Citations

Abstract BACKGROUND Urine albumin is the primary biomarker for detection and monitoring of kidney damage. Because fixed decision criteria are used to identify patients with increased values, we investigated if commonly used routine measurement procedures gave comparable results. METHODS Results from 17 commercially available urine albumin measurement procedures were investigated vs an isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) procedure. Nonfrozen aliquots of freshly collected urine from 332 patients with chronic kidney disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension were distributed to manufacturers to perform urine albumin measurements according to the respective instructions for use for each procedure. Frozen aliquots were used for measurements by the IDMS procedure. An error model was used to determine imprecision and bias components. RESULTS Median differences between the largest positive and negative biases vs IDMS were 45%, 37%, and 42% in the concentration intervals of 12–30 mg/L, 31–200 mg/L, and 201–1064 mg/L, respectively. Biases varied with concentration for most procedures and exceeded ±10% over the concentration interval for 14 of 16 quantitative procedures. Mean biases ranged from −35% to 34% at 15 mg/L. Dilution of samples with high concentrations introduced bias for 4 procedures. The combined CV was >10% for 5 procedures. It was not possible to estimate total error due to dependence of bias on concentration. CVs for sample-specific influences were 0% to 15.2%. CONCLUSIONS Bias was the dominant source of disagreement among routine measurement procedures. Consequently, standardization efforts will improve agreement among results. Variation of bias with concentration needs to be addressed by manufacturers.

BACKGROUNDAngiogenesis contributes to the progression of urothelial carcinoma (UC). In the current study, the authors investigated the role of maintenance sunitinib in patients with advanced UC.METHODSPatients with locally recurrent/metastatic UC and adequate organ function who achieved stable disease or a partial or complete response after 4 to 6 chemotherapy cycles were randomized to sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg/day (28 days on and 14 days off) or placebo. The primary endpoint was the 6‐month progression rate. Secondary endpoints were safety, survival, change in serum vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)/soluble VEGF receptor‐2 (sVEGFR2), and the activity of sunitinib in patients who developed disease progression while receiving placebo. A total of 38 eligible patients per treatment arm were required to select better therapy with 90% probability (α = .05).RESULTSA total of 54 eligible patients were randomized to either the sunitinib arm (26 patients) or the placebo arm (28 patients). The median number of cycles received was 2 cycles per treatment arm. The most common grade 3 to 4 adverse events (graded according to version 3.0 of the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) among patients receiving sunitinib were thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, mucositis, fatigue, and hypertension. There were no grade 3 or 4 adverse events noted among > 5% of patients receiving placebo. The 6‐month progression rate was 72% versus 64%. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 2.9 months (range, 0.5 months‐32.5 months) versus 2.7 months (range, 0.8 months −65 months) for the sunitinib versus placebo arms, respectively. Patients receiving placebo were found to have no changes in their serum VEGF/sVEGFR2 levels over time. Patients treated with sunitinib had no significant change in their VEGF level, but the sVEGFR2 level significantly decreased after cycles 1 and 2 (P < .0001) and at the time of disease progression (P = .0002). A baseline VEGF level that was at or greater than the median was found to be correlated with a longer PFS. Sixteen patients who were receiving placebo received sunitinib at the time of disease progression, with the best responses being 1 partial response (6.3%), 6 cases of stable disease (37.5%), and 5 cases of progressive disease (31.3%); 4 patients were not evaluable for response. The median PFS was 3.7 months (range, 0.1 months‐22 months).CONCLUSIONSThe current multicenter study was limited by premature closure and a small sample size. Maintenance sunitinib did not appear to improve the 6‐month progression rate. Open‐label sunitinib was found to have only modest activity. The sVEGFR2 level decreased among patients receiving sunitinib. Cancer 2014;120:692–701. © 2013 American Cancer Society.

