Citations

Background Primary prevention implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in selected patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction by delivering therapies (antitachycardia pacing or shocks) to terminate potentially lethal arrhythmias; inappropriate therapies also occur. We assessed device therapies among adults receiving primary prevention ICDs in 7 healthcare systems. Methods and Results We linked medical record data, adjudicated device therapies, and the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. Survival analysis evaluated therapy probability and predictors after ICD implant from 2006 to 2009, with attention to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups: left ventricular ejection fraction, 31% to 35%; nonischemic cardiomyopathy <9 months’ duration; and New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator. Among 2540 patients, 35% were <65 years old, 26% were women, and 59% were white. During 27 (median) months, 738 (29%) received ≥1 therapy. Three‐year therapy risk was 36% (appropriate, 24%; inappropriate, 12%). Appropriate therapy was more common in men (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43–2.35). Inappropriate therapy was more common in patients with atrial fibrillation (adjusted HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.68–2.87), but less common among patients ≥65 years old versus younger (adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54–0.95) and in recent implants (eg, in 2009 versus 2006; adjusted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46–0.95). In Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development analysis, inappropriate therapy was less common with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator versus single chamber (adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36–0.84); therapy risk did not otherwise differ for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups. Conclusions In this community cohort of primary prevention patients receiving ICD, therapy delivery varied across demographic and clinical characteristics, but did not differ meaningfully for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups.

Abstract Patients who undergo surgical resection of brain metastases are at significant risk of cavity local recurrence without additional radiation therapy. Postoperative stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a method of focal treatment to the cavity to maximize local control while minimizing the risk of neurocognitive detriment associated with whole brain radiation therapy. Recently published randomized trials have demonstrated the benefit of postoperative SRS in terms of cavity tumor control and preserving neurocognition. However, there are several potential drawbacks with postoperative SRS including a possible increase in symptomatic radiation necrosis because of the need for cavity margin expansion due to target delineation uncertainty, the variable postoperative clinical course and potential delay in administering postoperative SRS, and the theoretical risk of tumor spillage into cerebrospinal fluid at the time of surgery. Preoperative SRS is an alternative paradigm wherein SRS is delivered prior to surgical resection, which may effectively address some of these potential drawbacks. The goal of this review is to examine the rationale, technique, outcomes, evidence, and future directions for the use of SRS as an adjunct to surgical resection. This can be delivered as either preoperative or postoperative SRS with potential advantages and disadvantages to both approaches that will be discussed.

2 Background: Significant genomic diversity exists in the androgen receptor ( AR) and its activity (AR-A) in mCRPC. In localized prostate cancer, the biologic, prognostic, and therapeutic clinical implications of AR-A heterogeneity have yet to be interrogated Methods: Genome-wide expression profiles of FFPE RP or biopsy tumor samples were evaluated from a prospective registry cohort (n = 5,239, NCT02609269) and six retrospective institutional cohorts (n = 1,170). AR-A was calculated based on expression of 9 targets of AR.. Results: Utilizing 6,409 localized prostate adenocarcinomas with full transcriptomic data, we found there was marked inter-individual transcriptomic diversity in AR and AR-A expression, and weak correlation between them (r = 0.08 to 0.36 based on cohort), in contrast to mCRPC that has a strong correlation between AR and AR-A expression (r = 0.76). Additionally, serum PSA had no correlation to intratumoral AR-A (r = 0.06). Unsupervised hierarchical clustering identified a distinct subclass of low AR-A prostate tumors, which had increased markers of immunogenicity (decreased T-regs and MDSCs, and increased CD3 effector T-cells), increased neuroendocrine marker expression ( NCAM1, ENO2, and SCG2), and decreased DNA repair pathway expression (all p < 0.001). Clinically, low AR-A tumors had more rapid development of metastatic disease in three independent cohorts, were more prone to develop resistance to hormonal therapy and develop CRPC, and were found at an increased frequency in African-American men. Interrogating in vitro drug sensitivity analyses utilizing the NCI-60 panel, low AR-A tumors appear more sensitive to platinum chemotherapy and PARP inhibition, and less sensitive to hormone therapy and taxanes. Conclusions: The diversity in AR-signaling in localized prostate cancer represents important biological heterogeneity that is both prognostic and predictive of treatment response. These findings are provocative in that low AR-A tumors may be more susceptible to immunotherapy, PARP inhibition, platinum chemotherapy, and/or radiotherapy. Patients with low AR-A tumors warrant dedicated biomarker enhanced clinical trials.