Citations

BACKGROUND Flap repair provides unique advantages in facial reconstruction but still carries the potential for undesirable postoperative cosmetic changes. OBJECTIVE The aims of this study were to describe postoperative vascular outcomes of patients undergoing flap repairs after Mohs micrographic surgery on facial tumors and to assess associations of baseline characteristics with outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS In this study, 7 dermatologists and 1 physician assistant in dermatology assessed preoperative and postoperative photographs of 57 patients who underwent facial Mohs micrographic surgery, evaluating vascular and pigment outcomes and number of telangiectasias. RESULTS There was a significant difference in number of telangiectasias according to body location (p = .002), where the number of telangiectasias was highest for nose surgery. CONCLUSION These data suggest that nasal flap repairs are associated with increased postoperative vascular changes. This highlights an opportunity for improved preoperative patient counseling and possible early laser treatment after nasal Mohs micrographic surgery.

Guideline-recommended screening programs exist for only a few cancer types. Although all these programs are understood to lead to reductions in cancer-related mortality, standard-of-care screening tests vary in accuracy, adherence and effectiveness. Recent advances in high-throughput technologies and machine learning have facilitated the development of blood-based multi-cancer cancer early detection (MCED) tests. MCED tests are positioned to be complementary to standard-of-care screening and they may broaden screening availability, especially for individuals who are not adherent with current screening programs and for individuals who may harbor cancers with no available screening options. In this article, we outline some key features that should be considered for study design and MCED test development, provide an example of the developmental pathway undertaken for an emerging multi-biomarker class MCED test and propose a clinical algorithm for an imaging-based diagnostic resolution strategy following MCED testing.

Abstract Clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) represents a distinct disease entity characterized by myeloid-related somatic mutations with a variant allele fraction of ≥2% in individuals with unexplained cytopenia(s) but without a myeloid neoplasm (MN). Notably, CCUS carries a risk of progressing to MN, particularly in cases featuring high-risk mutations. Understanding CCUS requires dedicated studies to elucidate its risk factors and natural history. Our analysis of 357 patients with CCUS investigated the interplay between clonality, cytopenia, and prognosis. Multivariate analysis identified 3 key adverse prognostic factors: the presence of splicing mutation(s) (score = 2 points), platelet count of <100 × 109/L (score = 2.5), and ≥2 mutations (score = 3). Variable scores were based on the coefficients from the Cox proportional hazards model. This led to the development of the clonal cytopenia risk score (CCRS), which stratified patients into low- (score of <2.5 points), intermediate- (score of 2.5 to <5), and high-risk (score of ≥5) groups. The CCRS effectively predicted 2-year cumulative incidence of MN for low- (6.4%), intermediate- (14.1%), and high-risk (37.2%) groups, respectively, by the Gray test (P < .0001). We further validated the CCRS by applying it to an independent CCUS cohort of 104 patients, demonstrating a c-index of 0.64 (P = .005) in stratifying the cumulative incidence of MN. Our study underscores the importance of integrating clinical and molecular data to assess the risk of CCUS progression, making the CCRS a valuable tool that is practical and easily calculable. These findings are clinically relevant, shaping the management strategies for CCUS and informing future clinical trial designs.

Abstract Aims Operating on patients with severe degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR) is based on ACC/AHA or ESC/EACTS guidelines. Doubts persist on best surgical indications and their potential association with postoperative survival loss. We sought to investigate whether guideline-based indications lead to late postoperative survival loss in DMR patients. Methods and results We analysed outcome of 2833 patients from the Mitral Regurgitation International Database registry undergoing surgical correction of DMR. Patients were stratified by surgical indications: Class I trigger (symptoms, left ventricular end-systolic diameter ≥ 40 mm, or left ventricular ejection fraction < 60%, n = 1677), isolated Class IIa trigger [atrial fibrillation (AF), pulmonary hypertension (PH), or left atrial diameter ≥ 55 mm, n = 568], or no trigger (n = 588). Postoperative survival was compared after matching for clinical differences. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) was analysed. During a median 8.5-year follow-up, 603 deaths occurred. Long-term postoperative survival was lower with Class I trigger than in Class IIa trigger and no trigger (71.4 ± 1.9, 84.3 ± 2.3, and 88.9 ± 1.9% at 10 years, P < 0.001). Having at least one Class I criterion led to excess mortality (P < 0.001), while several Class I criteria conferred additional death risk [hazard ratio (HR): 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.42–1.66]. Isolated Class IIa triggers conferred an excess mortality risk vs. those without (HR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.00–2.13, P = 0.05). Among these patients, isolated PH led to decreased postoperative survival vs. those without (83.7 ± 2.8% vs. 89.3 ± 1.6%, P = 0.011), with the same pattern observed for AF (81.8 ± 5.0% vs. 88.3 ± 1.5%, P = 0.023). According to RMST analysis, compare to those operated on without triggers, operating on Class I trigger patients led to 9.4-month survival loss (P < 0.001) and operating on isolated Class IIa trigger patients displayed 4.9-month survival loss (P = 0.001) after 10 years. Conclusion Waiting for the onset of Class I or isolated Class IIa triggers before operating on DMR patients is associated with postoperative survival loss. These data encourage an early surgical strategy.

Abstract Context Mild autonomous cortisol secretion (MACS) is diagnosed based on postdexamethasone cortisol >1.8 µg/dL. Scarce evidence exists on steroid circadian secretion and steroid metabolome in MACS. Objective To characterize 24-hour (h) urine steroid metabolome in patients with MACS and determine circadian differences in urine steroid profiling and cortisol concentrations in patients with MACS vs referent subjects. Methods Cross-sectional study, 2018-2023, at a referral center. Patients with MACS and age-, sex-, body mass index–, and menopausal status–matched referent subjects were included. Urine was collected over a 24 hour period as separate daytime and nighttime collections. High-resolution mass spectrometry assay was used to measure 25 steroids. A subgroup of patients and referent subjects was admitted for serum measurements of free and total cortisol every 2 hours. Outcomes were steroids, steroid sums, and ratios. Results Patients with MACS (n = 72) had lower µg/24 hour median androgens (2084 vs 3283, P < .001), higher glucocorticoids (15 754 vs 12936, P < .001), and higher glucocorticoid/androgen ratio (8.7 vs 3.9, P < .001) than referent subjects. Patients also had lower steroid day/night ratios than referent subjects, reflecting a higher relative nocturnal steroid production in MACS. In a subgroup of 12 patients with MACS and 10 referent subjects, the 24-hour areas under the curve for total and free serum cortisol were similar. However, evening mean total (5.3 vs 4.0 µg/dL, P = .056) and free (0.2 vs 0.1 µg/dL, P = .035) cortisol was higher in patients vs referent subjects. Conclusion Patients with MACS demonstrate an abnormal urine steroid metabolome, with a high glucocorticoid to androgen ratio, and a higher nocturnal steroid production.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

ObjectiveWe provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease.MethodsWe developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation.ResultsFifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs.ConclusionThis clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease. Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation. Results Fifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.