Citations

Aims . To identify the most common reasons for consultation to a large specialty breast pathology service at a major institution. To provide insight into the overall challenges in practicing breast pathology. Methods . The anatomic pathology database at one institution was searched for all breast consultations received in 2021, excluding in-house patients and patients who were transferring care. Results . A total of 553 patients met the criteria ( n = 553) from a variety of academic and private practices. For each patient, the paperwork from the submitting institution was reviewed to identify the specific question, and subsequently classified into 14 categories. The reason for the consultation request was not provided for 78 (14%) patients, and a review of the outside diagnoses, where applicable, was performed. In summary, the top 5 reasons for consultation were: (1) assistance with classification of atypical intraductal epithelial proliferations (32%); (2) evaluation for the presence of (micro-)invasive carcinoma (14%); (3) evaluation of fibroepithelial (12%), (4) papillary (11%), and (5) spindle cell lesions (7%). Conclusion . We show an ongoing educational and practice gap for pathologists who most commonly struggle with classifying atypical precursor lesions, specifically when these are small and focal, or bordering on intraductal carcinoma (32%, 177/553). The second most common reason for consultation was classifying invasive carcinomas as microinvasive and subtypes (total of 20.4%, 113/553). As such, our data supports the continued need for rigid and clear criteria for diagnosing threshold lesions (namely atypical hyperplasias) and intraductal carcinoma of the breast.

Energy drinks are a commonly consumed beverage, and studies suggest a possible performance-enhancing effect. A Google Scholar search using the keywords “energy drinks” and “exercise” yields numerous results, underscoring the voluminous research on this topic. However, there are questions regarding the effectiveness and safety of energy drinks. These questions include, but are not limited to: (1) What are the main active ingredients in energy drinks? (2) Do energy drinks assist in weight management? (3) Do energy drinks enhance aerobic performance? (4) Do energy drinks enhance athletic speed? (5) Do energy drinks improve reaction time? (6) Do energy drinks enhance lean tissue mass? (7) Can energy drinks improve cognitive performance? (8) Does the acute consumption of energy drinks elevate resting energy expenditure? (9) Is there any evidence to suggest that energy drinks are more effective than an identical serving of caffeine alone? (10) Are there sex differences in the response to energy drink consumption? (11) Do energy drinks affect sleep or sleepiness? (12) Should pregnant women avoid energy drinks? (13) Do energy drinks adversely affect cardiovascular function? (14) Does consuming energy drinks cause brain damage? (15) What are other safety considerations regarding energy drinks? (16) Is there any evidence to suggest that energy drinks are more effective than an identical serving of caffeine alone? (17) If caffeine is the main active ingredient in energy drinks and coffee, why is there a discrepancy in the adverse events reported for each? To address these questions, we performed an evidence-based scientific evaluation of the literature on energy drink supplementation.

Trends in diagnostic biopsy sample collection approaches for primary bone sarcomas have shifted in the past 2 decades. Although open/incisional biopsies used to be the predominant approach to obtain diagnostic material for Ewing sarcoma and osteosarcoma, image-guided core needle biopsies have increased in frequency and are safe for patients. These procedures are less invasive and reduce recovery times but have potential limitations. The quantity and quality of tissue obtained through these procedures vary between institutions. Acquired viable tissue volumes can be low, limiting the conduct of downstream expanded clinical workup, molecular analyses, and research. Patients with advanced Ewing sarcoma and osteosarcoma continue to have overall poor outcomes despite dose-intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy. The biology of treatment resistance is not currently well understood, partly due to limited availability of relevant tissue to study. There is a need for access to quality tumor specimens for molecular and other analyses to identify high-risk tumor subsets and drive discovery to improve patient outcomes. Given broad variability in bone tumor tissue procurement and processing across member institutions, the Children’s Oncology Group Bone Tumor Committee convened a multidisciplinary group of experts to outline the current and near-future tissue needs for optimal clinical care and access to research platforms. The goal of this working group was to provide high-level guidance on biopsy practices that safely meet these evolving needs. Harmonizing tissue collection practices is paramount to improving the care of children, adolescents, and young adults diagnosed with Ewing sarcoma and osteosarcoma.

