Citations

Purpose: Nasopharyngoscopy is an imaging method used to visualize the velopharyngeal mechanism. To quantify the movement of the mechanism during speech, an international working group recommended standardized rating guidelines. While these guidelines are widely cited in research, the extent to which cleft teams apply them in a clinical setting is unclear. Method: This cross-sectional study examined clinical nasopharyngoscopy reports from 11 cleft teams in North America. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the proportion of reports that included ratings for the extent of velar movement, left and right lateral pharyngeal wall movement, gap size, and a surgical recommendation. Fisher's exact and chi-square tests were used to assess differences in reporting by cleft team and whether the inclusion of quantitative ratings was associated with a surgical recommendation being included. Results: A total of 188 nasopharyngoscopy reports were included. The extent of velar movement was reported in 68% ( n = 127) of reports, the left and right lateral pharyngeal wall movement was reported in 38% ( n = 71), and the size of the gap was reported in 70% ( n = 132). Only 34% ( n = 63) of reports included all three quantitative ratings. Inclusion of all three quantitative ratings varied significantly ( p < .001) across teams. Teams either never included all the ratings ( n = 4/11) or inconsistently included all ratings ( n = 7/11). Conclusions: Findings suggest that what is documented clinically in nasopharyngoscopy reports varies both within and across teams. To achieve more consistent reporting within individual teams, providers may consider implementing standardized clinical templates. To achieve consistency across teams, these findings suggest a need for renewed efforts at developing consensus on the nasopharyngoscopy elements important to clinicians.

Abstract Normocalcemic hyperparathyroidism (NHPT) is variably defined, and information regarding complications and natural history are scarce. We aimed to describe the phenotype of NHPT in relation to hypercalcemic hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) and controls, to determine risk of progression, and to develop a predictive model for progression to PHPT. This is a retrospective chart review of 232 patients at a tertiary medical center, comparing 75 controls, 73 patients with NHPT, and 84 with PHPT. NHPT was intermediate in biochemical profile between controls and PHPT with respect to cCa, iPTH, intraindividual coefficient of variant of cCa, phosphorus, and 25(OH)D. NHPT patients had an increased adjusted risk of urolithiasis (OR 5.34, 95%CI, 2.41-12.71, P &lt; .001) and fragility fractures (OR 4.53, 95%CI, 1.63-14.84, P = .006) versus controls, after adjustment for age, sex, and BMI. Fewer NHPT compared with PHPTH patients achieved cure with parathyroidectomy (P = .001). NHPT more often had nonlocalizing imaging or polyglandular disease (P = .005). Parathyroidectomy improved biochemical but not BMD parameters in NHPT. Over a median follow-up of 4.23 (IQR 1.76-5.31) years, NHPT patients managed expectantly experienced no change in iPTH, and progression to PHPT occurred in 9%. An XGBoost model combining 6 factors for progression (mean index 2 iPTH, mean index 2 cCa, 24-h urinary calcium, age, 25(OH)D, and presence of urolithiasis) had an area under the curve 1.00 (95%CI, 1.00-1.00, P &lt; .001) for predicting combined progression. NHPT is a mild variant of PHPT at intermediate risk of urolithiasis and fragility fractures. Cure was less often achieved with parathyroidectomy, which did not improve BMD parameters. Progression was infrequent with conservative management. Because only a minority progressed to PHPT, in addition to lower surgical success rates, we suggest conservative management for the majority of NHPT unless risk factors for progression are identified.

OBJECTIVES: There is a paucity of literature regarding administrative approvals required for clinical studies during a pandemic. We aimed to evaluate variation in duration of administrative approvals within the Viral Infection and Respiratory illness Universal Study (VIRUS): A Global COVID-19 Registry. DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS: Survey analysis of 188 investigators who participated in the VIRUS: COVID-19 registry, a prospective, observational global registry database of 287 sites. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For each study site approved through December 8, 2020, we assessed the duration in days: 1) from institutional review board (IRB) submission to IRB approval, 2) from IRB approval to Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) access, 3) from REDCap access to first patient data entry in REDCap, and 4) total duration from IRB submission to first patient data entry in REDCap. Analysis of variance and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to compare time durations. Of 287 sites, 188 sites (United States = 155, non-United States = 33) provided complete administrative data. There was considerable variability in duration from IRB submission to first patient data entry with median (interquartile range) of 28 days (16–50 d), with differences not significantly different by country (United States: 30 [17–50] vs non-United States: 23 d [8–46 d]; p = 0.08) or previous “multisite trial experience” (experienced: 27 [15–51] vs not experienced: 29 d [13–47 d]; p = 0.67). The U.S. sites had a higher proportion of female principal investigators (n = 77; 50%), compared with non-U.S. sites (n = 7; 21%; p = 0.002). Non-U.S. sites had a significantly shorter time to first patient data entry after REDCap access: 7 (1–28) versus 3 days (1–6 d) (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this Society of Critical Care Medicine global VIRUS: COVID-19 Registry, we identified considerable variability in time from IRB submission to first patient data entry with no significant differences by country or prior multicenter trial experience. However, there was a significant difference between US and non-U.S. sites in the time from REDCap access to first data entry.

