Citations

Abstract Aims Takotsubo syndrome (TTS) is an acute heart failure syndrome, which shares many features with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Although TTS was initially described with angiographically normal coronary arteries, smaller studies recently indicated a potential coexistence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in TTS patients. This study aimed to determine the coexistence, features, and prognostic role of CAD in a large cohort of patients with TTS. Methods and results Coronary anatomy and CAD were studied in patients diagnosed with TTS. Inclusion criteria were compliance with the International Takotsubo Diagnostic Criteria for TTS, and availability of original coronary angiographies with ventriculography performed during the acute phase. Exclusion criteria were missing views, poor quality of angiography loops, and angiography without ventriculography. A total of 1016 TTS patients were studied. Of those, 23.0% had obstructive CAD, 41.2% had non-obstructive CAD, and 35.7% had angiographically normal coronary arteries. A total of 47 patients (4.6%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, and 3 patients had acute and 8 had chronic coronary artery occlusion concomitant with TTS, respectively. The presence of CAD was associated with increased incidence of shock, ventilation, and death from any cause. After adjusting for confounders, the presence of obstructive CAD was associated with mortality at 30 days. Takotsubo syndrome patients with obstructive CAD were at comparable risk for shock and death and nearly at twice the risk for ventilation compared to an age- and sex-matched ACS cohort. Conclusions Coronary artery disease frequently coexists in TTS patients, presents with the whole spectrum of coronary pathology including acute coronary occlusion, and is associated with adverse outcome. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01947621.

8517 Background: An increased risk of SPM in MM pts treated with len has been reported. We performed an IPD metanalysis to estimate the incidence of SPM according to len exposure. Methods: Randomized studies of MM, from PubMed and ASCO/IMW/ASH (after 2000), that met the following criteria, were included: randomization to treatment with len (len-trials); randomization to treatment including new drug but not len (no-len-trials); available SPM data. Primary aim was to estimate cumulative incidence of SPMs by len exposure, corrected for death (competing event). Results: Data from 6,383 pts (3,218 from 8 len-trials, 3,165 from 10 no-len-trials) were analyzed. Median age was 69 years. During follow-up (median=30 mos) 420 (6.6%) SPMs were reported: 188 (2.9%) hematologic and 232 (3.6%) solid cancers. Solid tumors occurred with similar incidence in all groups. Incidence of hematologic SPM was significantly higher in patients receiving len (3.2 vs 1.1, p=0.04), but risk is limited to patients treated with melphalan+len (4.1, 95%CI: 2.4-5.8) with no excess in other combinations (len without melphalan: 1.2, 0.0-2.6; melphalan without len: 1.1, 0.0-2.7) (p=0.003). The cumulative incidence of death for any cause was much higher than the risk of SPM. Conclusions: The risk of hematologic SPMs was higher in pts receiving melphalan+len. The benefit/risk profile of len treatment remains positive. Cumulative incidence (%) of SPMs and death (95%CI). [Table: see text]

Abstract The extracellular matrix is a highly reactive scaffold formed by a wide array of multifunctional molecules, encompassing collagens and noncollagenous glycoproteins, proteoglycans, glycosaminoglycans, and polysaccharides. Besides outlining the tissue borders, the extracellular matrix profoundly regulates the behavior of resident cells by transducing mechanical signals, and by integrating multiple cues derived from the microenvironment. Evidence is mounting that changes in the biostructure of the extracellular matrix are instrumental for biliary repair. Following biliary damage and eventually, malignant transformation, the extracellular matrix undergoes several quantitative and qualitative modifications, which direct interactions among hepatic progenitor cells, reactive ductular cells, activated myofibroblasts and macrophages, to generate the ductular reaction. Herein, we will give an overview of the main molecular factors contributing to extracellular matrix remodeling in cholangiopathies. Then, we will discuss the structural alterations in terms of biochemical composition and physical stiffness featuring the “desmoplastic matrix” of cholangiocarcinoma along with their pro-oncogenic effects.

3 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Sunday, June, 2, 2013, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2013, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Sunday edition of ASCO Daily News.

