Citations

Summary Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most common cause of esophageal food impaction (EFI). Approaches to management of EFI due to EoE have not been well characterized. We conducted a web-based survey to understand approaches to management of EFI due to EoE among endoscopists. Questions focused on management of patients from presentation to post-endoscopy follow-up. The survey was administered to a list of eligible candidates provided by societies of gastroenterology. A total of 308 endoscopists completed the questionnaire. The majority (83%) practiced in Europe and treated adults (78%). Most agreed patients should be advised to seek emergency care (66%) within 1 to 2 hours (41% agreement). There was agreement that medications to induce vomiting should be avoided (84%) and that blood tests or imaging studies were usually not required before endoscopy. By contrast, there was more variability in the type of sedation recommended and the need for endotracheal intubation, especially when comparing more experienced with less experienced EoE-endoscopists. Overall, fewer than half (43%) respondents recommended obtaining esophageal biopsies during the initial endoscopy. However, there were significant differences in the proportion who recommended biopsies based on level of EoE-experience (25, 52, 77%, P < 0.001; less vs. moderate vs. very experienced) and comparing pediatric and adult endoscopists (32, vs. 79%, P < 0.001; adult vs. pediatric). There exists heterogeneity among endoscopists in recommendations to manage EFI in patients with EoE. These findings support development of clinical guidelines and new studies to clarify the rationale for best practices. Key summary: Established knowledge—The optimal management of patients with esophageal food impaction due to eosinophilic esophagitis from presentation at the emergency department to postendoscopy care is unclear. New findings—Considerable recommendation variation exists in the management of EFI in patients with EoE. Our findings provide a rationale for the creation of consensus practice guidelines and further study into best practices.

Abstract Dose uncertainty induced by respiratory motion remains a major concern for treating thoracic and abdominal lesions using particle beams. This Task Group report reviews the impact of tumor motion and dosimetric considerations in particle radiotherapy, current motion‐management techniques, and limitations for different particle‐beam delivery modes (i.e., passive scattering, uniform scanning, and pencil‐beam scanning). Furthermore, the report provides guidance and risk analysis for quality assurance of the motion‐management procedures to ensure consistency and accuracy, and discusses future development and emerging motion‐management strategies. This report supplements previously published AAPM report TG76, and considers aspects of motion management that are crucial to the accurate and safe delivery of particle‐beam therapy. To that end, this report produces general recommendations for commissioning and facility‐specific dosimetric characterization, motion assessment, treatment planning, active and passive motion‐management techniques, image guidance and related decision‐making, monitoring throughout therapy, and recommendations for vendors. Key among these recommendations are that: (1) facilities should perform thorough planning studies (using retrospective data) and develop standard operating procedures that address all aspects of therapy for any treatment site involving respiratory motion; (2) a risk‐based methodology should be adopted for quality management and ongoing process improvement.

