Citations

AbstractPurposeThe purpose of this guideline is to provide evidence‐based guidance to clinicians of all specialties on the evaluation, management, and treatment of idiopathic overactive bladder (OAB). The guideline informs the reader on valid diagnostic processes and provides an approach to selecting treatment options for patients with OAB through the shared decision‐making process, which will maximize symptom control and quality of life, while minimizing adverse events and burden of disease.MethodsAn electronic search employing OVID was used to systematically search the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, as well as the Cochrane Library, for systematic reviews and primary studies evaluating diagnosis and treatment of OAB from January 2013 to November 2023. Criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies were based on the Key Questions and the populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes, timing, types of studies and settings (PICOTS) of interest. Following the study selection process, 159 studies were included and were used to inform evidence‐based recommendation statements.ResultsThis guideline produced 33 statements that cover the evaluation and diagnosis of the patient with symptoms suggestive of OAB; the treatment options for patients with OAB, including Noninvasive therapies, pharmacotherapy, minimally invasive therapies, invasive therapies, and indwelling catheters; and the management of patients with BPH and OAB.ConclusionOnce the diagnosis of OAB is made, the clinician and the patient with OAB have a variety of treatment options to choose from and should, through shared decision‐making, formulate a personalized treatment approach taking into account evidence‐based recommendations as well as patient values and preferences.

Abstract Isolation of neuron‐derived extracellular vesicles (NDEVs) with L1 Cell Adhesion Molecule (L1CAM)‐specific antibodies has been widely used to identify blood biomarkers of CNS disorders. However, full methodological validation requires demonstration of L1CAM in individual NDEVs and lower levels or absence of L1CAM in individual EVs from other cells. Here, we used multiple single‐EV techniques to establish the neuronal origin and determine the abundance of L1CAM‐positive EVs in human blood. L1CAM epitopes of the ectodomain are shown to be co‐expressed on single‐EVs with the neuronal proteins β‐III‐tubulin, GAP43, and VAMP2, the levels of which increase in parallel with the enrichment of L1CAM‐positive EVs. Levels of L1CAM‐positive EVs carrying the neuronal proteins VAMP2 and β‐III‐tubulin range from 30% to 63%, in contrast to 0.8%–3.9% of L1CAM‐negative EVs. Plasma fluid‐phase L1CAM does not bind to single‐EVs. Our findings support the use of L1CAM as a target for isolating plasma NDEVs and leveraging their cargo to identify biomarkers reflecting neuronal function.

Accurate assessment of GFR is crucial to guiding drug eligibility, dosing of systemic therapy, and minimizing the risks of both undertreatment and toxicity in patients with cancer. Up to 32% of patients with cancer have baseline CKD, and both malignancy and treatment may cause kidney injury and subsequent CKD. To date, there has been lack of guidance to standardize approaches to GFR estimation in the cancer population. In this two-part statement from the American Society of Onco-Nephrology, we present key messages for estimation of GFR in patients with cancer, including the choice of GFR estimating equation, use of race and body surface area adjustment, and anticancer drug dose-adjustment in the setting of CKD. These key messages are based on a systematic review of studies assessing GFR estimating equations using serum creatinine and cystatin C in patients with cancer, against a measured GFR comparator. The preponderance of current data involving validated GFR estimating equations involves the CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations, with 2508 patients in whom CKD-EPI using serum creatinine and cystatin C was assessed (eight studies) and 15,349 in whom CKD-EPI with serum creatinine was assessed (22 studies). The former may have improved performance metrics and be less susceptible to shortfalls of eGFR using serum creatinine alone. Since included studies were moderate quality or lower, the American Society of Onco-Nephrology Position Committee rated the certainty of evidence as low. Additional studies are needed to assess the accuracy of other validated eGFR equations in patients with cancer. Given the importance of accurate and timely eGFR assessment, we advocate for the use of validated GFR estimating equations incorporating both serum creatinine and cystatin C in patients with cancer. Measurement of GFR via exogenous filtration markers should be considered in patients with cancer for whom eGFR results in borderline eligibility for therapies or clinical trials.

