Citations

BACKGROUND: Small, randomized trials of patients with cervical artery dissection showed conflicting results regarding optimal stroke prevention strategies. We aimed to compare outcomes in patients with cervical artery dissection treated with antiplatelets versus anticoagulation. METHODS: This is a multicenter observational retrospective international study (16 countries, 63 sites) that included patients with cervical artery dissection without major trauma. The exposure was antithrombotic treatment type (anticoagulation versus antiplatelets), and outcomes were subsequent ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage (intracranial or extracranial hemorrhage). We used adjusted Cox regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting to determine associations between anticoagulation and study outcomes within 30 and 180 days. The main analysis used an as-treated crossover approach and only included outcomes occurring with the above treatments. RESULTS: The study included 3636 patients (402 [11.1%] received exclusively anticoagulation and 2453 [67.5%] received exclusively antiplatelets). By day 180, there were 162 new ischemic strokes (4.4%) and 28 major hemorrhages (0.8%); 87.0% of ischemic strokes occurred by day 30. In adjusted Cox regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting, compared with antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation was associated with a nonsignificantly lower risk of subsequent ischemic stroke by day 30 (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.45–1.12]; P =0.145) and by day 180 (adjusted HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.28–2.24]; P =0.670). Anticoagulation therapy was not associated with a higher risk of major hemorrhage by day 30 (adjusted HR, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.35–5.45]; P =0.637) but was by day 180 (adjusted HR, 5.56 [95% CI, 1.53–20.13]; P =0.009). In interaction analyses, patients with occlusive dissection had significantly lower ischemic stroke risk with anticoagulation (adjusted HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.18–0.88]; P interaction =0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Our study does not rule out the benefit of anticoagulation in reducing ischemic stroke risk, particularly in patients with occlusive dissection. If anticoagulation is chosen, it seems reasonable to switch to antiplatelet therapy before 180 days to lower the risk of major bleeding. Large prospective studies are needed to validate our findings.

Objective: To establish benchmark cutoffs for robotic liver resection (R-LR), encompassing both major and minor resections, and to determine the impact of patient selection on outcomes. Background: R-LR is a key advancement in minimally invasive liver surgery but lacks standardized benchmarks, especially for minor resections. While guidelines endorse R-LR, its role in optimizing outcomes remains unclear. This study establishes the first benchmarks for R-LR, enabling comparisons across surgical modalities and refining patient selection. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study analyzed consecutive adult patients undergoing R-LR at 30 international centers (2020–2023). Benchmark centers had an annual case volume of ≥15 R-LR. Benchmark criteria included ASA ≤2, no major comorbidities, no prior liver resections, and Child-Pugh A status. Benchmark cutoffs for 14 key outcomes were set at the 50th and 75th percentiles of median values across benchmark centers. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of textbook outcomes. Results: Eighteen high-volume centers contributed 4028 cases with 2632 (65.3%) meeting benchmark criteria. Malignancy was the indication in 29.6%, most commonly hepatocellular carcinoma followed by colorectal liver metastases. Major liver resection was performed in 42.6%. The distribution of Iwate difficulty scores was low (25.4%), intermediate (53.9%), advanced (15.9%), and expert (4.9%). Benchmark cutoffs were established for minor and major resection, and stratified by Iwate low (0-3), intermediate (4-6) and high (7-12): Open conversion (≤6.5% minor, ≤10.5% major), major complications within 90 days (≤5.2% minor, ≤16.7% major), R1 resection (≤9.2% minor, ≤6.7% major). Benchmark cases performed at low-volume centers were able to achieve outcomes within the corresponding benchmark cutoffs. In fact, patient selection reflected by the proportion of benchmark patients, rather than case volume, was associated with textbook outcomes. Conclusions: This study defines R-LR benchmarks, emphasizing patient selection over center volume for optimal outcomes. Benchmark cutoffs guide training and support the expansion of R-LR.