OBJECTIVE Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been increasingly employed in recent years to treat intracranial metastatic lesions. However, there is still a need for optimization of treatment paradigms to provide better local control and prevent progressive intracranial disease. In the current study, the authors utilized a national collaborative registry to investigate the outcomes of patients with intracranial metastatic disease who underwent SRS and to determine factors associated with lesion treatment response, overall progression, and mortality. METHODS The NeuroPoint Alliance SRS registry was queried for all patients with intracranial metastatic lesions undergoing single- or multifraction SRS at participating institutions between 2016 and 2020. The main outcomes of interest included lesion response (lesion-level analysis), progression using Response Assessment for Neuro-Oncology criteria, and mortality (patient-level analysis). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to report time to progression and overall survival, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to investigate factors associated with lesion response, progression, and mortality. RESULTS A total of 501 patients (1447 intracranial metastatic lesions) who underwent SRS and had available follow-up were included in the current analyses. The most common primary tumor was lung cancer (49.5%, n = 248), followed by breast (15.4%, n = 77) and melanoma (12.2%, n = 61). Most patients had a single lesion (44.9%, n = 225), 29.3% (n = 147) had 2 or 3 lesions, and 25.7% (n = 129) had > 3 lesions. The mean sum of baseline measurements of the lesions according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) was 35.54 mm (SD 25.94). At follow-up, 671 lesions (46.4%) had a complete response, 631 (43.6%) had a partial response (≥ 30% decrease in longest diameter) or were stable (< 30% decrease but < 20% increase), and 145 (10%) showed progression (> 20% increase in longest diameter). On multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, melanoma-associated lesions (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34–0.67; p < 0.001) and larger lesion size (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.93–0.96; p < 0.001) showed lower odds of lesion regression, while a higher biologically effective dose was associated with higher odds (HR 1.001, 95% CI 1.0001–1.00023; p < 0.001). A total of 237 patients (47.3%) had overall progression (local failure or intracranial progressive disease), with a median time to progression of 10.03 months after the index SRS. Factors found to be associated with increased hazards of progression included male sex (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.108–1.99; p = 0.008), while administration of immunotherapy (before or after SRS) was found to be associated with lower hazards of overall progression (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.460–0.85; p = 0.003). A total of 121 patients (23.95%) died during the follow-up period, with a median survival of 19.4 months from the time of initial SRS. A higher recursive partitioning analysis score (HR 21.3485, 95% CI 1.53202–3.6285; p < 0.001) was found to be associated with higher hazards of mortality, while single-fraction treatment compared with hypofractionated treatment (HR 0.082, 95% CI 0.011–0.61; p = 0.015), administration of immunotherapy (HR 0.385, 95% CI 0.233–0.64; p < 0.001), and presence of single compared with > 3 lesions (HR 0.427, 95% CI 0.187–0.98; p = 0.044) were found to be associated with lower risk of mortality. CONCLUSIONS The comparability of results between this study and those of previously published clinical trials affirms the value of multicenter databases with real-world data collected without predetermined research purpose.

125 Background: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is being evaluated as a novel minimally invasive palliative treatment of peritoneal metastases (PM). Prior studies have established the feasibility and safety of repeated PIPAC treatments in gastrointestinal and gynecologic cancers. The goal of the present phase 1 trial was to establish the safety and feasibility of PIPAC oxaliplatin in a highly chemotherapy refractory colorectal and appendiceal cancer patient population. Methods: Patients with biopsy-proven peritoneal metastases from colorectal or appendiceal cancer underwent up to three PIPAC treatments using oxaliplatin (92 mg/m2) with a six-week interval at two academic centers. Patients with bowel obstruction, extra-peritoneal metastases, or poor performance status (ECOG>2) were excluded. PIPAC was nebulized over 5 min with a 30 min aerosol dwell time. Apart from the first PIPAC cycle, the patients also received a sensitizing dose of 5FU/LV (400mg/m2) within 24 hours of the procedure. Primary end point was safety as assessed by dose limiting toxicities within 6 weeks of the first PIPAC. Secondary endpoints included safety with the addition of 5FU/LV, efficacy, surgical morbidity, technical failure rate, progression-free and overall survival, pharmacokinetics (PK), and quality of life assessment. Results: A total of 8 patients were included: 5 colorectal; and 3 appendiceal. Median number of prior chemotherapy cycles was 2 (Interquartile range – IQR; 1.5-3.5). All patients were refractory to systemic oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Median time from diagnosis to PIPAC was 16 months (IQR; 5.6, 17.5) and Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Index was 29 (IQR; 20.5, 31.5). Five (62.5%) patients completed 3 PIPAC cycles while in 3 (37.5%) patients PIPAC was discontinued due to disease progression within the peritoneal cavity. No surgical complication or dose limiting toxicity was observed. Only one patient developed grade 3 treatment-related toxicity after first PIPAC (anemia), and another patient after second PIPAC (abdominal pain and anemia). At the completion of PIPAC treatment 5 patients had stable disease and 3 had disease progression. Pharmacokinetic, histologic response and preliminary survival data will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: PIPAC with oxaliplatin is safe and feasible in a highly chemotherapy refractory cohort of appendiceal and colorectal carcinomatosis patients with or without sensitizing 5-FU/ LV. Clinical trial information: NCT04329494.

