Citations

Background: Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction has gained popularity because of advantages over the subpectoral technique. Acellular dermal matrix use with implant-based breast reconstruction has become common because of its perceived superior aesthetic outcome. Matrices are expensive, however, and recent evidence has pointed to several potential complications. This article reports a series of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstructions with and without acellular dermal matrix and compared their outcomes. Methods: This is a single-surgeon retrospective review of patients who underwent staged prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy over two periods. Patients with well-perfused mastectomy skin flaps with a homogeneous thickness underwent reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix initially. On evolution of the practice, it was not used. Patient demographics, operative data, and complications were analyzed. Aesthetic outcome was measured by the BREAST-Q survey and the Aesthetic Item Scale. A cost analysis was also performed. Results: Forty patients were included (acellular dermal matrix group, n = 19; non–acellular dermal matrix group, n = 21). The nonmatrix group had one case (5 percent) of seroma and one case (5 percent) with hematoma; there were none in the acellular dermal matrix group. Average BREAST-Q and Aesthetic Item Scale scores were 82.3 versus 81.6 (p = 0.954) and 20.98 versus 20.43 (p = 0.640) for the matrix and nonmatrix groups, respectively. The direct cost savings for the authors’ institution over 1 year if matrix was not used in all cases of implant-based breast reconstruction would be estimated at $3,105,960 to $6,211,920 for unilateral and bilateral cases, respectively, for Medicare reimbursement. Conclusions: With adequate patient selection, acellular dermal matrix is not always required during two-stage prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction for good aesthetic outcomes. The economic burden on patients and the health care system could be lessened with selective matrix use. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

PURPOSE Provide evidence- and expert-based recommendations for optimal use of imaging in advanced prostate cancer. Due to increases in research and utilization of novel imaging for advanced prostate cancer, this guideline is intended to outline techniques available and provide recommendations on appropriate use of imaging for specified patient subgroups. METHODS An Expert Panel was convened with members from ASCO and the Society of Abdominal Radiology, American College of Radiology, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology to conduct a systematic review of the literature and develop an evidence-based guideline on the optimal use of imaging for advanced prostate cancer. Representative index cases of various prostate cancer disease states are presented, including suspected high-risk disease, newly diagnosed treatment-naïve metastatic disease, suspected recurrent disease after local treatment, and progressive disease while undergoing systemic treatment. A systematic review of the literature from 2013 to August 2018 identified fully published English-language systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, reports of rigorously conducted phase III randomized controlled trials that compared ≥ 2 imaging modalities, and noncomparative studies that reported on the efficacy of a single imaging modality. RESULTS A total of 35 studies met inclusion criteria and form the evidence base, including 17 systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis and 18 primary research articles. RECOMMENDATIONS One or more of these imaging modalities should be used for patients with advanced prostate cancer: conventional imaging (defined as computed tomography [CT], bone scan, and/or prostate magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and/or next-generation imaging (NGI), positron emission tomography [PET], PET/CT, PET/MRI, or whole-body MRI) according to the clinical scenario.

The molecular mechanisms regulating human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) persistence in a major cell reservoir such as the macrophage remain unknown. NF-kappa B is a transcription factor involved in the regulation of the HIV long terminal repeat and is selectively activated following HIV infection of human macrophages. Although little information as to what signal transduction pathways mediate NF-kappa B activation in monocytes-macrophages is available, our previous work indicated that classical protein kinase C (PKC) isoenzymes were not involved in the HIV-mediated NF-kappa B activation. In this study, we have focused on atypical PKC isoenzymes. PKC-zeta belongs to this family and is known to be an important step in NF-kappa B activation in other cell systems. Immunoblotting experiments with U937 cells demonstrate that PKC-zeta is present in these cells, and its expression can be downmodulated by antisense oligonucleotides (AO). The HIV-mediated NF-kappa B activation is selectively reduced by AO to PKC-zeta. In addition, cotransfection of a negative dominant molecule of PKC-zeta (PKC-zeta mut) with NF-kappa B-dependent reporter genes selectively inhibits the HIV- but not phorbol myristate acetate- or lipopolysaccharide-mediated activation of NF-kappa B. That PKC-zeta is specific in regulating NF-kappa B is concluded from the inability of PKC-zeta(mut) to interfere with the basal or phorbol myristate acetate-inducible CREB- or AP1-dependent transcriptional activity. Lastly, we demonstrate a selective inhibition of p24 production by HIV-infected human macrophages when treated with AO to PKC-zeta. Altogether, these results suggest that atypical PKC isoenzymes, including PKC-zeta, participate in the signal transduction pathways by which HIV infection results in the activation of NF-kappa B in human monocytic cells and macrophages.