Abstract Background Robotic Whipple holds the promise to overcome safety concerns associated with laparoscopy, paving the way for widespread implementation of minimal-invasive surgery in this complex procedure. However, randomized data comparing robot vs. open Whipple demonstrate more pancreas-specific complications and R1-resections in the robotic arm. Recent international consensus identified establishing benchmarks as critical to ensure safe adoption of the robot. Benchmarking is a validated quality improvement tool, enabling comparison of surgical performance. Aims The aim was to define benchmarks for outcome parameters in robotic Whipple. Methods We analyzed consecutive patients undergoing robotic Whipple from January 2020 until December 2023 in 11 centers across 4 continents, with a minimum one-year follow-up. Centers had to perform ≥15 cases/year and have mounted their learning curve. Benchmark criteria included benign or resectable malignant disease without neoadjuvant therapy, arterial resection, major co-morbidities, or significant previous abdominal surgery. Medians across centers represented benchmark cutoffs. Results Eleven centers performed 1’037 Whipple procedures, of which 603 (58%) were benchmark cases. One third (n=192) were pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients. Key benchmarks at 6 months included ≤1.2% mortality, ≤24.2% major complications, and ≤ 8.7 points Comprehensive Complication Index®. Pancreas-specific cutoffs included ≤13.0% postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) B/C and ≤3.4% post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage B/C, with 100% R0-resection and ≥19 harvested lymph nodes in PDAC patients. One-year actuarial overall and recurrence-free survival was 87% and 77%. In the entire cohort POPF B/C occurred in 16% (n=195). Independent POPF predictors included duct diameter ≤4mm (OR 1.79 95%CI [1.27-2.55]), anticoagulation (OR 3.68 95%CI [2.14-6.24]), and indication other than PDAC (OR 3.17, 95%CI [2.13-4.85]). Conclusion This study establishes benchmarks for key outcomes in robotic Whipple, demonstrating oncologic adequacy and morbidity comparable to open surgery. Risk factors for POPF in open surgery also hold true in the robotic approach.

Importance Use of modern neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) regimens has markedly increased rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) in breast cancer, raising the question of whether surgical removal of the primary tumor is required for patients with pCR. For surgery to be omitted, one must be able to accurately predict pCR before surgery. Objective To investigate if adding post-NAC core needle biopsy of the tumor bed to trimodality imaging in patients who have clinical complete response (cCR) will predict pCR (resolution of both invasive disease and ductal carcinoma in situ) in 90% or more cases. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a phase 2, prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial. Patients were enrolled from August 2017 to June 2019. This is the final analysis, which was completed in December 2023. The setting included academic and community hospital center members of NRG (ie, the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, and the Gynecologic Oncology Group) in the US and Canada. Patients with operable (T1-T3, stage I-III) invasive ductal carcinoma who completed NAC and achieved cCR and radiological complete response (rCR) or near rCR by mammography (mass ≤1 cm and no malignant microcalcifications), ultrasound (mass ≤2 cm), and magnetic resonance imaging (no mass with rapid rise or washout kinetics). Interventions Patients underwent marker-directed stereotactic multiple-core needle biopsy of the tumor bed with marker placement before breast-conservation surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures End points were negative predictive value (NPV) and sensitivity of the biopsy. Results A total of 105 patients were enrolled with 101 evaluable (mean [SD] age, 52.8 [10.5] years); 77 patients (76.2%) were younger than 60 years, and all breast cancer subtypes were represented with 32 (31.7%) triple-negative breast cancer, 21 (20.8%) hormone receptor–positive/epidermal growth factor receptor 2 ( ERBB2 ; formerly HER2 )–negative ( ERBB2 −) breast cancer, and 46 (45.5%) ERBB2 -positive ( ERBB2 +) breast cancer. In 101 evaluable patients, 36 had residual disease at surgery (pCR = 64%). With imaging criteria, NPV of the biopsy was 78.3% (95% CI, 67.9%-86.6%), and the sensitivity of the biopsy was 50% (95% CI, 32.9%-67.1%). In an exploratory subset analysis, the NPV in patients with ERBB2 + breast cancer was 90% (95% CI, 76.3%-97.2%). On retrospective central review, 62 of 101 enrolled patients met imaging eligibility criteria. In this exploratory post hoc analysis, NPV in these patients was 86.8% (95% CI, 74.7%-94.5%). Conclusions and Relevance These findings do not support breast conservation treatment without surgery based on the study criteria for cCR and rCR/near rCR by trimodality imaging and negative tumor-bed biopsy. Strict adherence to imaging criteria may be required to achieve acceptable predictive values. TRIAL Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03188393

