Citations

OBJECTIVES: To assess disparities in hypoxemia detection by pulse oximetry across self-identified racial groups and associations with clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Observational cohort study from May 5, 2018, to December 31, 2020. SETTING: Three academic medical centers in the United States. PATIENTS: Adults greater than or equal to 18 years who self-identified as White, Black, Asian, or American Indian admitted to the ICU or undergoing surgery during inpatient hospitalization with simultaneous measurements of pulse oximetry-estimated oxygen saturation and arterial blood gas-derived oxygen saturation. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Multivariable models were employed to assess the relationships between race, occult hypoxemia (i.e., arterial blood gas-derived oxygen saturation < 88% despite pulse oximetry-estimated oxygen saturation ≥ 92%), and clinical outcomes of hospital mortality and hospital-free days. One-hundred twenty-eight–thousand two-hundred eighty-five paired pulse oximetry-estimated oxygen saturation–arterial blood gas-derived oxygen saturation measurements were included from 26,603 patients. Pulse oximetry-estimated oxygen saturation on average overestimated arterial blood gas-derived oxygen saturation by 1.57% (1.54–1.61%). Black, Asian, and American Indian patients were more likely to experience occult hypoxemia during hospitalization (estimated probability 6.2% [5.1–7.6%], 6.6% [4.9–8.8%], and 6.6% [4.4–10.0%], respectively) compared with White patients (3.6% [3.4–3.8%]). Black patients had increased odds of occult hypoxemia compared with White patients after adjustment (odds ratio, 1.65; 1.28–2.14; p < 0.001). Differences in occult hypoxemia between Asian and American Indian patients compared with White patients were not significant after adjustment (odds ratio, 1.53; 0.95–2.47; p = 0.077 and odds ratio, 1.31; 0.80–2.16; p = 0.288, respectively). Occult hypoxemia was associated with increased odds of mortality in surgical (odds ratio, 2.96; 1.20–7.28; p = 0.019) and ICU patients (1.36; 1.03–1.80; p = 0.033). Occult hypoxemia was associated with fewer hospital-free days in surgical (–2.5 d [–3.9 to –1.2 d]; p < 0.001) but not ICU patients (0.4 d [–0.7 to 1.4 d]; p = 0.500). CONCLUSIONS: Occult hypoxemia is more common in Black patients compared with White patients and is associated with increased mortality, suggesting potentially important outcome implications for undetected hypoxemia. It is imperative to validate pulse oximetry with expanded racial inclusion.

(1) Background: The objective of this study was to determine the long-term efficacy of fractional CO2 laser therapy in breast cancer survivors. (2) Methods: This was a single-arm study of breast cancer survivors. Participants received three treatments of fractional CO2 laser therapy and returned for a 4 week follow-up. Participants were contacted for follow-up at annual intervals. The Vaginal Assessment Scale (VAS), the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), the Female Sexual Distress Scare Revised (FSDS-R), the Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI), and adverse events were collected and reported for the two-year follow-up. The changes in scores were compared between the four-week and two-year and the one-year and two-year follow-ups using paired t-tests. (3) Results: In total, 67 BC survivors were enrolled, 59 completed treatments and the four week follow-up, 39 participated in the one-year follow-up, and 33 participated in the two-year follow-up. After initial improvement in the VAS from baseline to the four week follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in the VAS score (mean Δ 0.23; 95% CI [−0.05, 0.51], p = 0.150) between the four week follow-up and the two-year follow-up. At the two-year follow-up, the FSFI and FSDS-R scores remained improved from baseline and there was no statistically significant change in the FSFI score (mean Δ −0.83; 95% CI [−3.07, 2.38] p = 0.794) or the FSDS-R score (mean Δ −2.85; 95% CI [−1.88, 7.59] p = 0.227) from the one to two-year follow-up. The UDI scores approached baseline at the two-year follow-up; however, the change between the one- and two-year follow-ups was not statistically significant (mean Δ 4.76; 95% CI [−1.89, 11.41], p = 0.15). (4) Conclusions: Breast cancer survivors treated with fractional CO2 laser therapy have sustained improvement in sexual function two years after treatment completion, suggesting potential long-term benefit.

Abstract The World Health Organization category of myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and PDGFRA rearrangements is composed of a heterogeneous group of neoplasms that can present as a myeloproliferative neoplasm, acute myeloid leukemia, myeloid sarcoma, or lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma. The overall outcome of these neoplasms is favorable with imatinib therapy. Herein, we describe an adult female patient with a myeloid neoplasm accompanied by eosinophilia and a novel USP25::PDGFRA gene fusion.

