Citations

Background Light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare disease caused by the misfolding of immunoglobulin light chains produced by a plasma cell dyscrasia. Patients can present with involvement of many organs, including the heart, kidneys, liver, nerves, and other sites, resulting in a high symptom burden. Timely and accurate diagnosis is important to prevent organ failure and improve patient survival. Objective These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients and clinicians in the timely and effective diagnosis of AL amyloidosis. Methods ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included 22 individuals representing various medical specialties (academic and community hematology, nephrology, neurology, cardiology, internal medicine, and pathology) as well as 1 patient representative. The group was balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The University of Kansas Medical Center supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 6 March 2023). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE evidence-to-decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results The panel agreed on 12 recommendations. Conclusions The use of serum immunofixation, urine immunofixation, and serum free light chains enhances the clinical suspicion of AL amyloidosis. The diagnosis of AL amyloidosis can be made effectively through surrogate biopsies, which require both a bone marrow biopsy and fat-pad sampling; however, target organ biopsies may be favored in certain clinical situations.

BACKGROUND: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) implemented 6 operative standards to reduce technical variation in cancer surgery. Although designed to guide surgeons in performing key oncologic techniques, these standards also provide a framework for teaching high-quality cancer surgery to trainees. We assessed surgical trainees’ familiarity with the CoC Operative Standards and the underlying principles of cancer surgery to identify knowledge gaps and opportunities for improved education. STUDY DESIGN: The American College of Surgeons Cancer Surgery Standards Program distributed an anonymous survey to general surgery residents and surgical fellows across the US. Questions addressed the CoC Operative Standards and cancer surgery principles, with scores calculated on the basis of correctness. Univariate logistic regression evaluated associations between trainee or program characteristics and knowledge. Trainees were also asked about their role in procedural documentation, given the synoptic operative report requirements of the standards. RESULTS: A total of 244 surveys were completed by 205 residents and 39 fellows. Fellows reported greater familiarity with the CoC Operative Standards (68% vs 24%, p < 0.001). Only 30% of trainees reported receiving a formal curriculum on the standards. Correct response rates were 30% for CoC Operative Standards questions vs 50% for cancer surgery principles, with minimal association between knowledge and trainee or program characteristics. Most residents (71%) reported contributing to operative documentation. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical trainees demonstrated limited knowledge of the CoC Operative Standards, highlighting the need for multifaceted educational strategies at the national and institutional levels. Incorporating education about the CoC Operative Standards into surgical training can help emphasize the importance of performing and documenting critical elements of cancer operations.

This joint Clinical Consensus Statement on the safety and feasibility of concomitant urogynecologic and gynecologic oncology surgical procedures reflects statements drafted by content experts from the American Urogynecologic Society and the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. The writing group used a Delphi process to evaluate statements developed from a structured literature search and assessed consensus. A total of 35 statements were assessed in the following categories: (1) background, (2) treatment options, (3) timing of concurrent surgery, (4) risk factors, and (5) value-based care. Of the 35 statements, 28 reached consensus on initial review. Three statements were omitted, and 4 statements were revised and reached consensus following second review utilizing the Delphi process.

ABSTRACT Melasma is a chronic hyperpigmentation disorder that disproportionately affects women and individuals with darker skin types, leading to a significant psychosocial burden. This meta‐analysis aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the 755‐nm picosecond alexandrite laser (PSAL) compared with conventional therapies in the management of melasma. PubMed, Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to April 10, 2025, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing PSAL versus control comparators in adults with melasma and reporting Melasma Area and Severity Index (MASI) or Modified MASI outcomes were included. The review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD420251022381). Risk of bias was assessed using ROB2. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using a random‐effects model. Five RCTs ( n = 139 patients) were included. Change in MASI favoured triple combination cream (TCC) over PSAL therapy (MD = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.11, 2.52, I 2 = 0%). Post‐inflammatory hyperpigmentation was more common in the PSAL group compared to topical creams (OR = 6.86, 95% CI: 1.47, 32.07, I 2 = 0%) but had no difference with the Q ‐switched lasers (OR = 4.09, 95% CI: 0.62, 26.97, I 2 = 0%). There was no incidence of hypopigmentation or infection reported. PSAL appears inferior to the TCC in reducing MASI scores. Overall certainty is low due to small, heterogenous trials. Low rates of irreversible adverse events with PSAL may support trials in refractory cases, but long‐term RCTs with larger sample sizes are required to evaluate durability and recurrence outcomes.

