and diagnosis of NTM infections; and (2) development of a geographically distributed network of experts in NTM disease to offer consultation or direct therapy after a diagnosis is made.

Purpose Massively parallel sequencing allows simultaneous testing of multiple genes associated with cancer susceptibility. Guidelines are available for variant classification; however, interpretation of these guidelines by laboratories and providers may differ and lead to conflicting reporting and, potentially, to inappropriate medical management. We describe conflicting variant interpretations between Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–approved commercial clinical laboratories, as reported to the Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing (PROMPT), an online genetic registry. Methods Clinical data and genetic testing results were gathered from 1,191 individuals tested for inherited cancer susceptibility and self-enrolled in PROMPT between September 2014 and October 2015. Overall, 518 participants (603 genetic variants) had a result interpreted by more than one laboratory, including at least one submitted to ClinVar, and these were used as the final cohort for the current analysis. Results Of the 603 variants, 221 (37%) were classified as a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), 191 (32%) as pathogenic, and 34 (6%) as benign. The interpretation differed among reporting laboratories for 155 (26%). Conflicting interpretations were most frequently reported for CHEK2 and ATM, followed by RAD51C, PALB2, BARD1, NBN, and BRIP1. Among all participants, 56 of 518 (11%) had a variant with conflicting interpretations ranging from pathogenic/likely pathogenic to VUS, a discrepancy that may alter medical management. Conclusions Conflicting interpretation of genetic findings from multiplex panel testing used in clinical practice is frequent and may have implications for medical management decisions.

Background The rarity of mutations in PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM make it difficult to estimate precisely associated cancer risks. Population-based family studies have provided evidence that at least some of these mutations are associated with breast cancer risk as high as those associated with rare BRCA2 mutations. We aimed to estimate the relative risks associated with specific rare variants in PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM via a multicentre case-control study. Methods We genotyped 10 rare mutations using the custom iCOGS array: PALB2 c.1592delT, c.2816T>G and c.3113G>A, CHEK2 c.349A>G, c.538C>T, c.715G>A, c.1036C>T, c.1312G>T, and c.1343T>G and ATM c.7271T>G. We assessed associations with breast cancer risk (42 671 cases and 42 164 controls), as well as prostate (22 301 cases and 22 320 controls) and ovarian (14 542 cases and 23 491 controls) cancer risk, for each variant. Results For European women, strong evidence of association with breast cancer risk was observed for PALB2 c.1592delT OR 3.44 (95% CI 1.39 to 8.52, p=7.1×10−5), PALB2 c.3113G>A OR 4.21 (95% CI 1.84 to 9.60, p=6.9×10−8) and ATM c.7271T>G OR 11.0 (95% CI 1.42 to 85.7, p=0.0012). We also found evidence of association with breast cancer risk for three variants in CHEK2, c.349A>G OR 2.26 (95% CI 1.29 to 3.95), c.1036C>T OR 5.06 (95% CI 1.09 to 23.5) and c.538C>T OR 1.33 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.67) (p≤0.017). Evidence for prostate cancer risk was observed for CHEK2 c.1343T>G OR 3.03 (95% CI 1.53 to 6.03, p=0.0006) for African men and CHEK2 c.1312G>T OR 2.21 (95% CI 1.06 to 4.63, p=0.030) for European men. No evidence of association with ovarian cancer was found for any of these variants. Conclusions This report adds to accumulating evidence that at least some variants in these genes are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer that is clinically important.