Citations

Von Hippel–Lindau disease (VHL) is a multineoplasm inherited disease manifesting with hemangioblastoma of the central nervous system and retina, adrenal pheochromocytoma, renal cell carcinoma, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and cysts, and neoplasms/cysts of the ear, broad ligament, and testicles. During 2018‐2020, the VHL Alliance gathered several committees of experts in the various clinical manifestations of VHL to review the literature, gather the available evidence on VHL, and develop recommendations for patient management. The current report details the results of the discussion of a group of experts in the pancreatic manifestations of VHL along with their proposed recommendations for the clinical surveillance and management of patients with VHL. The recommendations subcommittee performed a comprehensive systematic review of the literature and conducted panel discussions to reach the current recommendations. The level of evidence was defined according to the Shekelle variation of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation grading system. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network Categories of Evidence and Consensus defined the committee members' interpretation of the evidence and degree of consensus. The recommendations encompass the main aspects of VHL‐related pancreatic manifestations and their clinical management. They are presented in a clinical orientation, including general planning of screening and surveillance for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, utility of biochemical biomarkers, the optimal choice for imaging modality, indirect risk stratification, indications for tissue sampling of VHL‐related pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, and interventions. These recommendations are designed to serve as the reference for all aspects of the screening, surveillance, and management of VHL‐related pancreatic manifestations.

Background Radiation-induced skin injuries have been treated with different medical therapies and have shown diverse outcomes. We aim to evaluate the effect of adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) therapy on radiation-induced skin injury. Methods We performed a review by querying PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases from inception to April 2020 following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The MeSH terms “adipose-derived stem cells,” “wound healing,” “radiation,” and synonyms in combinations determined our search strategy. Experimental peer-reviewed articles describing the protocol and comparing the results with controls were included. Non-English studies were excluded. Results Our search recorded a total of 137 articles. Only 8 studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Five studies evaluated the use of ADSC alone, whereas the others evaluated the efficacy of ADSC seeded in scaffolds. Adipose-derived stem cell–based therapies, either alone or seeded in scaffolds, were shown to improve wound healing in most studies when compared with controls. Conclusions There is evidence supporting the positive benefits from ADSC-based therapies in radiation-induced skin injury. However, further studies are needed to standardize the method of ADSC extraction, radiation-induced skin injury experimental model, and increase the time of follow-up to evaluate the results accurately.

AbstractObjectiveTo estimate the incidence and time-to-classification of SLE by the 1997 ACR (ACR97) criteria, the SLICC criteria, and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology/ACR (EULAR/ACR) criteria.MethodsWe identified all incident SLE cases from 2000–2018 in the well-defined Olmsted County population. Clinical data included in the ACR97, SLICC and EULAR/ACR criteria were manually abstracted from medical records. All incident cases met at least one of the three classification criteria. Time-to-classification was estimated from the first documented lupus-attributable disease manifestation to the time of criteria fulfilment by each of the three definitions. Annual incidence rates were age or age/sex adjusted to the 2000 US population.ResultsOf 139 incident cases there were 126 cases by the EULAR/ACR criteria, corresponding to an age/sex-adjusted incidence of 4.5 per 100 000 population (95% CI: 3.7, 5.2). The age/sex-incidence was higher than that of the SLICC criteria (113 cases; 4.0 per 100 000 [95% CI: 3.3, 4.7], P = 0.020) and the ACR97 (92 cases; 3.3 per 100 000 [95% CI: 2.6, 3.9], P < 0.001). The median time from first disease manifestation to criteria fulfilment was shorter for the EULAR/ACR criteria (29.4 months) than the ACR97 criteria (47.0 months, P < 0.001) and similar to the SLICC criteria (30.6 months, P = 0.83).ConclusionThe incidence of SLE was higher by the EULAR/ACR criteria compared with the ACR97 and the SLICC criteria, and the EULAR/ACR criteria classified patients earlier that the ACR97 criteria but similar to the SLICC criteria.

Study Design: This was a research methodology study. Objective: This review discusses the most commonly utilized consensus group methodologies for formulating clinical practice guidelines and current methods for accessing rigorous up-to-date clinical practice guidelines. Summary of Background Data: In recent years, clinical practice guidelines for the management of several conditions of the spine have emerged to provide clinicians with evidence-based best-practices. Many of these guidelines are used routinely by administrators, payers, and providers to determine the high-quality and cost-effective surgical practices. Most of these guidelines are formulated by consensus groups, which employ methodologies that are unfamiliar to most clinicians. Methods: An extensive literature review was performed. The literature was then summarized in accordance with the authors’ clinical experience. Results: The Nominal Group Technique, Delphi method, and RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Model are 3 commonly utilized consensus group methodologies employed in the creation of clinical practice guidelines. Each of these methodologies has inherent advantages and disadvantages, is dependent on rigorously performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses to inform the panel of experts, and can be used to answer challenging clinical questions that remain unanswered due to a paucity of class I evidence. Conclusions: This review highlights the most commonly utilized consensus group methodologies and informs spine surgeons regarding options to access current clinical practice guidelines. Level of Evidence: Level V.

Objective We aimed to measure provider perspectives on the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) and community hospitals. Study Design Providers from five academic tertiary NICUs and 27 community hospitals were surveyed using validated implementation measures to assess the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology. For each of the 12 statements, scale values ranged from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater positive perceptions. Survey results were summarized, and differences across respondents assessed using generalized linear models. Results The survey response rate was 56% (203/365). Respondents found teleneonatology to be acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. The percent of respondents who agreed with each of the twelve statements ranged from 88.6 to 99.0%, with mean scores of 4.4 to 4.7 and median scores of 4.0 to 5.0. There was no difference in the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology when analyzed by professional role, years of experience in neonatal care, or years of teleneonatology experience. Respondents from Level I well newborn nurseries had greater positive perceptions of teleneonatology than those from Level II special care nurseries. Conclusion Providers in tertiary NICUs and community hospitals perceive teleneonatology to be highly acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for their practices. The wide acceptance by providers of all roles and levels of experience likely demonstrates a broad receptiveness to telemedicine as a tool to deliver neonatal care, particularly in rural communities where specialists are unavailable. Key Points

Hematopoietic growth factors, including erythrocyte stimulating agents (ESAs), granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, and thrombopoietin mimetics, can mitigate anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia resulting from chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer. In the context of pandemic SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with cancer have been identified as a group at high risk of morbidity and mortality from this infection. Our subcommittee of the NCCN Hematopoietic Growth Factors Panel convened a voluntary group to review the potential value of expanded use of such growth factors in the current high-risk environment. Although recommendations are available on the NCCN website in the COVID-19 Resources Section (https://www.nccn.org/covid-19/), these suggestions are provided without substantial context or reference. Herein we review the rationale and data underlying the suggested alterations to the use of hematopoietic growth factors for patients with cancer in the COVID-19 era.