11586 Background: Hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is the most common regorafenib adverse event. However, no intervention has demonstrated efficacy in preventing or palliating this adverse event, short of modulating the regorafenib dose. Methods: The Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study (ReDOS) was a randomized trial ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02368886 ); here we describe an a priori secondary analysis of ReDOS with the goal of assessing whether clobetasol 0.05% cream (a potent corticosteroid) applied to the palms and soles twice per day is more effective when prescribed pre-emptively (before the development of HFSR) versus reactively (after the development of HFSR). Patients were assessed during the 1st 2 cycles of regorafenib. Results: Among 116 evaluable patients, 61 received pre-emptive clobetasol, and 55 reactive clobetasol. Baseline demographics were comparable between groups. During the 1st regorafenib cycle, 46% and 52% of patients developed HFSR with pre-emptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = 0.52). However, during the 2nd cycle, 56% (of 47 total patients) and 80% (of 41 total patients), developed this toxicity with pre-emptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = 0.02). Of note, during the 2nd cycle, rates of grade 1,2, and 3 HFSR were 40%, 11%, and 4% (pre-emptive) and 45%, 25%, and 10% (reactive) (p = 0.07). A sensitivity analysis to examine rates of no HFSR over all 2 regorafenib cycles showed that no HFSR occurred in 33% (of 61 total patients) with pre-emptive clobetasol versus 15% (of 55 total patients) with reactive clobetasol (p = 0.02). Patient-reported outcomes showed HFSR compromised activities of daily living, including getting dressed, preparing meals, walking, and even driving, with seemingly worse descriptive outcomes in patients who received reactive therapy. No adverse events from clobetasol were reported. Conclusions: Compared to reactive therapy, pre-emptive topical clobetasol might lessen regorafenib-induced HFSR. Clinical trial information: NCT02368886.

Purpose: To evaluate the outcomes of the Gore Excluder Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis (IBE) using division branches of the internal iliac artery (IIA) as distal landing zones. Materials and Methods: Between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018, 74 patients (mean age 74±7 years; 72 men) treated for aortoiliac or common iliac artery aneurysms had an IBE deployed with distal landing of the side branch within the main trunk (n=60) of the internal iliac artery (IIA) vs within a division branch (n=25). Thirteen (17%) patients received bilateral IBE implantations for a total of 85 vessels evaluated. Early endpoints were technical success, 30-day mortality, 30-day major adverse events (MAEs), and 30-day major access complications. Late endpoints were survival, primary and secondary IIA patency, freedom from IIA branch instability, freedom from new-onset buttock claudication, and aneurysm sac diameter changes. Time-dependent outcomes were reported as Kaplan-Meier curves with differences assessed using the log-rank test. Estimates are presented with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The overall technical success rate was 97%, with 1 technical failure per group (p=0.43). Two patients, one from each group, died within 30 days (p=0.43). No significant differences were seen in the rates of 30-day MAEs (7% vs 17%, p=0.35) or major access complications (9% vs 11%, p>0.99) for patients receiving distal landing in the main trunk vs a division branch, respectively. The mean follow-up for the entire cohort was 19±12 months. The overall 1-year survival rate was 94% (95% CI 74% to 99%). The primary and secondary patency rates at 1 year were 98% (95% CI 88% to 99%) vs 95% (95% CI 72% to 99%, p=0.72) and 98% (95% CI 88% to 99%) vs 100% (p=0.41) for the main trunk vs division branch groups, respectively. Freedom from IIA branch instability estimates were also similar at 1-year follow-up [93% (95% CI 82% to 97%) vs 90% (95% CI 66% to 97%), p=0.29], as were the freedom from new-onset buttock claudication estimates [98% (95% CI 86% to 99%) and 94% (95% CI 67% to 99%), respectively; p=0.62]. Mean sac diameter change was 5.4±5.3 mm, not significantly different between the groups (p=0.85). Conclusion: Use of the posterior or anterior division of the IIA as a distal landing zone for the Gore Excluder IBE was safe and efficacious in the midterm. This technique may permit extending indications for endovascular repair of aortoiliac aneurysms to cases with unsuitable anatomy within the IIA main trunk. Long-term assessment is needed to affirm the efficacy of this technique.

Abstract Eating disorders and substance use disorders frequently co‐occur. Twin studies reveal shared genetic variance between liabilities to eating disorders and substance use, with the strongest associations between symptoms of bulimia nervosa and problem alcohol use (genetic correlation [ r g ], twin‐based = 0.23‐0.53). We estimated the genetic correlation between eating disorder and substance use and disorder phenotypes using data from genome‐wide association studies (GWAS). Four eating disorder phenotypes (anorexia nervosa [AN], AN with binge eating, AN without binge eating, and a bulimia nervosa factor score), and eight substance‐use‐related phenotypes (drinks per week, alcohol use disorder [AUD], smoking initiation, current smoking, cigarettes per day, nicotine dependence, cannabis initiation, and cannabis use disorder) from eight studies were included. Significant genetic correlations were adjusted for variants associated with major depressive disorder and schizophrenia. Total study sample sizes per phenotype ranged from ~2400 to ~537 000 individuals. We used linkage disequilibrium score regression to calculate single nucleotide polymorphism‐based genetic correlations between eating disorder‐ and substance‐use‐related phenotypes. Significant positive genetic associations emerged between AUD and AN ( r g = 0.18; false discovery rate q = 0.0006), cannabis initiation and AN ( r g = 0.23; q < 0.0001), and cannabis initiation and AN with binge eating ( r g = 0.27; q = 0.0016). Conversely, significant negative genetic correlations were observed between three nondiagnostic smoking phenotypes (smoking initiation, current smoking, and cigarettes per day) and AN without binge eating ( r gs = −0.19 to −0.23; qs < 0.04). The genetic correlation between AUD and AN was no longer significant after co‐varying for major depressive disorder loci. The patterns of association between eating disorder‐ and substance‐use‐related phenotypes highlights the potentially complex and substance‐specific relationships among these behaviors.

