Citations

OBJECTIVE The ideal surgical management of grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis has not been determined despite extensive prior investigations. In this cohort study, the authors used data from the large, multicenter, prospectively collected Quality Outcomes Database to bridge the gap between the findings in previous randomized trials and those in a more heterogeneous population treated in a typical practice. The objective was to assess the difference in patient-reported outcomes among patients undergoing decompression alone or decompression plus fusion. METHODS The primary outcome measure was change in 24-month Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI score change and 30% change in ODI score at 24 months were also evaluated. After adjusting for patient-specific and clinical factors, multivariable linear and logistic regressions were employed to evaluate the impact of fusion on outcomes. To account for differences in age, sex, body mass index, and baseline listhesis, a sensitivity analysis was performed using propensity score analysis to match patients undergoing decompression only with those undergoing decompression and fusion. RESULTS In total, 608 patients who had grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis were identified (85.5% with at least 24 months of follow-up); 140 (23.0%) underwent decompression alone and 468 (77.0%) underwent decompression and fusion. The 24-month change in ODI score was significantly greater in the fusion plus decompression group than in the decompression-only group (−25.8 ± 20.0 vs −15.2 ± 19.8, p < 0.001). Fusion remained independently associated with 24-month ODI score change (B = −7.05, 95% CI −10.70 to −3.39, p ≤ 0.001) in multivariable regression analysis, as well as with achieving the MCID for the ODI score (OR 1.767, 95% CI 1.058–2.944, p = 0.029) and 30% change in ODI score (OR 2.371, 95% CI 1.286–4.371, p = 0.005). Propensity score analysis resulted in 94 patients in the decompression-only group matched 1 to 1 with 94 patients in the fusion group. The addition of fusion to decompression remained a significant predictor of 24-month change in the ODI score (B = 2.796, 95% CI 2.228–13.275, p = 0.006) and of achieving the 24-month MCID ODI score (OR 2.898, 95% CI 1.214–6.914, p = 0.016) and 24-month 30% change in ODI score (OR 2.300, 95% CI 1.014–5.216, p = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS These results suggest that decompression plus fusion in patients with grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis may be associated with superior outcomes at 24 months compared with decompression alone, both in reduction of disability and in achieving clinically meaningful improvement. Longer-term follow-up is warranted to assess whether this effect is sustained.

OBJECTIVE Surgical treatment for degenerative spondylolisthesis has been proven to be clinically challenging and cost-effective. However, there is a range of thresholds that surgeons utilize for incorporating fusion in addition to decompressive laminectomy in these cases. This study investigates these surgeon- and site-specific factors by using the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD). METHODS The QOD was queried for all cases that had undergone surgery for grade 1 spondylolisthesis from database inception to February 2019. In addition to patient-specific covariates, surgeon-specific covariates included age, sex, race, years in practice (0–10, 11–20, 21–30, > 30 years), and fellowship training. Site-specific variables included hospital location (rural, suburban, urban), teaching versus nonteaching status, and hospital type (government, nonfederal; private, nonprofit; private, investor owned). Multivariable regression and predictor importance analyses were performed to identify predictors of the treatment performed (decompression alone vs decompression and fusion). The model was clustered by site to account for site-specific heterogeneity in treatment selection. RESULTS A total of 12,322 cases were included with 1988 (16.1%) that had undergone decompression alone. On multivariable regression analysis clustered by site, adjusting for patient-level clinical covariates, no surgeon-specific factors were found to be significantly associated with the odds of selecting decompression alone as the surgery performed. However, sites located in suburban areas (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.09–4.84, p = 0.03) were more likely to perform decompression alone (reference = urban). Sites located in rural areas had higher odds of performing decompression alone than hospitals located in urban areas, although the results were not statistically significant (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.59–2.61, p = 0.49). Nonteaching status was independently associated with lower odds of performing decompression alone (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19–0.97, p = 0.04). Predictor importance analysis revealed that the most important determinants of treatment selection were dominant symptom (Wald χ2 = 34.7, accounting for 13.6% of total χ2) and concurrent diagnosis of disc herniation (Wald χ2 = 31.7, accounting for 12.4% of total χ2). Hospital teaching status was also found to be relatively important (Wald χ2 = 4.2, accounting for 1.6% of total χ2) but less important than other patient-level predictors. CONCLUSIONS Nonteaching centers were more likely to perform decompressive laminectomy with supplemental fusion for spondylolisthesis. Suburban hospitals were more likely to perform decompression only. Surgeon characteristics were not found to influence treatment selection after adjustment for clinical covariates. Further large database registry experience from surgeons at high-volume academic centers at which surgically and medically complex patients are treated may provide additional insight into factors associated with treatment preference for degenerative spondylolisthesis.