AbstractBackgroundChimeric antigen receptor T (CAR‐T) cell successes have encouraged continued clinical study. Apheresis collection of starting material for CAR‐T cell therapy product manufacturing is critical but described approaches suggest variability and clinical guidelines are currently lacking. The goal of this study was to gather and assess variability in apheresis collection descriptions in publicly available CAR T‐cell therapy clinical trials.Study designWe searched clinicaltrials.gov (a publicly available clinical trial database) for “chimeric antigen receptor T cells” on July 01, 2020 and studies accessed July 30, 2020‐August 15, 2020. Data collected included date posted, study characteristics, apheresis mentions (number, location, and context), laboratory parameters and transfusion allowances. Apheresis context was analyzed using a qualitative inductive approach of grounded theory method with open coding. Text was classified into 37 context codes, grouped into 12 categories, and then consolidated into patient, procedure, product, and miscellaneous themes.ResultsApheresis was mentioned 1044 times in 322 (51.9%) of 621 total studies. Laboratory parameters mentioned included white blood cells (100 studies), absolute neutrophil count (220 studies), absolute lymphocyte count (102 studies), CD3+ cell (38 studies), hemoglobin (233 studies, 54 studies specified transfusion allowance), and platelet (269 studies, 48 studies specified transfusion allowance).ConclusionsApheresis collection of CAR‐T cell products is not well‐defined in clinical study descriptions and the context is inconsistent. Laboratory parameters useful for apheresis collection are variably present and do not consistently align with current practices. Further exploration, and clinical guideline development will encourage alignment of apheresis collections for CAR‐T cell products.

359881 Background: Sunitinib is approved for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after imatinib failure. Ripretinib, a broad-spectrum KIT and PDGFRA switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is indicated for the treatment of adult patients (pts) with GIST who received prior treatment with 3 or more TKIs, including imatinib. We compared the efficacy and safety of ripretinib vs sunitinib in pts with advanced GIST who progressed on or were intolerant to imatinib. Methods: This multicenter, global, randomized, open-label phase 3 study (NCT03673501) enrolled adult pts with GIST who progressed on or had intolerance to imatinib. Pts were randomized 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 wks on/2 wks off). Randomization was stratified by KIT mutational status and imatinib intolerance. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review (IRR) using modified RECIST version 1.1. Key secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) by IRR and overall survival (OS). Hierarchical testing was performed for primary and key secondary endpoints in a prespecified sequence; testing pts with a KIT exon 11 primary mutation (Ex11 intention-to-treat [ITT] population) preceded the all-patient (AP) ITT population. Data cutoff was 1 Sep 2021; final analyses of PFS and ORR and the first interim analysis of OS were conducted. Results: A total of 453 pts were randomized to ripretinib (n = 226; Ex11 ITT, n = 163) or sunitinib (n = 227; Ex11 ITT, n = 164). Median age was 60 yrs (range 18–88) and most pts were white (66.2%) males (62.0%). PFS was not statistically different between ripretinib and sunitinib in the Ex11 ITT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.66, 1.16; P = 0.36; median 8.3 vs 7.0 mos) or in the AP populations (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.82, 1.33; P = 0.72; median 8.0 vs 8.3 mos). ORR was numerically higher for ripretinib vs sunitinib in the Ex11 ITT (23.9% vs 14.6%; difference 9.3%, 95% CI 0.7, 17.8; nominal P = 0.03) and AP ITT populations (21.7% vs 17.6%; difference 4.2%, 95% CI −3.2, 11.5; nominal P = 0.27). OS data was highly immature; median OS was not reached in either arm. Fewer pts in the ripretinib arm experienced Grade 3-4 (G3-4) treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) vs sunitinib (41.3% vs 65.6%). Among G3-4 TEAEs with a difference ≥5% between arms, ripretinib had fewer events vs sunitinib (hypertension [8.5% vs 26.7%], palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia [1.3% vs 10.0%], neutropenia [0% vs 6.3%], and neutrophil count decreased [0% vs 7.2%]). Conclusions: The PFS in both arms was longer than PFS achieved by sunitinib in its pivotal phase 3 trial. While the PFS for ripretinib did not meet the primary endpoint of superiority vs sunitinib, meaningful clinical activity and fewer G3-4 TEAEs were observed in pts with advanced GIST treated with ripretinib after imatinib failure. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501.