Background: Limited information is available for patients with breast cancer (BC) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially among underrepresented racial/ethnic populations. Methods: This is a COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry-based retrospective cohort study of females with active or history of BC and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosed between March 2020 and June 2021 in the US. Primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on a five-level ordinal scale, including none of the following complications, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression model identified characteristics associated with COVID-19 severity. Results: 1383 female patient records with BC and COVID-19 were included in the analysis, the median age was 61 years, and median follow-up was 90 days. Multivariable analysis revealed higher odds of COVID-19 severity for older age (aOR per decade, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.32–1.67]); Black patients (aOR 1.74; 95 CI 1.24–2.45), Asian Americans and Pacific Islander patients (aOR 3.40; 95 CI 1.70–6.79) and Other (aOR 2.97; 95 CI 1.71–5.17) racial/ethnic groups; worse ECOG performance status (ECOG PS ≥2: aOR, 7.78 [95% CI, 4.83–12.5]); pre-existing cardiovascular (aOR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.63–3.15])/pulmonary comorbidities (aOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.20–2.29]); diabetes mellitus (aOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.66–3.04]); and active and progressing cancer (aOR, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.89–22.6]). Hispanic ethnicity, timing, and type of anti-cancer therapy modalities were not significantly associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. The total all-cause mortality and hospitalization rate for the entire cohort was 9% and 37%, respectively however, it varied according to the BC disease status. Conclusions: Using one of the largest registries on cancer and COVID-19, we identified patient and BC-related factors associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, underrepresented racial/ethnic patients experienced worse outcomes compared to non-Hispanic White patients. Funding: This study was partly supported by National Cancer Institute grant number P30 CA068485 to Tianyi Sun, Sanjay Mishra, Benjamin French, Jeremy L Warner; P30-CA046592 to Christopher R Friese; P30 CA023100 for Rana R McKay; P30-CA054174 for Pankil K Shah and Dimpy P Shah; KL2 TR002646 for Pankil Shah and the American Cancer Society and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research (MRSG-16-152-01-CCE) and P30-CA054174 for Dimpy P Shah. REDCap is developed and supported by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH). The funding sources had no role in the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication. Clinical trial number: CCC19 registry is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701 .

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

PURPOSE The aim of this joint guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing physicians and other health care providers on integrative approaches to managing pain in patients with cancer. METHODS The Society for Integrative Oncology and ASCO convened an expert panel of integrative oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, palliative oncology, social sciences, mind-body medicine, nursing, and patient advocacy representatives. The literature search included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through 2021. Outcomes of interest included pain intensity, symptom relief, and adverse events. Expert panel members used this evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS The literature search identified 227 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS Among adult patients, acupuncture should be recommended for aromatase inhibitor–related joint pain. Acupuncture or reflexology or acupressure may be recommended for general cancer pain or musculoskeletal pain. Hypnosis may be recommended to patients who experience procedural pain. Massage may be recommended to patients experiencing pain during palliative or hospice care. These recommendations are based on an intermediate level of evidence, benefit outweighing risk, and with moderate strength of recommendation. The quality of evidence for other mind-body interventions or natural products for pain is either low or inconclusive. There is insufficient or inconclusive evidence to make recommendations for pediatric patients. More research is needed to better characterize the role of integrative medicine interventions in the care of patients with cancer. Additional information is available at https://integrativeonc.org/practice-guidelines/guidelines and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Growth Factors provide recommendations for the appropriate use of growth factors in the clinical management of febrile neutropenia (FN), chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT), and chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). Management and prevention of these sequelae are an integral part of supportive care for many patients undergoing cancer treatment. The purpose of these guidelines is to operationalize the evaluation, prevention, and treatment of FN, CIT, and CIA in adult patients with nonmyeloid malignancies and to enable the patient and clinician to assess management options for FN, CIT, and CIA in the context of an individual patient’s condition. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of the important recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Growth Factors, with particular emphasis on the incorporation of a newly developed section on CIT.