Citations

LBA1000 Background: The primary aims were to determine whether adjuvant DD AC→PG will be superior to DD AC→P as well as to TAC in DFS and to compare the relative DFS of TAC and DD AC→P. Secondary endpoints include survival and toxicity. Methods: From Nov 3, 2004 to May 3, 2007, 4894 women were randomized; 1630 to TAC (docetaxel [T] 75 mg/m2, doxorubicin [A] 50 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide [C] 500 mg/m2 q3 wks x 6), 1634 to DD AC→P (A 60 mg/m2 and C 600 mg/m2 q2 wks x 4 followed by P 175 mg/m2 q2 wks x 4), and 1630 to DD AC→PG (A 60 mg/m2 and C 600 mg/m2 q2 wks x 4 → P 175 mg/m2 + G 2000 mg/m2q2 wks x 4). Primary G-CSF support was required and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) were used at investigator discretion. 52% were postmenopausal, 65% had 1 - 3 positive nodes, and 80% had HR+ breast cancer. Log-rank tests were used for pair-wise comparisons of the primary (DFS) and secondary (OS) endpoints among the three treatment arms. Results: With 64 months median follow-up, 5-year DFS in DD AC→PG group was 80.6% compared with 82.2% in DD AC→P group (HR=1.1; p=0.27) and 80.1 % (HR=0.97; p=0.71) in TAC group. 5-year OS was 90.8% in DD AC→PG group as compared with 89.1% (HR=.89; p=0.25) in DD AC→P group and 89.6 % (HR=0.90; p=0.32) in TAC group. HR for DFS and OS of DD AC→P vs. TAC were 0.89 (p=0.14) and 1.01 (p=0.92) respectively. Toxicities for TAC, DD AC→P, DD AC→PG, respectively: febrile neutropenia (Gr 3/4: 9%, 4%, 4% [p<0.001]), sensory neuropathy (Gr 3/4: <1%, 7%, 6% [p<0.001]), diarrhea (Gr 3/4: 8 %, 2%, 2% [p<0.001]). Hgb was <10 in 12%, 26%, 33% with ESA use in 35.2%, 47%, 51.6% and transfusions in 3.7%, 6.3%, 9.4%. Deaths on treatment: N=13, 5, 7 (p=0.2). AML/MDS: N=5, 8, 11. All cycles completed in 91% for TAC and 88% for DD regimens. Conclusions: Addition of G to DD AC→P did not improve outcomes. No significant differences in efficacy endpoints were identified between DD AC→P and TAC, though toxicity profiles differed. Funding: NCI PHS U10-CA-37377, -69974, -12027, -69651 and NCCTG U10-CA25224, with additional funding from Eli Lilly & Company, and Amgen, Inc.

PURPOSE: A recent report suggests that alterations of chromosome arms 1p and 19q are associated with chemotherapeutic response and overall survival in anaplastic oligodendroglioma patients treated with procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine chemotherapy. We set out to further clarify the diagnostic and prognostic implications of these alterations in a broader set of diffuse gliomas, including astrocytic neoplasms and low-grade oligodendrogliomas. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) signals from DNA probes mapping to 1p and 19q common deletion regions were enumerated in 162 diffuse gliomas (79 astrocytomas, 52 oligodendrogliomas, and 31 mixed oligoastrocytomas), collected as part of an ongoing prospective investigation of CNS tumors. RESULTS: The oligodendroglial phenotype was highly associated with loss of 1p (P = .0002), loss of 19q (P < .0001), and combined loss of 1p and 19q (P < .0001). Combined loss of 1p and 19q was identified as a univariate predictor of prolonged overall survival among patients with pure oligodendroglioma (log-rank, P = .03) and remained a significant predictor after adjusting for the effects of patient age and tumor grade (P < .01). This favorable association was not evident in patients with astrocytoma or mixed oligoastrocytoma. CONCLUSION: Combined loss of 1p and 19q is a statistically significant predictor of prolonged survival in patients with pure oligodendroglioma, independent of tumor grade. Given the lack of this association in patients with astrocytic neoplasms and the previously demonstrated chemosensitivity of oligodendrogliomas, a combined approach of histologic and genotypic assessment could potentially improve existing strategies for patient stratification and management.