PURPOSE The combination of the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab for first-line treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), but without improvement in overall survival (OS), likely because of toxicity. Acalabrutinib was shown to be efficacious and less toxic than ibrutinib in a head-to-head trial in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and therefore might lead to better outcomes in MCL. METHODS Patients 65 years and older with previously untreated MCL received acalabrutinib (100 mg twice daily) or placebo (until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity), plus six cycles of bendamustine (90 mg/m 2 once daily; days 1 and 2) and rituximab (375 mg/m 2 as a single dose; day 1) followed by rituximab maintenance in responding patients for 2 years. Crossover to acalabrutinib at disease progression was permitted. The primary end point was PFS per the independent review committee; overall response rate and OS were secondary end points. RESULTS In total, 598 patients were randomly assigned, with 299 in each arm. At a median follow-up of 49.8 months using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method, the median PFS was 66.4 months in the acalabrutinib arm and 49.6 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94]; P = .0160). Benefit was seen across all subgroups, including those with high-risk features. Overall response/complete response rates were 91.0%/66.6% and 88.0%/53.5% in the acalabrutinib and placebo arms, respectively. OS was not significantly different (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.13]; P = .27). Grade 3 or greater adverse events were reported in 88.9% and 88.2% in the acalabrutinib and placebo arms, respectively. CONCLUSION The combination of acalabrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab significantly improved PFS. Clinical benefit of acalabrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab was achieved with manageable toxicity.

Over the past decade, stress echocardiography has evolved from a test for assessing epicardial artery stenosis to a comprehensive functional test, targeting multiple cardiovascular parameters. The new approach includes several structured steps: (a) evaluating regional wall motion abnormalities to detect epicardial artery stenosis or vasospasm; (b) assessing pulmonary congestion and diastolic function via B-lines with lung ultrasound; (c) gauging preload and contractile reserve with volumetric echocardiography; (d) measuring coronary microvascular reserve using Doppler-based coronary flow velocity in the middistal left anterior descending artery; and (e) determining cardiac sympathetic reserve by tracking heart rate reserve on an ECG. This evolution was supported extensively by the Italian Society of Echocardiography and Cardiovascular Imaging (SIECVI), which played a key role in five areas: (1) developing the initial, curiosity-driven project; (2) disseminating protocols and results at national and international conferences, supporting logistic infrastructure and publication expenses; (3) establishing a digital platform (customized Redcap) for data entry and storage; (4) facilitating patient recruitment across 19 Italian centers; and (5) offering formal endorsement through six presidencies, adding credibility and reach beyond any single institution. The protocol quickly advanced from concept to high-impact publications, earning inclusion in 2024 specialty guidelines. Initially Italian-led, the study now includes 50 centers across 20 countries (e.g. USA and China). Beyond the 50 peer-reviewed papers published in 2016–2024, this study offers a novel, sustainable approach to cardiac stress testing, providing more information at lower costs, with zero radiation and minimal environmental impact. SIECVI’s endorsement was instrumental in amplifying the study’s rigor and outreach.

We here present evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of migraine. These guidelines, created by the Italian Society for the Study of Headache and the International Headache Society, aim to offer clear, actionable recommendations to healthcare professionals. They incorporate evidence-based recommendations from randomized controlled trials and expert-based opinions. The guidelines follow the GRADE approach for assessing the quality of evidence. The guideline development involved a systematic review of literature across multiple databases, adherence to Cochrane review methods, and a structured framework for data extraction and interpretation. Although the guidelines provide a robust foundation for migraine treatment, they also highlight gaps in current research, such as the paucity of head-to-head drug comparisons and the need for long-term outcome studies. These guidelines serve as a resource to standardize migraine treatment and promote high-quality care across different healthcare settings.

We here present evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of migraine. These guidelines, created by the Italian Society for the Study of Headache and the International Headache Society, aim to offer clear, actionable recommendations to healthcare professionals. They incorporate evidence-based recommendations from randomized controlled trials and expert-based opinions. The guidelines follow the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for assessing the quality of evidence. The guideline development involved a systematic review of literature across multiple databases, adherence to Cochrane review methods, and a structured framework for data extraction and interpretation. Although the guidelines provide a robust foundation for migraine treatment, they also highlight gaps in current research, such as the paucity of head-to-head drug comparisons and the need for long-term outcome studies. These guidelines serve as a resource to standardize migraine treatment and promote high-quality care across different healthcare settings.