Citations

Abstract Introduction Oncologic testicular sperm extraction (oncoTESE) remains a poorly defined concept that is a heterogeneous and understudied fertility preservation option for cancer patients with male gonads. Given variation in practice patterns, reproductive insurance coverage, and provider availability, there is significant diversity among the accepted indications, desired evaluations, and surgical practices afforded to patients facing a cancer diagnosis. Objective This study aimed to characterize and help further define oncoTESE practice patterns across the United States. Methods A 34-item, anonymized survey assessed provider demographics and oncoTESE practice patterns, including indications, contraindications, workflows, and institutional barriers surrounding OncoTESE procedures. A survey was created and electronically distributed to reproductive urologists across the United States using email addresses obtained via society membership websites. Results Thirty-eight urologists (20%, 38/189) from 21 states responded to the survey. Most (95%, 36/38) were fellowship-trained reproductive urologists, and nearly all (87%, 33/38) reported offering oncoTESE to indicated patients. The most cited indications for oncoTESE were azoospermia (78%, 28/36), anejaculation (72%, 26/36), and severe oligozoospermia or cryptozoospermia on ejaculated specimen (53%, 19/36). Less commonly reported indications included prepubertal or peripubertal status (33%, 12/36) and elevated sperm DNA fragmentation (19%, 7/36). Relative contraindications included inability to consent (86%, 31/36), clinical instability (83%, 30/36), thrombocytopenia (61%, 22/36), and a history of remote chemotherapy (58%, 21/36). When asked how many semen analyses are obtained to confirm azoospermia before proceeding to oncoTESE in patients able to ejaculate, the majority reported two analyses (67%, 24/36), while 28% (10/36) reported one. There was stronger consensus that oncoTESE includes sperm retrieval during back-table orchiectomy (94%, 34/36) and ipsilateral microTESE during partial orchiectomy (86%, 31/36). Greater variability was noted regarding contralateral microTESE at the time of orchiectomy (64%, 23/36), procedures for non-genitourinary malignancies (61%, 22/36), and delayed procedures performed years after diagnosis (42%, 15/36). (Figure 1) Estimated patient costs for oncoTESE were most commonly reported as $2,000–$5,000 (39%, 14/36), followed by $500–$2,000 (22%, 8/36), $5,000–$10,000 (19%, 7/36), and over $10,000 (3%, 1/36); 14% (5/36) were unsure. On a 10-point Likert scale, the most significant barriers to performing oncoTESE were logistical challenges (mean 6.6, median 8), followed by patient cost (mean 5.4, median 5.5) and patient illness (mean 5.3, median 5.0). Conclusions This multi-institutional survey found strong agreement among reproductive urologists on core procedural elements, but substantial variation on oncoTESE definition, patient selection criteria, pre-procedural evaluation, and fertility preservation management. Similar institutional barriers across centers highlight opportunities to improve accessibility and standardize oncoTESE practices. Disclosure No

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review evaluates artificial intelligence (AI)-based predictive models developed for early sepsis detection in adult hospitalized patients. It explores model types, input features, validation strategies, performance metrics, clinical integration, and implementation challenges. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and CENTRAL for studies published between January 2015 and March 2025. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies included those developing or validating AI models for adult inpatient sepsis prediction using electronic health record data and reporting at least one performance metric (area under the curve [AUC], sensitivity, specificity, or F1 score). Studies focusing on pediatric populations, lacking quantitative evaluation, or unpublished in peer-reviewed journals were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction followed preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. Extracted variables included study design, patient population, model type, input features, validation approach, and performance outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 52 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most used retrospective designs, with limited prospective or real-time clinical validation. Commonly used algorithms included random forests, neural networks, support vector machines, and deep learning architectures (long short-term memory, convolutional neural network). Input data varied from structured sources (vital signs, laboratory values, demographics) to unstructured clinical notes processed via natural language processing. Reported AUC values ranged from 0.79 to 0.96, indicating strong predictive performance across models. CONCLUSIONS: AI models demonstrate significant promise for early sepsis detection, outperforming conventional scoring systems in many cases. However, generalizability, interpretability, and clinical implementation remain major challenges. Future research should emphasize externally validated, explainable, and scalable AI solutions integrated into real-time clinical workflows.