65 Background: There is consensus that the proportion of the average-risk US population up-to-date with CRC screening (58-65%) is insufficient. However, estimates of average risk CRC screening rates are inconsistent and impacted by inclusion of higher-risk individuals, and differing study designs. Accurate measurement of population screening rates is key to addressing gaps in care and assessing the impact of newer CRC screening tests. Methods: The study included individuals aged 50-75 years in a large de-identified claims database, with continuous enrollment during year of analysis, and a variable length baseline enrollment of 1-10 years. Average-risk designation excluded higher risk diagnoses (CRC familial syndromes, colorectal polyp or history of colorectal polyp, history of/current CRC, family history of gastrointestinal cancer, and inflammatory bowel disease). Up-to-date status was assessed within guideline-based time periods: colonoscopy (10 years); FIT or FOBT (annually); mt-sDNA (3 years); flexible sigmoidoscopy/CT colonography (5 years). Analyses assessed the proportion estimated as up-to-date and examined the sensitivity to: a) patient population (average-risk only vs. including higher-risk); b) study design (yearly cross-sectional vs. cohort of 50-year-old patients; c) methods (percent in patients with 10 years of enrollment vs. Kaplan Meier (KM) of censored variable pre-screening period). Results: The cross-sectional analysis average-risk population included 5.3 million individuals. Estimates of the proportion of those up-to-date with screening guidelines for average-risk patients varied by study design, population, and estimation method. KM estimates among the average-risk population (50-75) showed 49-50% were up-to-date in each calendar year. Including higher-risk patients in the KM analysis resulted in 70% up-to-date among the mixed average+higher-risk population. Using a cohort study design (average-risk patients aged 60 with 10 years of baseline data), 65% were up-to-date by age 60. Conclusions: In the base case analysis only half of average risk individuals were up-to-date with CRC screening, a rate lower than typically cited. Sensitivity analyses resulted in substantially different estimates and demonstrate the importance of clearly communicating the methodology used to define the study population. Higher rates quoted in the lay press and medical publications may be based on mixed populations of average+higher-risk individuals or on study designs that do not represent the full population at risk.

AbstractWhile the COVID-19 pandemic has catalyzed the expansion of telemedicine into nearly every specialty of medicine, few articles have summarized current practices and recommendations for integrating virtual care in the practice of neuro-oncology. This article identifies current telemedicine practice, provides practical guidance for conducting telemedicine visits, and generates recommendations for integrating virtual care into neuro-oncology practice. Practical aspects of telemedicine are summarized including when to use and not use telemedicine, how to conduct a virtual visit, who to include in the virtual encounter, unique aspects of telehealth in neuro-oncology, and emerging innovations.

BackgroundPreferential publication of studies with positive findings can lead to overestimation of diagnostic test accuracy (i.e. publication bias). Understanding the contribution of the editorial process to publication bias could inform interventions to optimize the evidence guiding clinical decisions.Purpose/HypothesisTo evaluate whether accuracy estimates, abstract conclusion positivity, and completeness of abstract reporting are associated with acceptance to radiology conferences and journals.Study TypeMeta‐research.PopulationAbstracts submitted to radiology conferences (European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) and International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM)) from 2008 to 2018 and manuscripts submitted to radiology journals (Radiology, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging [JMRI]) from 2017 to 2018. Primary clinical studies evaluating sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic imaging test in humans with available editorial decisions were included.AssessmentPrimary variables (Youden's index [YI > 0.8 vs. <0.8], abstract conclusion positivity [positive vs. neutral/negative], number of reported items on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies [STARD] for Abstract guideline) and confounding variables (prospective vs. retrospective/unreported, sample size, study duration, interobserver agreement assessment, subspecialty, modality) were extracted.Statistical TestsMultivariable logistic regression to obtain adjusted odds ratio (OR) as a measure of the association between the primary variables and acceptance by radiology conferences and journals; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P‐values were obtained; the threshold for statistical significance was P < 0.05.ResultsA total of 1000 conference abstracts (500 ESGAR and 500 ISMRM) and 1000 journal manuscripts (505 Radiology and 495 JMRI) were included. Conference abstract acceptance was not significantly associated with YI (adjusted OR = 0.97 for YI > 0.8; CI = 0.70–1.35), conclusion positivity (OR = 1.21 for positive conclusions; CI = 0.75–1.90) or STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 0.96 per unit increase in reported items; CI = 0.82–1.18). Manuscripts with positive abstract conclusions were less likely to be accepted by radiology journals (OR = 0.45; CI = 0.24–0.86), while YI (OR = 0.85; CI = 0.56–1.29) and STARD for Abstracts adherence (OR = 1.06; CI = 0.87–1.30) showed no significant association. Positive conclusions were present in 86.7% of submitted conference abstracts and 90.2% of journal manuscripts.Data ConclusionDiagnostic test accuracy studies with positive findings were not preferentially accepted by the evaluated radiology conferences or journals.Evidence Level3Technical EfficacyStage 2.