BackgroundLittle is known about the use of advance directives (ADs) in patients who have implantable cardiac pacemakers (PMs).MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of the medical records of residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, who underwent implantation of a cardiac PM at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) during 2006 and 2007, and determined the prevalence and contents of ADs in these patients.ResultsDuring the study period, 205 residents of Olmsted County (men, 53%) underwent PM implantation (mean age [standard deviation] at implantation, 77 [15] years). Overall, 120 patients (59%) had ADs. Of these, 63 ADs (53%) were executed more than 12 months before and 33 (28%) were executed after PM implantation. Many patients specifically mentioned life‐prolonging treatments in their ADs: cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 76 (63%); mechanical ventilation, 56 (47%); and hemodialysis, 31 (26%). Pain control was mentioned in 79 ADs (66%) and comfort measures were mentioned in 42 ADs (35%). Furthermore, the AD of many patients contained a general statement about end‐of‐life care (e.g., no “heroic measures”). However, only one AD (1%) specifically addressed the end‐of‐life management of the PM.ConclusionsMore than half of the patients with PMs in our study had executed an AD, but only one patient specifically mentioned her PM in her AD. These results suggest that patients with PMs should be encouraged to execute ADs and specifically address end‐of‐life device management in their ADs. Doing so may prevent end‐of‐life ethical dilemmas related to PM management.

Significance Beta-amyloid plaque accumulation, glucose hypometabolism, and neuronal atrophy are hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease. However, the regional ordering of these biomarkers prior to dementia remains untested. In a cohort with Alzheimer’s disease mutations, we performed an integrated whole-brain analysis of three major imaging techniques: amyloid PET, [ 18 F]fluro-deoxyglucose PET, and structural MRI. We found that most gray-matter structures with amyloid plaques later have hypometabolism followed by atrophy. Critically, however, not all regions lose metabolic function, and not all regions atrophy, even when there is significant amyloid deposition. These regional disparities have important implications for clinical trials of disease-modifying therapies.

Purpose Indications for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for thin melanoma are continually evolving. We present a large multi-institutional study to determine factors predictive of sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis in thin melanoma. Patients and Methods Retrospective review of the Sentinel Lymph Node Working Group database from 1994 to 2012 identified 1,250 patients who had an SLNB and thin melanomas (≤ 1 mm). Clinicopathologic characteristics were correlated with SLN status and outcome. Results SLN metastases were detected in 65 (5.2%) of 1,250 patients. On univariable analysis, rates of Breslow thickness ≥ 0.75 mm, Clark level ≥ IV, ulceration, and absence of regression differed significantly between positive and negative SLN groups (all P < .05). These four variables and mitotic rate were used in multivariable analysis, which demonstrated that Breslow thickness ≥ 0.75 mm (P = .03), Clark level ≥ IV (P = .05), and ulceration (P = .01) significantly predicted SLN metastasis with 6.3%, 7.0%, and 11.6% of the patients with these respective characteristics having SLN disease. Melanomas < 0.75 mm had positive SLN rates of < 5% regardless of Clark level and ulceration status. Median follow-up was 2.6 years. Melanoma-specific survival was significantly worse for patients with positive versus negative SLNs (P = .001). Conclusion Breslow thickness ≥ 0.75 mm, Clark level ≥ IV, and ulceration significantly predict SLN disease in thin melanoma. Most SLN metastases (86.2%) occur in melanomas ≥ 0.75 mm, with 6.3% of these patients having SLN disease, whereas in melanomas < 0.75 mm, SLN metastasis rates are < 5%. By using a 5% metastasis risk threshold, SLNB is indicated for melanomas ≥ 0.75 mm, but further study is needed to define indications for SLNB in melanomas < 0.75 mm.

The American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO‐HNSF) has published a supplement to this issue featuring the new Clinical Practice Guideline: Bell's Palsy. To assist in implementing the guideline recommendations, this article summarizes the rationale, purpose, and key action statements. The 11 recommendations developed encourage accurate and efficient diagnosis and treatment and, when applicable, facilitate patient follow‐up to address the management of long‐term sequelae or evaluation of new or worsening symptoms not indicative of Bell's palsy. There are myriad treatment options for Bell's palsy; some controversy exists regarding the effectiveness of several of these options, and there are consequent variations in care. In addition, there are numerous diagnostic tests available that are used in the evaluation of patients with Bell's palsy. Many of these tests are of questionable benefit in Bell's palsy. Furthermore, while patients with Bell's palsy enter the health care system with facial paresis/paralysis as a primary complaint, not all patients with facial paresis/paralysis have Bell's palsy. It is a concern that patients with alternative underlying etiologies may be misdiagnosed or have an unnecessary delay in diagnosis. All of these quality concerns provide an important opportunity for improvement in the diagnosis and management of patients with Bell's palsy.