ABSTRACT Background Lung cancer (LC) and respiratory failure (RF) are leading causes of adult mortality worldwide. Analyzing long‐term mortality trends across demographic, racial, geographic, and socioeconomic groups is essential to address disparities and enhance outcomes. This study investigates US national mortality patterns for LC and RF from 1999 to 2023, focusing on changes in age‐adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) and key disparities. Methods Mortality data from the CDC WONDER database (1999–2023) for adults aged 25+ with LC (ICD‐10: C34) or RF (ICD‐10: J96) were analyzed. AAMRs per 100,000 were calculated, stratified by gender, race/ethnicity, region, state, and urban–rural status. Temporal trends were assessed using Joinpoint regression to estimate annual percent changes (APCs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with significance at p < 0.05. Results Over 1999–2023, 456,325 deaths from LC and RF were recorded. AAMRs declined from 1999 to 2010 (APC = −1.2, 95% CI: −1.6 to −0.9) but rose from 2010 to 2023 (APC = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1–1.7). Men's AAMRs steadily decreased, whereas women's dropped initially, then increased from 2011 to 2023 (APC = 2.0, 95% CI: 1.7 to 2.5). Non‐Hispanic Whites saw a sharp AAMR rise from 2014 to 2017 (APC = 2.7, 95% CI: 0.9 to 3.3), with other racial/ethnic groups showing mixed trends. Regionally, the Northeast had the highest AAMRs (8.6, 95% CI: 8.5 to 8.7), and the Midwest the lowest (7.1, 95% CI: 7.0 to 7.1). Metropolitan areas saw increases post‐2006, whereas nonmetropolitan areas rose after 2009 (APC = 2.3, 95% CI: 1.8–3.1). Mississippi had the highest state AAMR (14.0, 95% CI: 13.7–14.4), Wisconsin the lowest (3.7, 95% CI: 3.5–3.8). Conclusion LC and RF mortality declined until 2010, then increased, revealing significant disparities. Targeted interventions are critical to address these trends and reduce inequities.

Importance Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) represents a high, underprioritized burden among noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) and people living with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Objective To identify cost-effective management approaches to prevent, detect, and treat MASH and liver fibrosis in people living with T2D. Design, Setting, and Participants This economic evaluation consisted of a generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA) that was conducted for 12 countries (Brazil, Chile, Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Tanzania, Thailand, and the United States), across all 6 World Health Organization (WHO) regions. A cohort state-transition model simulated liver disease development and its impact on a synthetic cohort, aged 19 years and older and living with T2D, over their lifespan across 10 liver health states. Exposures Using an 80% coverage level, 14 management approaches were compared, including screening via the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) test and Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) test or vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) as well as treatment with pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcomes were the average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), which were used to construct care expansion paths by ranking the management approaches in order of cost-effectiveness. The main measures were the total incremental costs and the total incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of each intervention. Results In this GCEA, the outcomes were evaluated with respect to country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds. The standard of care had the lowest ACERs in 8 countries (not in Chile, Germany, Saudi Arabia, or the United States). Treatment with intensive lifestyle interventions (ILIs), after screening via ELF or VCTE, was cost-effective in all countries. ILIs and treatment with semaglutide was cost-effective in 11 countries (not in Tanzania); ILIs and treatment with resmetirom was cost-effective in 8 countries (not in Brazil, South Africa, Tanzania, or Thailand). Conclusion and Relevance In this economic evaluation, screening followed by ILIs was found to be a cost-effective management approach for MASH and liver fibrosis among people living with T2D in all countries. Screening followed by pharmacological treatment was cost-effective in most countries. These results can inform health policy decision-making and further the development of WHO recommended interventions to address NCDs.