Abstract Prostate cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer death among American men. Radiotherapy is a potentially curative treatment for localized prostate cancer, and failure to control localized disease contributes to the majority of prostate cancer deaths. Neuroendocrine differentiation (NED) in prostate cancer, a process by which prostate adenocarcinoma cells transdifferentiate into neuroendocrine-like (NE-like) cells, is an emerging mechanism of resistance to cancer therapies and contributes to disease progression. NED also occurs in response to treatment to promote the development of treatment-induced neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC), a highly aggressive and terminal stage disease. We previously demonstrated that by mimicking clinical radiotherapy protocol, fractionated ionizing radiation (FIR) induces prostate cancer cells to undergo NED in vitro and in vivo. Here, we performed transcriptomic analysis and confirmed that FIR-induced NE-like cells share some features of clinical NEPC, suggesting that FIR-induced NED represents a clinically relevant model. Furthermore, we demonstrated that protein arginine methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5), a master epigenetic regulator of the DNA damage response and a putative oncogene in prostate cancer, along with its cofactors pICln and MEP50, mediate FIR-induced NED. Knockdown of PRMT5, pICln, or MEP50 during FIR-induced NED and sensitized prostate cancer cells to radiation. Significantly, PRMT5 knockdown in prostate cancer xenograft tumors in mice during FIR prevented NED, enhanced tumor killing, significantly reduced and delayed tumor recurrence, and prolonged overall survival. Collectively, our results demonstrate that PRMT5 promotes FIR-induced NED and suggests that targeting PRMT5 may be a novel and effective radiosensitization approach for prostate cancer radiotherapy.

ABSTRACT Background Critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring kidney replacement therapy (KRT) have a grim prognosis. Recently, multiple studies focused on the impact of KRT initiation time [i.e., accelerated versus watchful waiting KRT initiation (WWS-KRT)] on patient outcomes. We aim to review the results of all related clinical trials. Methods In this systematic review, we searched all relevant randomized clinical trials from January 2000 to April 2021. We assessed the impacts of accelerated versus WWS-KRT on KRT dependence, KRT-free days, mortality and adverse events, including hypotension, infection, arrhythmia and bleeding. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. Results A total of 4932 critically ill patients with AKI from 10 randomized clinical trials were included in this analysis. The overall 28-day mortality rate was 38.5%. The 28-day KRT-dependence rate was 13.0%. The overall incident of KRT in the accelerated group was 97.4% and 62.8% in the WWS-KRT group. KRT in the accelerated group started 36.7 h earlier than the WWS-KRT group. The two groups had similar risks of 28-day [pooled log odds ratio (OR) 1.001, P = 0.982] and 90-day (OR 0.999, P = 0.991) mortality rates. The accelerated group had a significantly higher risk of 90-day KRT dependence (OR 1.589, P = 0.007), hypotension (OR 1.687, P &lt; 0.001) and infection (OR 1.38, P = 0.04) compared with the WWS-KRT group. Conclusions This meta-analysis revealed that accelerated KRT leads to a higher probability of 90-day KRT dependence and dialysis-related complications without any impact on mortality rate when compared with WWS-KRT. Therefore, we suggest the WWS-KRT strategy for critically ill patients.

Effects of Crotalinae envenomation vary by geographical areas and research into coagulopathy and effects of antivenom are needed to optimize management. This was a single-center retrospective review with testing on presentation and 4 h after; antivenom administration was noted and data analyzed overall and comparing envenomations. One hundred and nineteen snakebites evaluated with 59 identified as Crotalinae and half receiving antivenom. PT/aPTT was elevated in 20% of water moccasin/copperhead and 21% of rattlesnake bites. DIC-like syndrome occurred in 8% water moccasin/copperhead and 6% rattlesnake bites. Antivenom did not seem to correct PT or aPTT at 4 h follow-up in most cases. Thrombotic microangiopathy was not seen. Coagulopathy was prevalent affecting one in five patients in this cohort and does seem to persist at short interval follow-up, even in those receiving antivenom. We support guidelines recommending clinical monitoring and serial coagulation profiles in such cases. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 30:000 – 000 Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.