Abstract Introduction Genetic loci for Alzheimer's disease (AD) have been identified in whites of European ancestry, but the genetic architecture of AD among other populations is less understood. Methods We conducted a transethnic genome‐wide association study (GWAS) for late‐onset AD in Stage 1 sample including whites of European Ancestry, African‐Americans, Japanese, and Israeli‐Arabs assembled by the Alzheimer's Disease Genetics Consortium. Suggestive results from Stage 1 from novel loci were followed up using summarized results in the International Genomics Alzheimer's Project GWAS dataset. Results Genome‐wide significant (GWS) associations in single‐nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)–based tests ( P < 5 × 10 −8 ) were identified for SNPs in PFDN1/HBEGF , USP6NL/ECHDC3 , and BZRAP1‐AS1 and for the interaction of the (apolipoprotein E) APOE ε4 allele with NFIC SNP. We also obtained GWS evidence ( P < 2.7 × 10 −6 ) for gene‐based association in the total sample with a novel locus, TPBG ( P = 1.8 × 10 −6 ). Discussion Our findings highlight the value of transethnic studies for identifying novel AD susceptibility loci.

ObjectiveRhinoplasty, a surgical procedure that alters the shape or appearance of the nose while preserving or enhancing the nasal airway, ranks among the most commonly performed cosmetic procedures in the United States, with >200,000 procedures reported in 2014. While it is difficult to calculate the exact economic burden incurred by rhinoplasty patients following surgery with or without complications, the average rhinoplasty procedure typically exceeds $4000. The costs incurred due to complications, infections, or revision surgery may include the cost of long‐term antibiotics, hospitalization, or lost revenue from hours/days of missed work.The resultant psychological impact of rhinoplasty can also be significant. Furthermore, the health care burden from psychological pressures of nasal deformities/aesthetic shortcomings, surgical infections, surgical pain, side effects from antibiotics, and nasal packing materials must also be considered for these patients. Prior to this guideline, limited literature existed on standard care considerations for pre‐ and postsurgical management and for standard surgical practice to ensure optimal outcomes for patients undergoing rhinoplasty. The impetus for this guideline is to utilize current evidence‐based medicine practices and data to build unanimity regarding the peri‐ and postoperative strategies to maximize patient safety and to optimize surgical results for patients.PurposeThe primary purpose of this guideline is to provide evidence‐based recommendations for clinicians who either perform rhinoplasty or are involved in the care of a rhinoplasty candidate, as well as to optimize patient care, promote effective diagnosis and therapy, and reduce harmful or unnecessary variations in care. The target audience is any clinician or individual, in any setting, involved in the management of these patients. The target patient population is all patients aged ≥15 years. The guideline is intended to focus on knowledge gaps, practice variations, and clinical concerns associated with this surgical procedure; it is not intended to be a comprehensive reference for improving nasal form and function after rhinoplasty. Recommendations in this guideline concerning education and counseling to the patient are also intended to include the caregiver if the patient is <18 years of age.Action StatementsThe Guideline Development Group made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should ask all patients seeking rhinoplasty about their motivations for surgery and their expectations for outcomes, should provide feedback on whether those expectations are a realistic goal of surgery, and should document this discussion in the medical record. (2) Clinicians should assess rhinoplasty candidates for comorbid conditions that could modify or contraindicate surgery, including obstructive sleep apnea, body dysmorphic disorder, bleeding disorders, or chronic use of topical vasoconstrictive intranasal drugs. (3) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, should evaluate the rhinoplasty candidate for nasal airway obstruction during the preoperative assessment. (4) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, should educate rhinoplasty candidates regarding what to expect after surgery, how surgery might affect the ability to breathe through the nose, potential complications of surgery, and the possible need for future nasal surgery. (5) The clinician, or the clinician’s designee, should counsel rhinoplasty candidates with documented obstructive sleep apnea about the impact of surgery on nasal airway obstruction and how obstructive sleep apnea might affect perioperative management. (6) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, should educate rhinoplasty patients before surgery about strategies to manage discomfort after surgery. (7) Clinicians should document patients’ satisfaction with their nasal appearance and with their nasal function at a minimum of 12 months after rhinoplasty.The Guideline Development Group made recommendations against certain actions: (1) When a surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, chooses to administer perioperative antibiotics for rhinoplasty, he or she should not routinely prescribe antibiotic therapy for a duration >24 hours after surgery. (2) Surgeons should not routinely place packing in the nasal cavity of rhinoplasty patients (with or without septoplasty) at the conclusion of surgery.The panel group made the following statement an option: (1) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, may administer perioperative systemic steroids to the rhinoplasty patient.