Background Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has emerged as a promising neurostimulation modality, yet its effectiveness and durability for chronic pain remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate changes in pain intensity following implantable PNS therapy. Methods Eligible studies included adults (≥18 years) with chronic pain treated with an implantable PNS system, and pain intensity was assessed at baseline and follow-up time points. The primary outcome was change in pain intensity from baseline to 6 months after PNS implantation. Secondary outcomes included changes in pain intensity at 3, 12 and 24 months after PNS implantation. Standardized mean differences (Hedges’ g ) were pooled using a random-effects model. Results A total of 106 studies comprising 9272 patients were included. PNS was associated with large, statistically significant reductions in pain intensity from baseline to all time points: 3 months (Hedges’ g 2.92; 95% CI 2.62 to 3.21), 6 months (Hedges’ g 3.08; 95% CI 2.68 to 3.48), 12 months (Hedges’ g 2.68; 95% CI 2.30 to 3.05) and 24 months (Hedges’ g 2.08; 95% CI 1.68 to 2.48) (all p<0.001). However, the certainty of evidence as assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria was rated as low for the primary outcome, due to pooling from observational studies, risk of bias, and heterogeneity (statistical, clinical and methodological). Subgroup analyses revealed no differences by study design or device type, while smaller effect sizes were reported in industry-funded studies and those with declared conflicts of interest. The largest effect sizes were observed in pelvic and upper extremity pain, whereas the smallest in truncal pain. Conclusion Implantable PNS provides persistent and clinically meaningful analgesia for chronic pain, with benefits sustained up to 24 months. These findings support broader clinical adoption and provide evidence to inform pay0r coverage and policy decisions.

Background: In patients with paradoxical low-gradient severe aortic stenosis (AS) based on aortic valve area (AVA) at rest (<1cm2) and normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF >50%), the role of dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) is unclear. While current guidelines recommend assessing aortic valve calcium score in this context, DSE may still offer clinical value. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on patients with paradoxical low gradient AS (LVEF >50% AVA <1cm 2 , MG < 40 mmHg) at rest who underwent DSE after Institutional Review Board approval. Data was extracted using an internal database. Patients > 18 yrs old with LVEF >50%, mean gradient (MG) < 40 mmHg, and valve area < 1 cm 2 at rest were included. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to identify which resting variables were associated with severe AS (MG >40 mm Hg and Valve area <1 cm 2 ) with DSE. Results: A total of 42 patients were included in the study and variables were reported as means (±SD). The mean age of patients was 78 years (±10) and 60% were female. The mean resting LVEF was 60% (±5%), MG at rest was 28 mmHg (±7) while it was 40 mmHg (±14) with DSE, and mean aortic valve area at rest was 0.9 cm 2 (±0.09) while it was 1.1 cm 2 (±0.23) with DSE. Of the 42 patients, 11 (26%) were found to have severe AS during DSE, defined by a MG >40 mmHg and AVA <1.0 cm 2 . Baseline AVA and MG at rest were significantly associated with severe AS on DSE (p=0.008 and p=0.024, respectively), while age, stroke volume index, and baseline LVEF were not. Univariate regression analysis showed that the area under the curve (AUC) for predicting severe AS was 0.73 for resting MG and 0.77 for resting AVA. A resting AVA cutoff of 0.78 cm 2 provided optimal sensitivity (0.63) and specificity (0.90). For resting MG, a cutoff of 29 mmHg gave a sensitivity of 0.91 and specificity of 0.68 for identifying patients with severe AS. Conclusion: Our study indicated that DSE remains useful in identifying severe AS in substantial number of patients (26%) who exhibit paradoxical low gradient severe AS. Additionally, AVA at rest and baseline mean gradient were statistically the reliable parameters to determine those who may benefit significantly from undergoing DSE. This is one of the first studies to our knowledge in the literature suggesting that DSE may still be useful in identifying severe AS patients despite “paradoxical low gradient severe AS” at rest. Further research is warranted to validate our findings.

