Citations

Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) has a high sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC). In a symptomatic population FIT may identify those patients who require colorectal investigation with the highest priority. FIT offers considerable advantages over the use of symptoms alone, as an objective measure of risk with a vastly superior positive predictive value for CRC, while conversely identifying a truly low risk cohort of patients. The aim of this guideline was to provide a clear strategy for the use of FIT in the diagnostic pathway of people with signs or symptoms of a suspected diagnosis of CRC. The guideline was jointly developed by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/British Society of Gastroenterology, specifically by a 21-member multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG). A systematic review of 13 535 publications was undertaken to develop 23 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the triage of people with symptoms of a suspected CRC diagnosis in primary care. In order to achieve consensus among a broad group of key stakeholders, we completed an extended Delphi of the GDG, and also 61 other individuals across the UK and Ireland, including by members of the public, charities and primary and secondary care. Seventeen research recommendations were also prioritised to inform clinical management.

Abstract A 2‐month‐old male patient harboring a duplication of DMD exons 1–7 classified as pathogenic by an outside institution presented with mildly elevated creatine phosphokinase (CK); molecular breakpoint analysis by our laboratory reclassified the duplication as likely benign. To date, proband continues to develop normally with decreased CK, further supporting our reclassification.

AbstractAcute lymphoblastic leukemia (B‐ALL) with intrachromosomal amplification of chromosome 21 (iAMP21‐ALL) represents a recurrent high‐risk cytogenetic abnormality and accurate identification is critical for appropriate clinical management. Identification of iAMP21‐ALL has historically relied on fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using a RUNX1 probe. Current classification requires ≥ five copies of RUNX1 per cell and ≥ three additional copies of RUNX1 on a single abnormal iAMP21‐chromosome. We sought to evaluate the performance of the RUNX1 probe in the identification of iAMP21‐ALL. This study was a retrospective evaluation of iAMP21‐ALL in the Mayo Clinic and Children's Oncology Group cohorts. Of 207 cases of iAMP21‐ALL, 188 (91%) were classified as “typical” iAMP21‐ALL, while 19 (9%) cases were classified as “unusual” iAMP21‐ALL. The “unusual” iAMP21 cases did not meet the current definition of iAMP21 by FISH but were confirmed to have iAMP21 by chromosomal microarray. Half of the “unusual” iAMP21‐ALL cases had less than five RUNX1 signals, while the remainder had ≥ five RUNX1 signals with some located apart from the abnormal iAMP21‐chromosome. Nine percent of iAMP21‐ALL cases fail to meet the FISH definition of iAMP21‐ALL demonstrating that laboratories are at risk of misidentification of iAMP21‐ALL when relying only on the RUNX1 FISH probe. Incorporation of chromosomal microarray testing circumvents these risks.

AbstractIntroductionAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia with a high stroke and mortality rate. The video‐assisted thoracoscopic radiofrequency pulmonary vein ablation is a treatment option for patients who fail catheter ablation. Randomized data comparing surgical versus catheter ablation are limited. We performed a meta‐analysis of randomized control trials to explore the outcome efficacy between surgical and catheter radiofrequency pulmonary vein ablation in patients with AF.MethodsWe comprehensively searched the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to December 2020. Included studies were published randomized control trials that compared video‐assisted thoracoscopic and catheter radiofrequency pulmonary vein ablation. Data from each study were combined using the fixed‐effects, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian, and Laird to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.ResultsSix studies from November 2013 to 2020 were included in this meta‐analysis involving 511 AF patients (79% paroxysmal) with 263 catheter ablation (mean age 56 ± 3 years) and 248 surgical ablations (mean age 52 ± 4 years). Catheter ablation was associated with increased atrial arrhythmias recurrence when compared to surgical ablation (pooled relative risk = 1.85, 95% confidence interval: 1.44−2.39, p < .001, I2 = 0.0%) but associated with less total major adverse events (pooled relative risk = 0.29, 95% confidence interval: 0.16−0.53, p < .001, I2 = 0.0%). In subgroup analysis, catheter ablation was associated with increased AF recurrence in refractory paroxysmal AF when compared to surgical ablation (pooled relative risk = 2.47, 95% confidence interval: 1.31−4.65, p = .005, I2 = 0.0%) but not in persistent AF (relative risk = 1.09, 95% confidence interval: 0.60−2.0, p = .773).ConclusionCatheter ablation was associated with higher atrial arrhythmia recurrence when compared with surgical ablation. However, our study suggests that the benefit of surgical ablation in patients with persistent AF is unclear. More studies and alternative ablation strategies investigation in persistent AF are warranted.

Here, we identified a cross talk between SET and MYND domain-containing lysine methyltransferase 2 (Smyd2) and transforming growth factor (TGF)-β-Smad3 signaling and a synergistic feedback loop between them, in which TGF-β stimulates expression of Smyd2 in a Smad3-dependent manner, and upregulation of Smyd2 regulates the transcription of TGF-β and other fibrotic marker genes through direct binding on their promoters or methylating histone H3 indirectly to regulate the transcription of those genes in fibroblasts. Thus, the Smyd2-TGF-β-Smad3-Smyd2 signaling axis plays an important role in promoting renal fibrosis, and targeting Smyd2 with its specific inhibitor should not only delay cyst growth but also ameliorate renal fibrosis in ADPKD.