Importance Molecular techniques, including next-generation sequencing, genomic copy number profiling, fusion transcript detection, and genomic DNA methylation arrays, are now indispensable tools for the workup of central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Yet there remains a great deal of heterogeneity in using such biomarker testing across institutions and hospital systems. This is in large part because there is a persistent reluctance among third-party payers to cover molecular testing. The objective of this Review is to describe why comprehensive molecular biomarker testing is now required for the accurate diagnosis and grading and prognostication of CNS tumors and, in so doing, to justify more widespread use by clinicians and coverage by third-party payers. Observations The 5th edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification system for CNS tumors incorporates specific molecular signatures into the essential diagnostic criteria for most tumor entities. Many CNS tumor types cannot be reliably diagnosed according to current WHO guidelines without molecular testing. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network also incorporates molecular testing into their guidelines for CNS tumors. Both sets of guidelines are maximally effective if they are implemented routinely for all patients with CNS tumors. Moreover, the cost of these tests is less than 5% of the overall average cost of caring for patients with CNS tumors and consistently improves management. This includes more accurate diagnosis and prognostication, clinical trial eligibility, and prediction of response to specific treatments. Each major group of CNS tumors in the WHO classification is evaluated and how molecular diagnostics enhances patient care is described. Conclusions and Relevance Routine advanced multidimensional molecular profiling is now required to provide optimal standard of care for patients with CNS tumors.

Abstract Immune reactions to medical implants often lead to encapsulation by fibrotic tissue and impaired device function. This process is thought to initiate by protein adsorption, which enables immune cells to attach and mount an inflammatory response. Previously, several antifibrotic materials have been either designed to reduce protein adsorption or discovered via high‐throughput screens (HTS) to favorably regulate inflammation. The present work introduces antifouling immunomodulatory (AIM) copolymer coatings, which combine both strategies to effectively enhance implant protection. AIM copolymers synergistically integrate zwitterionic moieties to resist protein fouling, HTS‐derived antifibrotics for immunomodulation, and silane monomers for grafting to diverse substrates including elastomers, ceramics, and metals. Interestingly, simply combining these monomers into conventional random or block copolymer architectures yielded no significant advantage over homopolymers. By contrast, an unusual polymer chain architecture — a zwitterionic block flanked by a mixed zwitterionic immunomodulatory segment — showed superior fibrosis resistance in both peritoneal and subcutaneous sites over one month in immunocompetent mice. This architecture also improved the performance of two different HTS‐derived antifibrotic monomers, suggesting that tailoring AIM architectures may broadly complement immunomodulatory chemistries and provide a versatile approach to improving implant longevity.

Importance: Dermoscopy is increasingly recognized by skin cancer experts and professional leaders as an essential skill for physicians in dermatology and primary care. A substantial number of patients in both settings also receive care from physician assistants (PAs), who provide additional opportunities to evaluate patients with concerning skin lesions. Earning dermatology-specific credentials from the National Commission on Certification for PAs requires passing a written exam with dermoscopic content, and 77% of practicing PAs (all specialties) believe dermoscopy should be a standard element of their formal education. No published studies have identified precise learning objectives that would represent appropriate foundational proficiency in dermoscopy for PAs. Objective: We sought to identify common diagnoses with distinct dermoscopic features and delineate which of these represent appropriate proficiency expectations for early-career PAs in primary care and dermatology. Design, setting, and participants: A panel of 14 dermoscopists was assembled (8 dermatologists; 6 PAs), reflecting contributors to existing consensus statements on physician dermoscopy proficiency benchmarks, dermatologist-recommended competencies for PAs, and/or standardized test content for dermatology PAs. Panelists completed a modified Delphi consensus process involving electronic surveys and roundtable discussions. Main outcomes and measures: Consensus on which specific dermoscopic diagnoses reflect appropriate foundational proficiency expectations for PAs in both primary care and dermatology. Results: Twelve of 14 panelists (86%) reported using dermoscopy for over 12 years (mean: 15.5 y). All panelists completed 2 iterations of an electronic survey regarding 54 diagnoses, with 39 (72%) reaching a final consensus for inclusion in PA curricula and 15 (28%) being identified as non-priority items for early-career PAs. Panelists recommended 14 conditions for primary care PAs and 25 conditions for dermatology PAs. Conclusions and Relevance: Consensus achieved in this modified Delphi process identified diagnoses that represent pragmatic learning objectives to achieve foundational proficiency in dermoscopy for PAs in both primary care and dermatology. This list of validated objectives provides a consensus-based guide to help educators, supervising physicians, and professional leaders to cultivate specialty-appropriate dermoscopic proficiency among early-career PAs.