Objective Bell's palsy, named after the Scottish anatomist, Sir Charles Bell, is the most common acute mono‐neuropathy, or disorder affecting a single nerve, and is the most common diagnosis associated with facial nerve weakness/paralysis. Bell's palsy is a rapid unilateral facial nerve paresis (weakness) or paralysis (complete loss of movement) of unknown cause. The condition leads to the partial or complete inability to voluntarily move facial muscles on the affected side of the face. Although typically self‐limited, the facial paresis/paralysis that occurs in Bell's palsy may cause significant temporary oral incompetence and an inability to close the eyelid, leading to potential eye injury. Additional long‐term poor outcomes do occur and can be devastating to the patient. Treatments are generally designed to improve facial function and facilitate recovery. There are myriad treatment options for Bell's palsy, and some controversy exists regarding the effectiveness of several of these options, and there are consequent variations in care. In addition, numerous diagnostic tests available are used in the evaluation of patients with Bell's palsy. Many of these tests are of questionable benefit in Bell's palsy. Furthermore, while patients with Bell's palsy enter the health care system with facial paresis/paralysis as a primary complaint, not all patients with facial paresis/paralysis have Bell's palsy. It is a concern that patients with alternative underlying etiologies may be misdiagnosed or have unnecessary delay in diagnosis. All of these quality concerns provide an important opportunity for improvement in the diagnosis and management of patients with Bell's palsy. Purpose The primary purpose of this guideline is to improve the accuracy of diagnosis for Bell's palsy, to improve the quality of care and outcomes for patients with Bell's palsy, and to decrease harmful variations in the evaluation and management of Bell's palsy. This guideline addresses these needs by encouraging accurate and efficient diagnosis and treatment and, when applicable, facilitating patient follow‐up to address the management of long‐term sequelae or evaluation of new or worsening symptoms not indicative of Bell's palsy. The guideline is intended for all clinicians in any setting who are likely to diagnose and manage patients with Bell's palsy. The target population is inclusive of both adults and children presenting with Bell's palsy. Action Statements The development group made a strong recommendation that (a) clinicians should assess the patient using history and physical examination to exclude identifiable causes of facial paresis or paralysis in patients presenting with acute‐onset unilateral facial paresis or paralysis, (b) clinicians should prescribe oral steroids within 72 hours of symptom onset for Bell's palsy patients 16 years and older, (c) clinicians should not prescribe oral antiviral therapy alone for patients with new‐onset Bell's palsy, and (d) clinicians should implement eye protection for Bell's palsy patients with impaired eye closure. The panel made recommendations that (a) clinicians should not obtain routine laboratory testing in patients with new‐onset Bell's palsy, (b) clinicians should not routinely perform diagnostic imaging for patients with new‐onset Bell's palsy, (c) clinicians should not perform electrodiagnostic testing in Bell's palsy patients with incomplete facial paralysis, and (d) clinicians should reassess or refer to a facial nerve specialist those Bell's palsy patients with (1) new or worsening neurologic findings at any point, (2) ocular symptoms developing at any point, or (3) incomplete facial recovery 3 months after initial symptom onset. The development group provided the following options : (a) clinicians may offer oral antiviral therapy in addition to oral steroids within 72 hours of symptom onset for patients with Bell's palsy, and (b) clinicians may offer electrodiagnostic testing to Bell's palsy patients with complete facial paralysis. The development group offered the following no recommendations : (a) no recommendation can be made regarding surgical decompression for patients with Bell's palsy, (b) no recommendation can be made regarding the effect of acupuncture in patients with Bell's palsy, and (c) no recommendation can be made regarding the effect of physical therapy in patients with Bell's palsy.