e24143 Background: Accurate assessment of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is crucial to guiding drug eligibility, dose-adjusting systemic therapy, and minimizing the risks of both undertreatment and toxicity in patients with cancer. To date, there has been a lack of guidance to standardize approaches to GFR estimation in the cancer population based on the available evidence. We aim to present data on the first systematic review (SR) of GFR estimating equations in patients with cancer. Methods: We conducted a SR on behalf of the American Society of Onco-Nephrology (ASON) on the accuracy of equations to estimate GFR in adult patients with cancer, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We required that studies use a reference methodology as comparator involving measured GFR via urinary or plasma clearance of an exogenous filtration marker or carboplatin. Two search strategies focusing on studies using serum creatinine (Cr) and cystatin C (Cys) were developed. Risk of bias and quality assessment was performed for all studies. Results: A total of 39 studies (21,949 patients in total, 19,025 with solid cancers) were included. Studies assessing populations in Europe were most frequent (50%), followed by Asia (27%) and the remaining from Australia/New Zealand and North and South America. Risk of bias and quality assessment allocated 15 studies (38%) as low or very low quality, and 24 (62%) as low-moderate or moderate quality. The most commonly assessed GFR estimating equations included Cockroft-Gault (32 studies), Modification of Diet Renal Disease (MDRD) (24 studies), Chronic Kidney Disese Epidemiology Collaboration Study (CKD-EPI)Cr (22 studies), Wright (13 studies), CKD-EPICys (8 studies), CKD-EPICr-Cys (8 studies), and Jeliffe (8 studies). Given the importance of accurate and timely eGFR assessment and the evidence supporting the performance (i.e., accuracy) of the CKD-EPI incorporating both Cr and Cys, we suggest the use of this equation in patients with cancer (grade 2C). Where Cys is unavailable, CKD-EPICr is the next preferred equation given the supporting data for its performance and widespread availability. Since included studies were moderate quality or lower, the ASON rated the certainty of evidence as low. Also, additional data on clinical outcomes related to the selection of eGFR equations is needed. We suggest measurement of GFR via an exogenous filtration marker in patients with cancer for whom eGFR results in borderline eligibility for therapies or clinical trials (ungraded). Conclusions: Based on the results of this SR, we suggest use of contemporary methods for estimation of GFR (CKD-EPICr-Cys and CKD-EPICr-Cr) and avoidance of older and less accurate formulae such as Cockcroft-Gault.

Abstract Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in adults in the United States. Despite compelling evidence of improved outcomes in colorectal cancer, screening rates are not optimal. This study aimed to characterize colorectal cancer screening trends over the last two decades and assess the impact of various screening modalities on overall colorectal cancer screening rates. Using National Health Interview Survey data from 2005 to 2021, we examined colorectal cancer screening [colonoscopy, multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA), fecal occult blood test (FOBT)/fecal immunochemical test, sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography] rates among adults ages 50–75 years (n = 85,571). A pseudo-time-series cross-sectional (pseudo-TSCS) analysis was conducted including a random effects generalized least squares regression model to estimate the relative impact of each modality on changes in colorectal cancer screening rates. Among 50 to 75 year olds, the estimated colorectal cancer screening rate increased from 47.7% in 2005 to 69.9% in 2021, with the largest increase between 2005 and 2010 (47.7%–60.7%). Rates subsequently plateaued until 2015 but increased from 63.5% in 2015 to 69.9% in 2018. This was primarily driven by the increased use of mt-sDNA (2.5% in 2018 to 6.6% in 2021). Pseudo-TSCS analysis results showed that mt-sDNA contributed substantially to the increase in overall screening rates (77.3%; P < 0.0001) between 2018 and 2021. While colorectal cancer screening rates increased from 2005 to 2021, they remain below the 80% goal. The introduction of mt-sDNA, a noninvasive screening test may have improved overall rates. Sustained efforts are required to further increase screening rates to improve patient outcomes and offering a range of screening options is likely to contribute to achieving this goal. Prevention Relevance: This retrospective study highlights the importance of convenient stool-based colorectal cancer screening options to achieve the national goal of 80% for overall colorectal cancer screening rates. Empowering screening-eligible individuals with a choice for their colorectal cancer screening tests is imperative.

AbstractBackgroundFor many patients with lung disease the only proven intervention to improve survival and quality of life is lung transplantation (LTx). Esophageal dysmotility and gastroesophageal reflux (GER) are common in patients with respiratory disease, and often associate with worse prognosis following LTx. Which, if any patients, should be excluded from LTx based on esophageal concerns remains unclear. Our aim was to understand the effect of LTx on esophageal motility diagnosis and examine how this and the other physiological and mechanical factors relate to GER and clearance of boluses swallowed.MethodsWe prospectively recruited 62 patients with restrictive (RLD) and obstructive (OLD) lung disease (aged 33–75 years; 42 men) who underwent high resolution impedance manometry and 24‐h pH‐impedance before and after LTx.Key ResultsRLD patients with normal motility were more likely to remain normal (p = 0.02), or if having abnormal motility to change to normal (p = 0.07) post‐LTx than OLD patients. Esophageal length (EL) was greater in OLD than RLD patients' pre‐LTx (p < 0.001), reducing only in OLD patients' post‐LTx (p = 0.02). Reduced EL post‐LTx associated with greater contractile reserve (r = 0.735; p = 0.01) and increased likelihood of motility normalization (p = 0.10). Clearance of reflux improved (p = 0.01) and associated with increased mean nocturnal baseline impedance (p < 0.001) in RLD but not OLD. Peristaltic breaks and thoraco‐abdominal pressure gradient impact both esophageal clearance of reflux and boluses swallowed (p < 0.05).Conclusions and InferencesRLD patients are more likely to show improvement in esophageal motility than OLD patients post‐LTx. However, the effect on GER is more difficult to predict and requires other GI, anatomical and pulmonary factors to be taken into consideration.