ObjectivesTo quantify the bias of shear wave speed (SWS) measurements between different commercial ultrasonic shear elasticity systems and a magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) system in elastic and viscoelastic phantoms.MethodsTwo elastic phantoms, representing healthy through fibrotic liver, were measured with 5 different ultrasound platforms, and 3 viscoelastic phantoms, representing healthy through fibrotic liver tissue, were measured with 12 different ultrasound platforms. Measurements were performed with different systems at different sites, at 3 focal depths, and with different appraisers. The SWS bias across the systems was quantified as a function of the system, site, focal depth, and appraiser. A single MRE research system was also used to characterize these phantoms using discrete frequencies from 60 to 500 Hz.ResultsThe SWS from different systems had mean difference 95% confidence intervals of ±0.145 m/s (±9.6%) across both elastic phantoms and ± 0.340 m/s (±15.3%) across the viscoelastic phantoms. The focal depth and appraiser were less significant sources of SWS variability than the system and site. Magnetic resonance elastography best matched the ultrasonic SWS in the viscoelastic phantoms using a 140 Hz source but had a − 0.27 ± 0.027‐m/s (−12.2% ± 1.2%) bias when using the clinically implemented 60‐Hz vibration source.ConclusionsShear wave speed reconstruction across different manufacturer systems is more consistent in elastic than viscoelastic phantoms, with a mean difference bias of < ±10% in all cases. Magnetic resonance elastographic measurements in the elastic and viscoelastic phantoms best match the ultrasound systems with a 140‐Hz excitation but have a significant negative bias operating at 60 Hz. This study establishes a foundation for meaningful comparison of SWS measurements made with different platforms.

Study Design. Retrospective analysis of a prospective registry. Objective. We utilized the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) registry to investigate the “July Effect” at QOD spondylolisthesis module sites with residency trainees. Summary of Background Data. There is a paucity of investigation on the long-term outcomes following surgeries involving new trainees utilizing high-quality, prospectively collected data. Methods. This was an analysis of 608 patients who underwent single-segment surgery for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis at 12 high-enrolling sites. Surgeries were classified as occurring in July or not in July (non-July). Outcomes collected included estimated blood loss, length of stay, operative time, discharge disposition, complications, reoperation and readmission rates, and patient-reported outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] Back Pain, NRS Leg Pain, EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D] and the North American Spine Society [NASS] Satisfaction Questionnaire). Propensity score-matched analyses were utilized to compare postoperative outcomes and complication rates between the July and non-July groups. Results. Three hundred seventy-one surgeries occurred at centers with a residency training program with 21 (5.7%) taking place in July. In propensity score-matched analyses, July surgeries were associated with longer operative times ( average treatment effect = 22.4 minutes longer, 95% confidence interval 0.9–449.0, P = 0.041). Otherwise, July surgeries were not associated with significantly different outcomes for the remaining perioperative parameters (estimated blood loss, length of stay, discharge disposition, postoperative complications), overall reoperation rates, 3-month readmission rates, and 24-month ODI, NRS back pain, NRS leg pain, EQ-5D, and NASS satisfaction score (P > 0.05, all comparisons). Conclusion. Although July surgeries were associated with longer operative times, there were no associations with other clinical outcomes compared to non-July surgeries following lumbar spondylolisthesis surgery. These findings may be due to the increased attending supervision and intraoperative education during the beginning of the academic year. There is no evidence that the influx of new trainees in July significantly affects long-term patient-centered outcomes. Level of Evidence: 3