ObjectiveRhinoplasty, a surgical procedure that alters the shape or appearance of the nose while preserving or enhancing the nasal airway, ranks among the most commonly performed cosmetic procedures in the United States, with >200,000 procedures reported in 2014. While it is difficult to calculate the exact economic burden incurred by rhinoplasty patients following surgery with or without complications, the average rhinoplasty procedure typically exceeds $4000. The costs incurred due to complications, infections, or revision surgery may include the cost of long‐term antibiotics, hospitalization, or lost revenue from hours/days of missed work.The resultant psychological impact of rhinoplasty can also be significant. Furthermore, the health care burden from psychological pressures of nasal deformities/aesthetic shortcomings, surgical infections, surgical pain, side effects from antibiotics, and nasal packing materials must also be considered for these patients. Prior to this guideline, limited literature existed on standard care considerations for pre‐ and postsurgical management and for standard surgical practice to ensure optimal outcomes for patients undergoing rhinoplasty. The impetus for this guideline is to utilize current evidence‐based medicine practices and data to build unanimity regarding the peri‐ and postoperative strategies to maximize patient safety and to optimize surgical results for patients.PurposeThe primary purpose of this guideline executive summary is to provide evidence‐based recommendations for clinicians who either perform rhinoplasty or are involved in the care of a rhinoplasty candidate, as well as to optimize patient care, promote effective diagnosis and therapy, and reduce harmful or unnecessary variations in care. The target audience is any clinician or individual, in any setting, involved in the management of these patients. The target patient population is all patients aged ≥15 years. The guideline is intended to focus on knowledge gaps, practice variations, and clinical concerns associated with this surgical procedure; it is not intended to be a comprehensive reference for improving nasal form and function after rhinoplasty. Recommendations in this guideline concerning education and counseling to the patient are intended to include the caregiver if the patient is <18 years of age.Action StatementsThe Guideline Development Group made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should ask all patients seeking rhinoplasty about their motivations for surgery and their expectations for outcomes, should provide feedback on whether those expectations are a realistic goal of surgery, and should document this discussion in the medical record. (2) Clinicians should assess rhinoplasty candidates for comorbid conditions that could modify or contraindicate surgery, including obstructive sleep apnea, body dysmorphic disorder, bleeding disorders, or chronic use of topical vasoconstrictive intranasal drugs. (3) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, should evaluate the rhinoplasty candidate for nasal airway obstruction during the preoperative assessment. (4) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, should educate rhinoplasty candidates regarding what to expect after surgery, how surgery might affect the ability to breathe through the nose, potential complications of surgery, and the possible need for future nasal surgery. (5) The clinician, or the clinician’s designee, should counsel rhinoplasty candidates with documented obstructive sleep apnea about the impact of surgery on nasal airway obstruction and how obstructive sleep apnea might affect perioperative management. (6) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, should educate rhinoplasty patients before surgery about strategies to manage discomfort after surgery. (7) Clinicians should document patient satisfaction with their nasal appearance and with their nasal function at a minimum of 12 months after rhinoplasty.The guideline development group made recommendations against certain actions: (1) When a surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, chooses to administer perioperative antibiotics for rhinoplasty, he or she should not routinely prescribe antibiotic therapy for a duration >24 hours after surgery. (2) Surgeons should not routinely place packing in the nasal cavity of rhinoplasty patients (with or without septoplasty) at the conclusion of surgery.The panel group made the following statement an option: (1) The surgeon, or the surgeon’s designee, may administer perioperative systemic steroids to the rhinoplasty patient.