Introduction: Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are highly active in relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), but most patients (pts) will still relapse. Given this, allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) remains an important option for pts after PD-1 blockade, as it offers the possibility of cure. Prior reports have suggested that alloHSCT after PD-1 mAbs may be associated with severe immune-related complications including acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), veno-occlusive disease (VOD) and cytokine release/febrile non-infectious syndrome (CRS). Prior studies of alloHSCT after PD-1 blockade in cHL have been limited by the small number of pts and short follow-up, preventing an accurate assessment of long-term outcomes and complications, risk factors for early toxicity, and the impact of transplant strategies such as choice of GVHD prophylaxis. We therefore assembled a large retrospective international cohort of cHL pts who underwent alloHSCT after PD-(L)1 blockade to better answer these questions, including an assessment of the impact of post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) on efficacy and toxicity. Methods: Medical records and databases were reviewed at 26 European and United States transplant centers to identify pts with cHL who underwent an alloHSCT any time after receiving a PD-1 or PD-L1 mAb. Response assessment was performed by local investigators according to Lugano 2014 criteria. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), cumulative incidence (CumInc) of relapse (CIR), non-relapse mortality (NRM), acute (a) and chronic (c) GVHD were estimated, as was the association between baseline variables and these outcomes. Results: Between 2014 and 2019, 150 pts were identified who underwent alloHSCT after a median of 10 (range, 1-74) doses of nivolumab (n=118), pembrolizumab (n=31), or avelumab (n=1). The median age was 31 (range 17-68) and pts had received a median of 4 (range, 2-11) lines of therapy prior to PD-(L)1 blockade. 138 pts (92%) had failed BV and 111 (74%) autologous HSCT. The best overall response to PD-(L)1 mAbs was CR for 62 pts (41%), PR for 55 (37%), SD for 17 (11%), PD for 15 (10%) and unknown for 1 (1%). Median time from last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb to alloHSCT was 80 days (range, 17-756) with 70 pts (47%) receiving intervening systemic therapy. At alloHSCT, 90 pts were in CR (60%), 45 in PR (30%), 5 in SD (3%), and 10 in PD (7%). Donors were haploidentical (n=71, 47%), matched sibling (n=29, 19%), matched unrelated (n=39, 26%), mismatched unrelated (n=7, 5%), cord blood (n=2, 1%), or unknown (n=2, 1%). Stem cell source was bone marrow (n=38, 25%), peripheral blood (n=110, 73%), or cord blood (n=2, 1%). GVHD prophylaxis included PTCy in 88 pts (59%) (69/71 (97%) with haploidentical donors; 19/79 (24%) with other donors). With a median post-alloHSCT follow-up for survivors of 23.8 months (range, 1-67), the 2y OS and PFS were 79% (95CI 71-86%) and 65% (95CI 55-73%), respectively, while the 2y CumIncs of relapse and NRM were 21% (95CI 13-29%) and 14%, (95CI, 8-22%), respectively (Fig. 1A-B). 27 pts have died, 3 due to disease and 24 to NRM, including aGVHD (n=7) and VOD (n=2). Veno-occlusive disease (VOD) occurred in 5 pts (day 100 CumInc 4%) and 29 pts (19%) developed CRS (grade 1 n=16; grade 2 n=7; grade 3 n=4; grade 4 n=2). The 6-month CumIncs of grade 2-4, grade 3-4 and grade 4 aGVHD were 39%, 16% and 8%, respectively. Hyperacute GVHD (onset ≤ 14 days after alloHSCT) occurred in 4% of pts and was fatal in 2 pts. The 2y CumInc of cGVHD was 45%. Neither receipt of &gt; 10 doses (median) of anti-PD-(L)1 mAb nor undergoing alloHSCT ≤80 days (median) after last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb were associated with PFS or OS. However, pts with a shorter time to transplant (≤80 days) appeared to have a higher risk of severe (grade 3-4) aGVHD (6m CumInc 24% vs 9%, p=0.006). Recipients of PTCy in this cohort had lower 2y CumIncs of cGVHD (34% vs 58%, p=0.01) and relapse (12% vs 31%, p=0.02), superior 2y PFS (76% vs 54%, p=0.015), and similar rates of severe aGVHD (15% vs 18%, p=0.5), 2y NRM (12% vs 16%, p=0.5), and 2y OS (82% vs 78%, p=0.6). Conclusions: With extended follow-up of a large international cohort, our results argue that alloSCT performed after PD-(L)1 mAbs is a feasible strategy associated with an excellent PFS and a very low CIR for this disease. The use of PT-Cy appears to be associated with improved outcomes and may at present represent the optimal transplant strategy in this pt population. Figure Disclosures Corradini: kite: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; KiowaKirin: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Ho:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Omeros Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaglowski:Kite: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Other: advisory board; Unum Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding. Herrera:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Blaise:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre medicaments: Honoraria; Molmed: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Nieto:Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Affimed: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Feldman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. McGuirk:ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding. Mohty:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stamatoulas Bastard:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy. Houot:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Merck Sharp Dohme: Honoraria. Manson:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Orvain:Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel & accommodations; Pfizer: Other: Travel & accommodations. Bouabdallah:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Frigault:Novartis: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Nkarta: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy; Xenetic: Consultancy. Chen:Takeda: Consultancy; Kiadis: Consultancy; Magenta: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Lynch:T.G. Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals S.A: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Johnson Graffe Keay Moniz & Wick LLP: Consultancy. Smith:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb (spouse): Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Ignyta (spouse): Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Ayala (spouse): Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Byrne:Karyopharm: Research Funding. Cohen:Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding. Svoboda:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Santoro:Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Speakers Bureau; Arqule: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Abb-Vie: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; Lilly: Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; Eisai: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Armand:Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Tensha: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Infinity: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding. Zinzani:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Carlo-Stella:Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations; Genenta Science srl: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen Oncology: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Other: Travel, accommodations; Takeda: Other: Travel, accommodations.