Introduction: Among the most challenging complications of hemophilia A is inhibitor formation. A T-cell dependent B-cell response to exogenous factor VIII (FVIII), inhibitors result in a high burden of disease, with poorly controlled bleeding, twice the hospitalizations, 10-fold the cost, and 3.5-fold the mortality of non-inhibitor patients. Thus, a major goal of hemophilia management is to prevent and eradicate inhibitors. With the availability of novel therapies, including eloctate, a recombinant Fc-fusion protein (rFVIII-Fc) which induces regulatory T cells to promote FVIII tolerance, and emicizumab, a bispecific monoclonal FVIII mimetic, we designed the INHIBIT Clinical Trials Platform (X01HL143024), Fig.1. The platform is composed of two linked randomized phase III trials, the Inhibitor Prevention Trial (NCT04303559), comparing rFVIII-Fc vs emicizumab prophylaxis to prevent inhibitors, and the Inhibitor Eradication Trial (NCT04303572), comparing rFVIII-Fc immune tolerance induction (ITI) plus emicizumab vs rFVIII-Fc ITI alone to eradicate inhibitors. The platform uses adaptive design to incorporate historical data (Bayesian priors) on inhibitor formation to increase power and promote efficient use of rare data. Yet, there is equipoise regarding the optimal approach to inhibitor prevention and eradication, and, as clinical practice is changing, we aimed to test the feasibility of the INHIBIT trial design. Methods: To establish design feasibility, we conducted interviews with 30 hemophilia treatment center (HTC) physicians participating in the INHIBIT trials, to determine prophylaxis and tolerance regimens they prescribe and perceived barriers to the INHIBIT trials design. A 4-question survey was subsequently emailed to these physicians to ascertain the initial prophylaxis regimens they prescribe in previously untreated patients (PUPs) with severe hemophilia A, and the initial immune tolerance induction (ITI) they prescribe in high-responding inhibitor patients with severe hemophilia A; if new inhibitors had been observed during emicizumab prophylaxis, and willingness to participate in post-trial surveillance. Results: In interviews, HTC physicians indicated the issues that influenced choice of prophylaxis/ ITI regimen were patient preference, family history of inhibitors, infusion frequency, IV access, port requirement, and family fatigue. In the absence of clinical trials data in PUPs, there was general agreement that emicizumab prophylaxis, with it simpler subcutaneous (SQ) administration, might delay or potentially prevent inhibitors. Survey findings in Table 1 indicated 75% of physicians prescribe extended half-life (EHL) FVIII in a once-weekly prophylaxis regimen, as planned in the Prevention Trial, despite the persistent 27% inhibitor rate (ALong PUPs Trial, Königs et al, ISTH 2020) and potential risks with port use. There was support for the 1:3 preferential randomization to emicizumab in the Prevention Trial due to the simpler SQ route, despite concern it might delay rather than prevent inhibitor formation, although no inhibitors were reported by physician survey with emicizumab use alone. There was also concern that breakthrough bleeds requiring FVIII during emicizumab prophylaxis, might lead to immune activation and inhibitor formation. There was strong agreement, however, in 29 (97%) of physicians to participate in post-trial surveillance for long-term inhibitor outcomes. FVIII ITI was considered essential to eradicate inhibitors, despite the intensity of the infusion regimen. Notably, 60% prescribe emicizumab with FVIII ITI, as planned in the Eradicate Trial, although the every-other-day infusion was considered a potential barrier to participation. Omitting FVIII ITI was not favored due to the risk of inhibitor anamnesis if FVIII treatment was subsequently required for surgery or acute hemorrhages. Despite these concerns, there was agreement to participate in the trials. Discussion: Physician interviews and surveys confirm there is heterogeneity in current hemophilia clinical practice, specifically in initial prophylaxis regimens and in initial immune tolerance regimens, including agent choice and duration. However, there is physician consensus with the INHIBIT trial aims and with the proposed INHIBIT trial regimens to prevent and eradicate inhibitors. Disclosures Ragni: Bioverativ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Alnylam/Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioMarin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ATHN: Research Funding; Sangamo: Research Funding. Seaman:Bayer: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Acharya:Novonordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BPL: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer Pharma Inc.: Research Funding. Wheeler:Novo Nordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biomarin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UniQure: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tarango:Takeda/Shire: Honoraria, Other; Bayer: Consultancy, Other; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other. Dunn:ATHN: Research Funding; Spire: Honoraria; Medscape: Honoraria; World Federation of Hemophilia USA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; BioMarin: Research Funding; uniQure: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy; Nationwide Children's Hospital: Current Employment. Kulkarni:Sanofi/ Bioverativ, Bayer, Biomarin, Shire/Takeda, Novo Nordisk, Freeline: Other: clinical trial research grants ; Bioverativ/Sanofi, BPL, Genentech, Kedrion, Novo Nordisk, Octapharma, Pfizer, Takeda, Catalyst Bioscience Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ahuja:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; XaTek, Inc.: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Chitlur:Takeda: Honoraria; Biovertiv: Honoraria; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pipe:Apcintex, Bayer, BioMarin, Catalyst Biosciences, CSL Behring, HEMA Biologics, Freeline, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc., Sangamo Therapeutics, Sanofi, Takeda, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure: Consultancy; Siemens: Research Funding; Medical and Scientific Advisory Council to the National Hemophilia Foundation; Medical Advisory Board to World Federation of Hemophilia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Malec:Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CSL: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; SOBI: Consultancy. Leissinger:Bayer: Consultancy; Kedrion: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy; HEMA Biologics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Uniqure: Consultancy; Spark: Consultancy. Carpenter:Hemostasis & Thrombosis Research Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; American Academy of Pediatrics: Other: PREP Heme/Onc editorial board; Kedrion: Honoraria; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria; American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding. Knoll:NovoNordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wang:Bioverativ Inc: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; CSL Behring: Honoraria; Biomarin: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Young:Genentech/Roche, Grifols, and Takeda: Research Funding; Bayer, CSL Behring, Freeline, UniQure: Consultancy; BioMarin, Freeline, Genentech/Roche, Grifols, Kedrion, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Genzyme, Spark, Takeda, and UniQure: Honoraria. Thornburg:Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Ironwood Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network: Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding; NovoNordisk: Research Funding; Biomarin: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bayer Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; National Hemophilia Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lucas:CRISPR Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hwang:Shire: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria.