PURPOSE Teclistamab is initiated with a step-up dosing (SUD) schedule to mitigate the risk of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). Early teclistamab users commonly received SUD in a hospital setting. This study aimed to evaluate safety and health care resource utilization (HRU) in real-world patients with multiple myeloma who initiated teclistamab SUD in an outpatient setting. METHODS This was a retrospective study using Mayo Clinic's electronic medical records from October 26, 2022, to October 31, 2023. Patient characteristics were summarized for all patients treated with teclistamab and separately for patients who started SUD outpatient. SUD pattern, safety, HRU, and post-SUD dosing schedule were described in patients with complete SUD. RESULTS At data cutoff, 65 patients received ≥1 teclistamab dose, including 58 patients who initiated SUD outpatient (median age, 69.2 years; male, 63.8%; White, 89.7%). Among 57 patients who completed SUD in an outpatient setting, all received premedications on the days of teclistamab administrations per label recommendation; 18 (31.6%) developed CRS (13 grade 1, four grade 2, and one grade 4) and two developed ICANS (one each with grade 2 and 4). All CRS and ICANS resolved with supportive care and all patients continued treatment. Eighteen patients were admitted to the hospital for CRS treatment, with a median CRS-related hospital stay of 2 days per admission. Most (60%) doses during SUD required <1 hour clinic time between administration and checkout. Post-SUD, clinic time for treatment doses decreased to <30 minutes for most doses (82%). CONCLUSION Outcomes of this study support outpatient administration as a safe and feasible option for teclistamab SUD to potentially reduce HRU and improve patient experiences.

Abstract Background We sought to evaluate key performance indicators related to an internally developed and deployed artificial intelligence (AI)-augmented kidney stone composition test system for potential improvements in test quality, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and staff satisfaction. Methods We compared quality, efficiency, staff satisfaction, and financial data from the 6 months after the AI-augmented laboratory test system was deployed (test period) with data from the same 6-month period in the previous year (control period) to determine if AI-augmentation improved key performance indicators of this laboratory test. Results In the 6 months following the deployment (test period) of the AI-augmented kidney stone composition test system, 44 830 kidney stones were analyzed. Of these, 92% of kidney stones were eligible for AI-assisted interpretation. Out of these AI-eligible stones, 45% were able to be auto-released by the AI-augmented test system without human secondary review. Furthermore, the new AI-augmented kidney stone test system resulted in an apparent 40% reduction in incorrect laboratory results. Additionally, the new AI-augmented test system improved laboratory efficiency by 20%, improved staff satisfaction, and reduced the average analysis cost per kidney stone by $0.23. Conclusions The AI-augmented test system improved test quality, efficiency, cost-effectiveness and staff satisfaction related to this kidney stone composition test.

Radiologists play a key role in the management of renal masses, and it is important to understand the nonsurgical treatment options for solid renal masses, typical imaging findings after treatment, common complications, and methods to avoid pitfalls.