Background: Mu opioid receptors (MORs) in peripheral tissues mediate adverse effects of opioids that impair health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and may stimulate cancer progression via mitogenic signaling. Naloxegol, a peripherally acting MOR antagonist (PAMORA), is approved for opioid-induced constipation. Safety and efficacy of naloxegol have not been evaluated concurrently with systemic cancer therapy. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of naloxegol in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma starting first-line systemic therapy. Results: Only 50 patients were enrolled; the trial was terminated early due to slow accrual. Two of the three components of the feasibility primary endpoint were not met (accrual and PRO completion). At 6 months, FACT-L emotional well-being was better with naloxegol (p = 0.0113). There were trends towards better Trial Outcome Index (p = 0.0505) and physical well-being (p = 0.0628) with naloxegol. Bowel function favored naloxegol for constipation (p = 0.0223), rectal pain during defecation (p = 0.0075), and abdominal pain from constipation (p = 0.0113). Adverse event frequency and severity, PRO-CTCAE, urinary hesitancy, pain scores, and progression-free and overall survival were comparable between naloxegol and placebo. Conclusions: Naloxegol appears to be safe and tolerable, with a signal of improved HRQoL and previously unappreciated benefit for emotional well-being, without adverse clinical outcomes. Our findings should be confirmed in larger studies. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03087708.

OBJECTIVE Brain metastases significantly impact neurocognitive function and overall survival. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a cornerstone of treatment for patients with limited metastases and expected survival beyond 3 months. Despite current guidelines, up to 20% of patients with brain metastases undergoing SRS have been reported to die within 90 days. This study retrospectively evaluated prognostic factors associated with 90-day survival after SRS, aiming to improve patient selection. METHODS The authors retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 1546 patients who underwent Gamma Knife SRS for brain metastases at their institution between 2015 and 2023. One hundred seventy patients who survived less than 90 days after SRS were identified and case matched to 170 patients who survived over 90 days. Measured variables included patient demographic characteristics, tumor characteristics, treatment history, functional status, and control of the primary cancer. The authors modeled post-SRS 90-day survival using binomial and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS Multivariate analysis highlighted Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS) < 70 (OR 17.4, p < 0.001), prior whole-brain radiation (OR 6, p = 0.004), and focal neurological deficits (OR 3.02, p = 0.003) as significant predictors of poor survival, whereas CNS progression before SRS (OR 0.22, p < 0.001) and control of systemic cancer (OR 0.556, p = 0.002) were associated with survival < 90 days. The predictive model demonstrated acceptable performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.85, accuracy of 80%, sensitivity of 87%, and specificity of 71%. CONCLUSIONS Key predictors of 90-day survival after SRS for brain metastases include functional status (KPS), control of systemic cancer, CNS progression status, and focal neurological deficits. These findings are complementary factors that can assist in making decisions and SRS patient selection.