Abstract Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an incurable rare subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and is subject to relapse and therapeutic resistance. Molecular aberrations in MCL affect pathogenesis, prognosis, and therapeutic response. In this systematic review, we searched 3 databases and selected 32 articles that described mutations in MCL patients. We then conducted a meta-analysis using a Bayesian multiregression model to analyze patient-level data in 2127 MCL patients, including prevalence of mutations. In tumor or bone marrow samples taken at diagnosis or baseline, ATM was the most frequently mutated gene (43.5%) followed by TP53 (26.8%), CDKN2A (23.9%), and CCND1 (20.2%). Aberrations were also detected in IGH (38.4%) and MYC (20.8%), primarily through cytogenetic methods. Other common baseline mutations were NSD2 (15.0%), KMT2A (8.9%), S1PR1 (8.6%), and CARD11 (8.5%). Our data also show a change in mutational status from baseline samples to samples at disease progression and present mutations of interest in MCL that should be considered for future analysis. The genes with the highest mutational frequency difference (&gt;5%) are TP53, ATM, KMT2A, MAP3K14, BTK, TRAF2, CHD2, TLR2, ARID2, RIMS2, NOTCH2, TET2, SPEN, NSD2, CARD11, CCND1, SP140, CDKN2A, and S1PR1. These findings provide a summary of the mutational landscape of MCL. The genes with the highest change in mutation frequency should be included in targeted next-generation sequencing panels for future studies. These findings also highlight the need for analysis of serial samples in MCL. Patient-level data of prevalent mutations in MCL provide additional evidence emphasizing molecular variability in advancing precision medicine initiatives in MCL.

