Citations

Study Design. Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected registry data. Objective. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of 30% reduction to established absolute point-change values for measures of disability and pain in patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery. Summary of Background Data. Recent studies recommend using a proportional change from baseline instead of an absolute point-change value to define minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Methods. Analyses included 13,179 patients who underwent cervical spine surgery for degenerative disease between April 2013 and February 2018. Participants completed a baseline and 12-month follow-up assessment that included questionnaires to assess disability (Neck Disability Index [NDI]), neck and arm pain (Numeric Rating Scale [NRS-NP/AP], and satisfaction [NASS scale]). Participants were classified as met or not met 30% reduction from baseline in each of the respective measures. The 30% reduction in scores at 12 months was compared to a wide range of established absolute point-change MCID values using receiver-operating characteristic curves, area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC), and logistic regression analyses. These analyses were conducted for the entire patient cohort, as well as for subgroups based on baseline severity and surgical approach. Results. Thirty percent reduction in NDI and NRS-NP/AP scores predicted satisfaction with more accuracy than absolute point-change values for the total population and ACDF and posterior fusion procedures (P < 0.05). The largest AUROC differences, in favor of 30% reduction, were found for the lowest disability (ODI 0–20%: 16.8%) and bed-bound disability (ODI 81%–100%: 16.6%) categories. For pain, there was a 1.9% to 11% and 1.6% to 9.6% AUROC difference for no/mild neck and arm pain (NRS 0–4), respectively, in favor of a 30% reduction threshold. Conclusion. A 30% reduction from baseline is a valid method for determining MCID in disability and pain for patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. Level of Evidence: 3

Background: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may improve survival and other cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: We constructed a decision-analytic Markov model to estimate the costs and benefits of catheter ablation and medical management in patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) and atrial fibrillation over a lifetime horizon. Evidence from the published literature informed the model inputs, including clinical effectiveness data from meta-analyses. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. A 3% discount rate was applied to both future costs and benefits. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health care sector perspective. Results: Catheter ablation was associated with 6.47 (95% CI, 5.89–6.93) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a total cost of $105 657 (95% CI, $55 311–$191 934; 2018 US dollars), compared with 5.30 (95% CI, 5.20–5.39) QALYs and $63 040 (95% CI, $37 624–$102 260) for medical management. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for catheter ablation compared with medical management was $38 496 (95% CI, $5583–$117 510) per QALY gained. Model inputs with the greatest variation on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were the cost of ablation and the effect of catheter ablation on mortality reduction. When assuming a more conservative estimate of the treatment effect of catheter ablation on mortality (hazard ratio of 0.86), the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $74 403 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained, atrial fibrillation ablation was found to be economically favorable compared with medical management in 95% of simulations. Conclusions: Catheter ablation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients and atrial fibrillation may be considered economically attractive at current benchmarks for societal willingness-to-pay in the United States.

Abstract OBJECTIVE Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common malignant primary brain tumor in adults, with males more commonly affected than females(1.6:1). Despite advancements in treatments, prognosis is dismal with a median overall survival of 15 months. Our aim was to investigate sex as a variable in GBM patient survival after receiving incremental levels of standard-of-care treatment regimens – different extents of surgical resection and different numbers of cycles of adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy. METHODS Drawing from our extensive multi-institutional brain tumor repository, we investigated GBM subjects with overall survival (OS), extent of resection (EOR), number of temozolomide (TMZ) cycles, and sex data (n=620, males: n=387, females: n=233). Cox proportional hazard ratios were computed to investigate the multivariable predictive value of the patient variables with OS. Patients were then divided into groups based on their sex, EOR (either biopsy, subtotal resection (STR) or gross total resection (GTR)), and TMZ cycles (I: &lt; 6 cycles, II: 7-11 cycles and III: &gt;12 cycles). RESULTS We observed that STR was beneficial for females (HR=0.52; CI=0.33-0.83; p-value=0.013), while for males the benefit was not detected (HR=0.73; CI=0.46-1.15; p-value=0.173) for STR but was detectable for GTR (HR=0.58, CI=0.37-0.90; p-value=0.014). Females receiving 7-11 cycles of TMZ showed a survival benefit (HR=0.52; CI=0.12-0.53; p-value=0.048) while males in the same group did not (HR=0.74; CI=0.46-1.19; p-value=0.21), in comparison to those in group I of TMZ cycles. No sex differences were identified in patients receiving &lt; =6 cycles or &gt;=12 cycles. CONCLUSION Together, our results contribute to the growing literature that sex differences exist in GBM patients, even in response to standard-of-care therapies. This should be accounted for when designing clinical trials for GBM so that we may advance our pursuit to deliver personalized medicine.

Abstract Glioblastoma (GBM) is the one of the most aggressive and common primary brain malignancies, with a poor median overall survival of less than 15 months. While the immune system is activated and brain-resident microglia and blood-derived macrophages combat the tumor, the tumor can convert some microglia and macrophages to instead exhibit an immune-suppressive phenotype. These co-opted immune cells are thereby termed ‘glioma-associated microglia and macrophages’ (GAMMs), as they allow for continued tumor growth. However, limited clinical data has been collected to understand this phenomenon. As a result, we have collected spatially-distributed image-localized biopsies from a cohort of patients and performed RNA sequencing on each sample. Correlations between normalized RNA counts of genetic markers for macrophages (i.e., CD68, CD163), tumor populations (i.e., SOX2, OLIG2), and key cell functions (i.e., KI67, CASP3) were analyzed. To further investigate the temporal effects that GAMMs have on GBM growth, we proposed the Proliferation-Invasion-Macrophage (PIM) model. This system of partial differential equations incorporates the proliferative and invasive behavior of GBM, as well as populations for both ‘healthy’ and ‘glioma-associated’ macrophages. By exploring the parameter space, we classified the various dynamics of tumor progression and how they relate to the immune response. With further insights of the interactions between GBM and macrophage populations, we can begin to parameterize the model on a patient-specific basis and provide insights to personalized immunotherapies and other novel immune-targeted treatments.