In patients with cancer, myocardial infarction (MI) has distinct features and mechanisms compared to the non-oncology population. Triggers of myocardial ischemia specific to the oncology population have been increasingly identified. Coronary plaque disruption, coronary vasospasm, coronary microvascular dysfunction, spontaneous coronary artery dissection, and coronary oxygen supply-demand mismatch are all causes of MI that have been shown to have specific triggers related to either the treatments or complications of cancer. MI can occur in the presence or absence of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease (CAD). MI with nonobstructive CAD (MINOCA) is a heterogeneous syndrome that has distinct pathophysiology and different epidemiology from MI with significant CAD (MI-CAD). Recognition and differentiation of MI-CAD and MINOCA is essential in the oncology population, due to unique etiology and impact on diagnosis, management, and overall outcomes. There are currently no reports in the literature concerning MINOCA as a unified syndrome in oncology patients. The purpose of this review is to analyze the literature for studies related to known triggers of myocardial ischemia in cancer patients, with a focus on MINOCA. We propose that certain cancer treatments can induce MINOCA-like states, and further research is warranted to investigate mechanisms that may be unique to certain cancer states and types of treatment.

Objective To develop updated guidelines for the perioperative management of disease‐modifying medications for patients with rheumatic diseases, specifically those with inflammatory arthritis (IA) and those with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) or elective total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods We convened a panel of rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and infectious disease specialists, updated the systematic literature review, and included currently available medications for the clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using a group consensus process. Results This guideline updates the 2017 recommendations for perioperative use of disease‐modifying antirheumatic therapy, including traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic agents, targeted synthetic small‐molecule drugs, and glucocorticoids used for adults with rheumatic diseases, specifically for the treatment of patients with IA, including rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis, those with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, or those with SLE who are undergoing elective THA or TKA. It updates recommendations regarding when to continue, when to withhold, and when to restart these medications and the optimal perioperative dosing of glucocorticoids. Conclusion This updated guideline includes recently introduced immunosuppressive medications to help decision‐making by clinicians and patients regarding perioperative disease‐modifying medication management for patients with IA and SLE at the time of elective THA or TKA.

ObjectiveTo develop updated guidelines for the perioperative management of disease‐modifying medications for patients with rheumatic diseases, specifically those with inflammatory arthritis (IA) and those with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) or elective total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsWe convened a panel of rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and infectious disease specialists, updated the systematic literature review, and included currently available medications for the clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using a group consensus process.ResultsThis guideline updates the 2017 recommendations for perioperative use of disease‐modifying antirheumatic therapy, including traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic agents, targeted synthetic small‐molecule drugs, and glucocorticoids used for adults with rheumatic diseases, specifically for the treatment of patients with IA, including rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis, those with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, or those with SLE who are undergoing elective THA or TKA. It updates recommendations regarding when to continue, when to withhold, and when to restart these medications and the optimal perioperative dosing of glucocorticoids.ConclusionThis updated guideline includes recently introduced immunosuppressive medications to help decision‐making by clinicians and patients regarding perioperative disease‐modifying medication management for patients with IA and SLE at the time of elective THA or TKA.

Importance Although isotretinoin may rarely be associated with laboratory abnormalities such as hypertriglyceridemia, the optimal approach to laboratory monitoring is uncertain, and there is wide variation in clinical practice. Objective To establish a consensus for isotretinoin laboratory monitoring among a diverse, international cohort of clinical and research experts in acne. Design, Setting, and Participants Using a modified electronic Delphi process, 4 rounds of anonymous electronic surveys were administered from 2021 to 2022. For laboratory tests reaching consensus (≥70% agreement) for inclusion, questions regarding more time-specific monitoring throughout isotretinoin therapy were asked in subsequent rounds. The participants were international board-certified dermatologist acne experts who were selected on a voluntary basis based on involvement in acne-related professional organizations and research. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome measured was whether participants could reach consensus on key isotretinoin laboratory monitoring parameters. Results The 22 participants from 5 continents had a mean (SD) time in practice of 23.7 (11.6) years and represented a variety of practice settings. Throughout the 4-round study, participation rates ranged from 90% to 100%. Consensus was achieved for the following: check alanine aminotransferase within a month prior to initiation (89.5%) and at peak dose (89.5%) but not monthly (76.2%) or after treatment completion (73.7%); check triglycerides within a month prior to initiation (89.5%) and at peak dose (78.9%) but not monthly (84.2%) or after treatment completion (73.7%); do not check complete blood cell count or basic metabolic panel parameters at any point during isotretinoin treatment (all >70%); do not check gamma-glutamyl transferase (78.9%), bilirubin (81.0%), albumin (72.7%), total protein (72.7%), low-density lipoprotein (73.7%), high-density lipoprotein (73.7%), or C-reactive protein (77.3%). Conclusions and Relevance This Delphi study identified a core set of laboratory tests that should be evaluated prior to and during treatment with isotretinoin. These results provide valuable data to guide clinical practice and clinical guideline development to optimize laboratory monitoring in patients treated with isotretinoin.