Abstract Background: As with most Sub-Saharan African countries, Nigeria has a rising incidence of cancer, with disproportionate mortality rates. The financial burden of cancer care often results in catastrophic healthcare spending, leading to treatment refusal, disruption, and discontinuation. This is particularly significant in Nigeria, where nearly all patients are uninsured, and out-of-pocket costs often exceed households’ ability to pay. Financial Navigation Programs (FNPs) have been shown to mitigate treatment-related financial toxicity in cancer care and reduce treatment abandonment, but there is a paucity of high-quality data on this intervention in resource-constrained settings. Here, we present a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of a novel FNP in Nigeria. Methods: We designed the COST-FIN trial, a multi-site pragmatic single-blinded randomized controlled trial of newly diagnosed (<6 weeks from diagnosis) adults (≥18 years) with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer at two tertiary cancer centers in Nigeria. Participants (n=200) will be randomized (1:1) to either the intervention (FNP) or the control arm and followed for 12 months. Data on key individual, treatment, and financial parameters will be collected via structured interviews and chart abstraction at baseline, 3, 6, and 12-month follow-up. In addition, participants randomized to the FNP will receive a tailored financial literacy assessment, financial planning support, and enhanced access to resources by trained financial navigators. Primary and secondary outcomes are Financial Catastrophe (FC) and Financial Distress (FD), respectively. Exploratory outcomes will include cost-related non-adherence and cost-effectiveness of the program. An interim analysis will be conducted when 50% of the estimated accruals reach 6 months of follow-up, with crossover if compelling evidence of benefit is demonstrated at that time point. All participants will be followed for 12 months from recruitment. Discussion: This first-of-its-kind study will provide evidence on the role of FNP in potentially eliminating financial barriers to cancer care in Nigeria. Given the country’s renewed interest in cancer control through the passage of the National Cancer Control Plan, findings from this study have the potential to influence policy reform and set the stage for further studies to evaluate the scalability and implementation of similar interventions in resource-limited settings. Trial registration : ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06630962. Oct 8, 2024 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06630962)

Abstract Exercise training improves cardiovascular health and reduces the risk for future cardiovascular events and mortality. However, emerging evidence suggests that Masters athletes may have a higher prevalence of cardiovascular abnormalities, such as atrial arrhythmias, coronary atherosclerosis, aortic dilatation, and myocardial fibrosis, compared to their less active peers. The clinical management of Masters athletes may be challenging as available guidelines for such conditions are generally based on data derived from symptomatic sedentary patients, limiting their applicability to highly trained individuals. Other unique challenges in the clinical assessment of Masters athletes include differences in symptomatic presentations compared to sedentary individuals, potential resistance to the initiation of pharmacologic treatment, and the increasing availability of consumer wearable health data that may provide relevant information on their cardiovascular health status. The purpose of this joint EAPC/ESC and ACC Clinical Consensus Statement is to provide an in-depth update on the current state of knowledge on abnormal cardiovascular findings in Masters athletes. We present an expert-based approach on the diagnostic assessment, management, and prognosis of (i) atrial fibrillation, (ii) bradyarrhythmias, (iii) ventricular arrhythmias, (iv) coronary atherosclerosis, (v) aortic dilatation, (vi) myocardial fibrosis, and (vii) exercise-induced arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy. Clinical challenges, areas of ongoing controversy, and uncertainty and the potential underlying mechanisms are discussed. We also present future perspectives and research directives to further refine current best practice strategies. This includes the need for clinical outcome studies, dedicated randomized controlled trials in athletes, and international registries with diverse populations and longitudinal follow-up to evaluate the natural history of cardiac abnormalities and facilitate development of evidence-based approaches in the clinical management of Masters athletes with cardiovascular abnormalities.

Introduction Placental inflammation is a major contributor to preterm birth (PTB), and there are currently few targeted strategies to prevent PTB and its associated adverse neonatal outcomes. Serum amyloid A (SAA), particularly the isoforms SAA1 and SAA2, are well-recognized inflammatory markers, but their functional roles in placental inflammation remain poorly defined. Methods Using a translational mouse model of sub-chronic maternal inflammation, we investigated the immune mechanisms and therapeutic potential of siRNA-mediated targeting of Saa2 (siSaa2). Placental expression patterns of SAA2 were examined in vivo , and macrophage responses to extracellular SAA2 were modeled in vitro using RAW264.7 cells to assess downstream P2X7R-dependent signaling and functional outcomes. Results SAA2 is primarily induced in placental trophoblast and endothelial compartments during inflammation, where it acts as an extracellular inflammatory mediator. In vitro , we model macrophage responses to extracellular SAA2 using RAW264.7 cells to examine downstream P2X7R-dependent signaling and functional outcomes. Maternal administration of siSaa2 improved PTB rates, placental morphology and fetal brain development. Additionally, SAA1 and SAA2 exhibited distinct expression patterns in the mouse and human placenta. Discussion These findings identify placental SAA2 as a key inflammatory mediator in inflammation-associated PTB and demonstrate that targeted silencing of Saa2 represents a potential therapeutic strategy to mitigate placental injury and adverse fetal outcomes.