OBJECTIVELumbar decompression without arthrodesis remains a potential treatment option for cases of low-grade spondylolisthesis (i.e., Meyerding grade I). Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques have recently been increasingly used because of their touted benefits including lower operating time, blood loss, and length of stay. Herein, the authors analyzed patients enrolled in a national surgical registry and compared the baseline characteristics and postoperative clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between patients undergoing open versus MIS lumbar decompression.METHODSThe authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients with grade I lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing a surgical intervention between July 2014 and June 2016. Among more than 200 participating sites, the 12 with the highest enrollment of patients into the lumbar spine module came together to initiate a focused project to assess the impact of fusion on PROs in patients undergoing surgery for grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis. For the current study, only patients in this cohort from the 12 highest-enrolling sites who underwent a decompression alone were evaluated and classified as open or MIS (tubular decompression). Outcomes of interest included PROs at 2 years; perioperative outcomes such as blood loss and complications; and postoperative outcomes such as length of stay, discharge disposition, and reoperations.RESULTSA total of 140 patients undergoing decompression were selected, of whom 71 (50.7%) underwent MIS and 69 (49.3%) underwent an open decompression. On univariate analysis, the authors observed no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of PROs at 2-year follow-up, including back pain, leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index score, EQ-5D score, and patient satisfaction. On multivariable analysis, compared to MIS, open decompression was associated with higher satisfaction (OR 7.5, 95% CI 2.41–23.2, p = 0.0005). Patients undergoing MIS decompression had a significantly shorter length of stay compared to the open group (0.68 days [SD 1.18] vs 1.83 days [SD 1.618], p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSIn this multiinstitutional prospective study, the authors found comparable PROs as well as clinical outcomes at 2 years between groups of patients undergoing open or MIS decompression for low-grade spondylolisthesis.

The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), formerly known as the National Neurosurgery Quality Outcomes Database (N 2 QOD), was established by the NeuroPoint Alliance (NPA) in collaboration with relevant national stakeholders and experts. The overarching goal of this project was to develop a centralized, nationally coordinated effort to allow individual surgeons and practice groups to collect, measure, and analyze practice patterns and neurosurgical outcomes. Specific objectives of this registry program were as follows: “1) to establish risk-adjusted national benchmarks for both the safety and effectiveness of neurosurgical procedures, 2) to allow practice groups and hospitals to analyze their individual morbidity and clinical outcomes in real time, 3) to generate both quality and efficiency data to support claims made to public and private payers and objectively demonstrate the value of care to other stakeholders, 4) to demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of neurosurgical and spine procedures, 5) to develop sophisticated ‘risk models’ to determine which subpopulations of patients are most likely to benefit from specific surgical interventions, and 6) to facilitate essential multicenter trials and other cooperative clinical studies.” The NPA has launched several neurosurgical specialty modules in the QOD program in the 7 years since its inception including lumbar spine, cervical spine, and spinal deformity and cerebrovascular and intracranial tumor. The QOD Spine modules, which are the primary subject of this paper, have evolved into the largest North American spine registries yet created and have resulted in unprecedented cooperative activities within our specialty and among affiliated spine care practitioners. Herein, the authors discuss the experience of QOD Spine programs to date, with a brief description of their inception, some of the key achievements and milestones, as well as the recent transition of the spine modules to the American Spine Registry (ASR), a collaboration between the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).

OBJECTIVE Return to work (RTW) and satisfaction are important outcome measures after surgery for degenerative spine disease. The authors queried the prospective Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) to determine if RTW correlated with patient satisfaction. METHODS The QOD was queried for patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The primary outcome of interest was correlation between RTW and patient satisfaction, as measured by the North American Spine Society patient satisfaction index (NASS). Secondarily, data on satisfied patients were analyzed to see what patient factors correlated with RTW. RESULTS Of 608 total patients in the QOD spondylolisthesis data set, there were 292 patients for whom data were available on both satisfaction and RTW status. Of these, 249 (85.3%) were satisfied with surgery (NASS score 1–2), and 224 (76.7%) did RTW after surgery. Of the 68 patients who did not RTW after surgery, 49 (72.1%) were still satisfied with surgery. Of the 224 patients who did RTW, 24 (10.7%) were unsatisfied with surgery (NASS score 3–4). There were significantly more people who had an NASS score of 1 in the RTW group than in the non-RTW group (71.4% vs 42.6%, p < 0.05). Failure to RTW was associated with lower level of education, worse baseline back pain (measured with a numeric rating scale), and worse baseline disability (measured with the Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]). CONCLUSIONS There are a substantial number of patients who are satisfied with surgery even though they did not RTW. Patients who were satisfied with surgery and did not RTW typically had worse preoperative back pain and ODI and typically did not have a college education. While RTW remains an important measure after surgery, physicians should be mindful that patients who do not RTW may still be satisfied with their outcome.