Abstract Skin substitutes are considered a useful alternative for occlusive dressings in the treatment of superficial burns as they reduce the frequency of dressing replacement. This phase II randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) skin as an occlusive xenograft dressing for the treatment of burn wounds in humans. In order to assess the use of tilapia skin, the following variables were evaluated: number of days for wound healing, the number of times the occlusive dressing was changed, use of anesthetics or analgesics, pain assessment using the Visual Analogue Scale, and evaluation of burn improvement on the day of dressing removal. In total, 62 participants completed the study. It was found that in participants treated with tilapia skin, complete reepithelialization occurred in significantly fewer days; reported pain intensity was lower (study arms B and C), the amount of anesthetics/analgesics required was lower (study arms B and C), and the necessity of dressing changes was significantly reduced in comparison with volunteers treated with silver sulfadiazine. In our study, the tilapia skin xenograft showed good efficacy as an occlusive biological dressing for burn wound treatment in humans.

Spontaneous portosystemic shunts (SPSSs) have been associated with worse clinical outcomes in the pre–liver transplantation (LT) setting, but little is known about their post‐LT impacts. Our aim was to compare LT candidates with and without SPSSs and assess the impact of SPSSs on patient mortality and graft survival in the post‐LT setting. Patients 18 years or older with abdominal imaging done prior to LT were included. Exclusion criteria were the presence of pre‐LT surgical shunts, LT indications other than cirrhosis, and combined solid organ transplantations. SPSSs were classified as absent, small, or large according to their maximum diameter (8 mm). Multiple variables that could influence the post‐LT course were extracted for analysis. Patient and graft survival were estimated using the Kaplan‐Meier method and were compared between groups using a log‐rank test. The project received institutional review board approval. We extracted data from 326 patients. After comparing patients without SPSS or with small or large SPSSs, no statistical difference was found for overall patient survival: no SPSS (n = 8/63), reference; small SPSS (n = 18/150), hazard ratio (HR), 1.05 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45‐2.46); and large SPSS (n = 6/113), HR, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.20‐1.78); P = 0.20. Also, no difference was found for graft survival: no SPSS (n = 11/63), reference; small SPSS (n = 21/150), HR, 0.80 (95% CI, 0.38‐1.70); large SPSS (n = 11/113), HR, 0.59 (95% CI, 0.25‐1.40); P = 0.48. Similarly, no statistical significance was found for these variables when comparing if the graft used was procured from a donation after circulatory death donor versus a donation after brain death donor. In conclusion, the previously described association between SPSSs and worse clinical outcomes in pre‐LT patients seems not to persist once patients undergo LT. This study suggests that no steps to correct SPSS intraoperatively are necessary.

Background: Prepectoral implant-based reconstruction reemerged as a viable approach following recent advances in reconstructive techniques and technology. To achieve successful outcomes, careful patient selection is critical. Obesity increases the risk of complications and has been suggested as a relative contraindication for prepectoral breast reconstruction. Methods: Retrospective chart review of patients who underwent immediate two-stage implant-based reconstruction at the authors’ institution was performed. Only women having a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or greater were included. Patient demographics, operative details, and surgical outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction were compared. Results: One hundred ten patients (189 breasts) who underwent prepectoral and 83 (147 breasts) who underwent subpectoral reconstruction were included. Complications were comparable between the two groups. Twelve devices (6.4 percent), including implants and tissue expanders, required explantation in the prepectoral group, and 12 devices (8.2 percent) required explantation in the subpectoral group (p =0.522). Final implant-based reconstruction was achieved in 180 breasts (95.2 percent) in the prepectoral group and 141 breasts (95.9 percent) in the subpectoral group. Regardless of type of reconstruction (prepectoral or subpectoral), for each point increase in body mass index, the odds of complications and device explantation increased by 3.4 percent and 8.6 percent, respectively; and the optimal cutoff to predict higher complications and explantation rates was a body mass index of 34.8 kg/m2 and 34.1 kg/m2, respectively. Conclusions: Obesity increases complications and failure rates in a positive correlation; however, complications and final reconstruction rates are comparable between the prepectoral and subpectoral groups. The authors believe that obesity should not be a contraindication for prepectoral breast reconstruction but that care should be taken in patients with a body mass index above 35 kg/m2. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.