Citations

Purpose: Castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) is a complex and heterogeneous condition encompassing a range of clinical presentations. As new approaches have expanded management options, clinicians are left with myriad questions and controversies regarding the optimal individualized management of CSPC. Materials and Methods: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) multidisciplinary panel was assembled to address the challenges of prostate cancer management. The first annual USPCC meeting included experts in urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine. USPCC co-chairs and session moderators identified key areas of controversy and uncertainty in prostate cancer management and organized the sessions with multidisciplinary presentations and discussion. Throughout the meeting, experts responded to questions prepared by chairs and moderators to identify areas of agreement and controversy. Results: The USPCC panel discussion and question responses for CSPC-related topics are presented. Key advances in CSPC management endorsed by USPCC experts included the development and clinical utilization of gene expression classifiers and artificial intelligence (AI) models for risk stratification and treatment selection in specific patient populations, the use of advanced imaging modalities in patients with clinically localized unfavorable intermediate or high-risk disease and those with biochemical recurrence, recommendations of doublet or triplet therapy for metastatic CSPC (mCSPC), and consideration of prostate and/or metastasis-directed radiation therapy in select patients with mCSPC. Conclusions: CSPC is a diverse disease with many therapeutic options and the potential for adverse outcomes associated with either undertreatment or overtreatment. Future studies are needed to validate and clinically integrate novel technologies, including genomics, AI, and advanced imaging, to optimize outcomes among patients with CSPC.

Study Design. Retrospective cohort study of prospectively accrued data. Objective. To evaluate a large, prospective, multicentre dataset of surgically treated degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) cases on the contemporary risk of C5 palsy with surgical approach. Summary of Background Data. The influence of surgical technique on postoperative C5 palsy after decompression for DCM is intensely debated. Comprehensive, covariate-adjusted analyses are needed using contemporary data. Methods. Patients with moderate to severe DCM were prospectively enrolled in the multicenter, randomized, Phase III CSM-Protect clinical trial and underwent either anterior or posterior decompression between Jan 31, 2012 and May 16, 2017. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative C5 palsy, defined as the onset of muscle weakness by at least one grade in manual muscle test at the C5 myotome with slight or absent sensory disruption after cervical surgery. Two comparative cohorts were made based on the anterior or posterior surgical approach. Multivariate hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for C5 palsy. Results. A total of 283 patients were included, and 53.4% underwent posterior decompression. The total incidence of postoperative C5 palsy was 7.4% and was significantly higher in patients who underwent posterior decompression compared with anterior decompression (11.26% vs. 3.03%, P=0.008). After multivariable regression, the posterior approach was independently associated with greater than four times the likelihood of postoperative C5 palsy (P=0.017). Rates of C5 palsy recovery were comparable between the two surgical approaches. Conclusion. The odds of postoperative C5 palsy are significantly higher after posterior decompression compared to anterior decompression for DCM. This may influence surgical decision-making when there is equipoise in deciding between anterior and posterior treatment options for DCM. Level of Evidence. Therapeutic Level—II

Background Clinical risk scores are used to identify those at high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Despite preventative efforts, residual risk remains for many individuals. Very low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL‐C) and lipid discordance could be contributors to the residual risk of ASCVD. Methods and Results Cardiovascular disease–free residents, aged ≥40 years, living in Olmsted County, Minnesota, were identified through the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) and VLDL‐C were estimated from clinically ordered lipid panels using the Sampson equation. Participants were categorized into concordant and discordant lipid pairings based on clinical cut points. Rates of incident ASCVD, including percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, stroke, or myocardial infarction, were calculated during follow‐up. The association of LDL‐C and VLDL‐C with ASCVD was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression. Interaction between LDL‐C and VLDL‐C was assessed. The study population (n=39 098) was primarily White race (94%) and female sex (57%), with a mean age of 54 years. VLDL‐C (per 10‐mg/dL increase) was significantly associated with an increased risk of incident ASCVD (hazard ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.05–1.09]; P <0.001]) after adjustment for traditional risk factors. The interaction between LDL‐C and VLDL‐C was not statistically significant ( P =0.11). Discordant individuals with high VLDL‐C and low LDL‐C experienced the highest rate of incident ASCVD events, 16.9 per 1000 person‐years, during follow‐up. Conclusions VLDL‐C and lipid discordance are associated with a greater risk of ASCVD and can be estimated from clinically ordered lipid panels to improve ASCVD risk assessment.

AbstractBackgroundAdolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) affects 2%–4% of the general pediatric population. While surgical correction remains one of the most common orthopedic procedures performed in pediatrics, limited consensus exists on the perioperative anesthetic management.AimsTo examine the current state of anesthetic management of typical AIS spine fusions at institutions which have a dedicated pediatric orthopedic spine surgeon.MethodsA web‐based survey was sent to all members of the North American Pediatric Spine Anesthesiologists (NAPSA) Collaborative. This group included 34 anesthesiologists at 19 different institutions, each of whom has a Harms Study Group surgeon performing spine fusions at their hospital.ResultsThirty‐one of 34 (91.2%) anesthesiologists completed the survey, with a missing response rate from 0% to 16.1% depending on the question. Most anesthesia practices (77.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 67.7–93.4) do not have patients come for a preoperative visit prior to the day of surgery. Intravenous induction was the preferred method (74.2%; 95% CI 61.3–89.9), with the majority utilizing two peripheral IVs (93.5%; 95% CI 90.3–100) and an arterial line (100%; 95% CI 88.8–100). Paralytic administration for intubation and/or exposure was divided (51.6% rocuronium/vecuronium, 45.2% no paralytic, and 3.2% succinylcholine) amongst respondents. While tranexamic acid was consistently utilized for reducing blood loss, dosing regimens varied. When faced with neuromonitoring signal issues, 67.7% employ a formal protocol. Most anesthesiologists (93.5%; 95% CI 78.6–99.2) extubate immediately postoperatively with patients admitted to an inpatient floor bed (77.4%; 95% CI 67.7–93.3).ConclusionMost anesthesiologists (87.1%; 95% CI 80.6–99.9) report the use of some form of an anesthesia‐based protocol for AIS fusions, but our survey results show there is considerable variation in all aspects of perioperative care. Areas of agreement on management comprise the typical vascular access required, utilization of tranexamic acid, immediate extubation, and disposition to a floor bed. By recognizing the diversity of anesthetic care, we can develop areas of research and improve the perioperative management of AIS.

Importance Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) is an emerging recovery modality for transplantable allografts from controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) donors. In the US, only 11.4% of liver recipients who are transplanted from a deceased donor receive a cDCD liver. NRP has the potential to safely expand the US donor pool with improved transplant outcomes as compared with standard super rapid recovery (SRR). Objective To assess outcomes of US liver transplants using controlled donation after circulatory death livers recovered with normothermic regional perfusion vs standard super rapid recovery. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a retrospective, observational cohort study comparing liver transplant outcomes from cDCD donors recovered by NRP vs SRR. Outcomes of cDCD liver transplant from January 2017 to May 2023 were collated from 17 US transplant centers and included livers recovered by SRR and NRP (thoracoabdominal NRP [TA-NRP] and abdominal NRP [A-NRP]). Seven transplant centers used NRP, allowing for liver allografts to be transplanted at 17 centers; 10 centers imported livers recovered via NRP from other centers. Exposures cDCD livers were recovered by either NRP or SRR. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was ischemic cholangiopathy (IC). Secondary end points included primary nonfunction (PNF), early allograft dysfunction (EAD), biliary anastomotic strictures, posttransplant length of stay (LOS), and patient and graft survival. Results A total of 242 cDCD livers were included in this study: 136 recovered by SRR and 106 recovered by NRP (TA-NRP, 79 and A-NRP, 27). Median (IQR) NRP and SRR donor age was 30.5 (22-44) years and 36 (27-49) years, respectively. Median (IQR) posttransplant LOS was significantly shorter in the NRP cohort (7 [5-11] days vs 10 [7-16] days; P &amp;lt; .001). PNF occurred only in the SRR allografts group (n = 2). EAD was more common in the SRR cohort (123 of 136 [56.1%] vs 77 of 106 [36.4%]; P = .007). Biliary anastomotic strictures were increased 2.8-fold in SRR recipients (7 of 105 [6.7%] vs 30 of 134 [22.4%]; P = .001). Only SRR recipients had IC (0 vs 12 of 133 [9.0%]; P = .002); IC-free survival by Kaplan-Meier was significantly improved in NRP recipients. Patient and graft survival were comparable between cohorts. Conclusion and Relevance There was comparable patient and graft survival in liver transplant recipients of cDCD donors recovered by NRP vs SRR, with reduced rates of IC, biliary complications, and EAD in NRP recipients. The feasibility of A-NRP and TA-NRP implementation across multiple US transplant centers supports increasing adoption of NRP to improve organ use, access to transplant, and risk of wait-list mortality.