Citations

Abstract The critical nature of the microbiology laboratory in infectious disease diagnosis calls for a close, positive working relationship between the physician and the microbiologists who provide enormous value to the healthcare team. This document, developed by experts in both adult and pediatric laboratory and clinical medicine, provides information on which tests are valuable and in which contexts, and on tests that add little or no value for diagnostic decisions. Sections are divided into anatomic systems, including Bloodstream Infections and Infections of the Cardiovascular System, Central Nervous System Infections, Ocular Infections, Soft Tissue Infections of the Head and Neck, Upper Respiratory Infections, Lower Respiratory Tract Infections, Infections of the Gastrointestinal Tract, Intraabdominal Infections, Bone and Joint Infections, Urinary Tract Infections, Genital Infections, and Skin and Soft Tissue Infections; or into etiologic agent groups, including arboviral Infections, Viral Syndromes, and Blood and Tissue Parasite Infections. Each section contains introductory concepts, a summary of key points, and detailed tables that list suspected agents; the most reliable tests to order; the samples (and volumes) to collect in order of preference; specimen transport devices, procedures, times, and temperatures; and detailed notes on specific issues regarding the test methods, such as when tests are likely to require a specialized laboratory or have prolonged turnaround times. In addition, the pediatric needs of specimen management are also addressed. There is redundancy among the tables and sections, as many agents and assay choices overlap. The document is intended to serve as a reference to guide physicians in choosing tests that will aid them to diagnose infectious diseases in their patients.

Abstract BACKGROUND Treatment of high-grade glioma (HGG) remains a challenge. Several groups have developed ex vivo drug sensitivity assays to evaluate susceptibility of the tumor tissue to specific chemotherapeutics. This tool, in addition to molecular analysis of tumors might provide another layer of confidence in choosing treatments for patients with high-grade gliomas. METHODS 3D PredictTM platform (Kiyatec, Greenville, SC, USA) was tested at three academic medical centers in the United States. Twelve patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent HGGs were included. Tumor spheroids created ex vivo were exposed to twelve pre-selected drugs. Responses were reported as: no response, moderate response and response. We analyzed: demographics, histopathology, stage of disease, success rate and results of the ex vivo assay and clinical implications. RESULTS Majority of patients were women (67%). Median age was 58.5. Histology: GBM-83%, HGGs-17%. Eighty three percent of the samples represented recurrent disease. Sixty percent represented first recurrence while the remaining 40% represented 2nd or 3rd recurrence. Eight out of 12 tissue samples (67%) were successfully tested ex vivo. In six cases (75%), the information was used for immediate clinical decision making. In 2 cases, the decision was deferred until the next progression of the disease. The drugs chosen for treatment based on assay results included: olaparib (the assay was positive for response to rucaparib), temozolomide, lomustine, carboplatin and irinotecan. CONCLUSIONS This platform is easy to use in a standard clinical setting, the success rate for creating viable spheroids for drug sensitivity testing is high and the information obtained can be useful in clinical practice. Addition of other agents to the assay, correlation with molecular testing of the tumor tissue and attempt to assess response to drug combinations should be considered in further development of this technology. Prospective clinical trial is needed to validate this approach for routine clinical use.

369 Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a valuable component to understand treatment tolerability and toxicity. We have implemented an electronic system for monitoring PROs and quality of life (QOL) for patients enrolled in the I-SPY2 trial, a phase II trial evaluating the effect of novel neoadjuvant therapies for breast cancer. We associated patient demographic factors with symptoms, decline in physical function (PF), and tolerability to treatment. Methods: Study population for this analysis includes 259 enrolled patients receiving combinations of experimental immunotherapy and chemotherapy. Patients completed PRO-CTCAE/PROMIS/FACT surveys reflecting symptom severity, symptom frequency, tolerability of drug, and physical function at baseline through follow up (12 months). CTCAE 5.0 was collected weekly at these timepoints to assess adverse events (AE). Odds ratio and regularized multi-variate regression was used to evaluate early symptoms predictive of a clinically significant decline in PF from baseline to post-treatment follow-up. Results: Of 259 patients, 160 (58%) were White, 13 (5%) were Asian, 26 (10%) were African American (AA), and 25 (9.3%) were Hispanic. 25% of all patients had a clinically significant decline in PF between baseline and pre-surgery/follow-up. Symptom predictors of decline included high frequency of diarrhea and severity of joint pain. African American (AA) patients had higher severity of joint pain than White patients (OR = 14.9, P < 0.05). Within the first 12 weeks of treatment, AA patients and non-white (NW) patients were more likely to report severe vomiting than White patients (OR =13.22 and 12.72, P< 0.05 and P< 0.03 respectively). Overall, patients that reported lower tolerance to therapy had higher grade of AE. While patients with low-grade adverse events were less bothered by their side effects at follow-up, higher grade adverse events such as hypothyroidism impacted distress levels by more than double. Conclusions: Among I-SPY2 participants, when higher grade of symptoms is persistent through follow up, it impacts physical function and tolerability even after end of therapy. Our study can allow physicians to be more diligent in active and post treatment monitoring. Clinical trial information: NCT01042379 .

PURPOSE The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected cancer care worldwide, including radiation therapy (RT) for breast cancer (BC), because of risk-based resource allocation. We report the evolution of international breast RT practices during the beginning of the pandemic, focusing on differences in treatment recommendations between countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS Between July and November 2020, a 58-question survey was distributed to radiation oncologists (ROs) through international professional societies. Changes in RT decision making during the first surge of the pandemic were evaluated across six hypothetical scenarios, including the management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), early-stage, locally advanced, and metastatic BC. The significance of changes in responses before and during the pandemic was examined using chi-square and McNemar-Bowker tests. RESULTS One thousand one hundred three ROs from 54 countries completed the survey. Incomplete responses (254) were excluded from the analysis. Most respondents were from the United States (285), Japan (117), Italy (63), Canada (58), and Brazil (56). Twenty-one percent (230) of respondents reported treating at least one patient with BC who was COVID-19–positive. Approximately 60% of respondents reported no change in treatment recommendation during the pandemic, except for patients with metastatic disease, for which 57.7% (636/1,103; P < .0005) changed their palliative practice. Among respondents who noted a change in their recommendation during the first surge of the pandemic, omitting, delaying, and adopting short-course RT were the most frequent changes, with most transitioning to moderate hypofractionation for DCIS and early-stage BC. CONCLUSION Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, significant changes in global RT practice patterns for BC were introduced. The impact of published results from the FAST FORWARD trial supporting ultrahypofractionation likely confounded the interpretation of the pandemic's independent influence on RT delivery.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are standardized and designed to provide superior analgesia, reduce opioid consumption, improve patient recovery, and reduce hospital length of stay. Yet, moderate-to-severe postsurgical pain continues to afflict over 40% of patients and remains a major priority for anesthesia research. Methadone administration in the perioperative setting may reduce postoperative pain scores and have opioid-sparing effects, which may be beneficial for enhanced recovery. Methadone possesses a multimodal profile consisting of µ-opioid agonism, N -methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonism, and reuptake inhibition of serotonin and norepinephrine. Furthermore, it may attenuate the development of chronic postsurgical pain. However, caution is advised with perioperative use of methadone in specific high-risk patient populations and surgical settings. Methadone’s wide pharmacokinetic variability, opioid-related adverse effects, and potential negative impact on cost-effectiveness may also limit its use in the perioperative setting. In this PRO-CON commentary article, the authors debate whether methadone should be incorporated in ERAS protocols to provide superior analgesia with no increased risks.