Background: Lateral epicondylitis, or tennis elbow, is a painful degenerative disorder that commonly occurs in adults between 40 and 60 years of age. Normal saline (NS) injections have been used as placebo through a large number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Purpose: This meta-analysis of RCTs aimed to assess the therapeutic effect of NS injections on lateral epicondylitis symptoms and compare results with established minimal clinically important difference criteria. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched for clinical trials reporting pain and joint function with the visual analog scale, Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand in patients with lateral epicondylitis. The meta-analysis was conducted with a random effects model and generic inverse variance method. Heterogeneity was tested with the I 2 statistic index. Results: A total of 15 RCTs included in this meta-analysis revealed a significant improvement in pain (mean difference, 3.61 cm [95% CI, 2.29-4.92 cm]; P < .00001; I 2 = 88%; visual analog scale) and function (mean difference, 25.65 [95% CI, 13.30-37.99]; P < .0001; I 2 = 82%; Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation / Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) after NS injection (≥6 months). Conclusion: NS injections yielded a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in pain and functional outcomes in patients with lateral epicondylitis. New research should focus on better methods to diminish the potential confounders that could lead to this effect because NS injections could mask the real effect of an active therapeutic intervention in RCT. Registration: CRD42019127547 (PROSPERO).

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesThe ACS‐NSQIP surgical risk calculator is an online tool that estimates the risk of postoperative complications. Sacrectomies for chordoma are associated with a high rate of complications. This study was to determine if the ACS‐NSQIP calculator can predict postoperative complications following sacrectomy.MethodsSixty‐five (42 male, 23 female) patients who underwent sacrectomy were analyzed using the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes: 49215 (excision of presacral/sacral tumor), 63001 (laminectomy of sacral vertebrae), 63728 (laminectomy for biopsy/excision of sacral neoplasm) and 63307 (sacral vertebral corpectomy for intraspinal lesion). The predicted rates of complications were compared to the observed rates.ResultsComplications were noted in 44 (68%) patients. Of the risk factors available to input to the ACS‐NSQIP calculator, tobacco use (OR, 20.4; P < .001) was predictive of complications. The predicted risk of complications based off the CPT codes were: 49215 (16%); 63011 (6%); 63278 (11%) and 63307 (15%). Based on ROC curves, the use of the ACS‐NSQIP score were poor predictors of complications (49215, AUC 0.65); (63011, AUC 0.66); (63307, AUC 0.67); (63278, AUC 0.64).ConclusionThe ACS‐NSQIP calculator was a poor predictor of complications and was marginally better than a coin flip in its ability to predict complications following sacrectomy for chordoma.