Background: Patients with low gradient non-severe aortic stenosis (AS) at rest, in the context of reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (less than 50%), occasionally undergo dobutamine stress echocardiogram (DSE). However, limited data is available in the literature regarding the utility of DSE in this context. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on patients with non-severe AS and LVEF less than 50% at rest who underwent DSE after Institutional Review Board approval. Retrospective data was extracted including rest and DSE parameters using an internal database. Only patients greater than 18 years old, who had an LVEF less than 50%, mean gradient (MG) less than 40 mmHg, and valve area greater than or equal to 1 cm 2 at rest were included in the study. Univariate and multivariate regression methods were used to identify which resting variables were associated with severe AS (MG greater than 40 mm Hg and valve area less than 1 cm 2 ) with DSE. Results: A total of 124 patients were included in the study. The mean age of patients was 78 years (±9) and 84% were male. The mean resting LVEF was 34% (±8%) while it was 40% (±12%) with DSE, mean stroke volume index at rest was 39 mL/m2 (±9) while it was 45 mL/m2 (±10) with DSE, MG at rest was 20 mmHg (±7) while it was 31 mmHg (±10) with DSE, and mean aortic valve area at rest was 1.27 cm 2 (±0.27) while it was 1.24 cm 2 (±0.29) with DSE. Of the 124 patients with non-severe AS at rest, 13 (10.5%) patients had severe AS with DSE. MG at rest was associated with severe AS (OR 1.3; 95% Cl: 1.1 - 1.5; p < 0.001) in a multivariate logistic regression model after adjusting for age, sex, LVEF at rest, SV index at rest. Resting aortic valve mean gradient also showed the highest AUC in relation to likelihood of having severe AS (0.87) (figure 1). Conclusion: Our study indicated that DSE remains useful in identifying severe AS in certain patients (up to 10%) who exhibit non-severe AS at rest in the setting of reduced LVEF. Additionally, MG at rest is the most reliable parameter to determine those who may benefit from undergoing DSE. This is one of the first studies to our knowledge in the literature suggesting that DSE may still be useful in identifying severe AS patients despite non-severe AS (i.e., valve area greater than or equal to 1 cm 2 ) at rest with reduced LVEF. Further research is warranted to validate our findings.

Introduction: Chronic total occlusion (CTO) is commonly encountered in patients with coronary artery disease and is associated with adverse outcomes, including increased short- and long-term mortality. While percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has shown potential clinical benefits in CTO patients, its comparative effectiveness against optimal medical therapy (OMT) remains debated. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the impact of CTO-PCI versus OMT on key cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of Pubmed, Scopus, Web of science and Cochrane. We assessed outcomes including all-cause mortality, cardiac death, myocardial reinfarction, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), stroke, and repeat revascularization. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. Results: 25 studies with a total of 22102 patients were included. Compared to OMT alone, CTO-PCI was associated with a significant reduction in the overall all-cause mortality (RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.53–0.82; p=0.0002), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.52–0.82; p=0.0003) and MACE (RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.71–0.98; p=0.03). No statistically significant differences were observed between CTO-PCI and OMT in rates of Stroke (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.68–1.50; p=0.96), Subsequent PCI/CABG (revascularization) (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.78–1.29; p=0.97) or Heart Failure Hospitalization (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.37–1.59; p=0.48) Conclusion: This is the largest and most updated systematic review meta analysis for CTO-PCI vs OMT. Our findings show that CTO-PCI is associated with significantly lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to OMT. However, no significant differences were observed between the two strategies in the incidence of stroke, need for subsequent revascularization (PCI/CABG), or heart failure hospitalization.