Citations

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the systemic therapy options for patients with advanced RCC and summarize the new clinical data evaluated by the NCCN panel for the recommended therapies in Version 2.2024 of the NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer.

Background A growing number of meta-analyses (MA) have investigated the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as a treatment modality for chronic pain. The quality of these MAs has not been assessed by validated appraisal tools. Objective To examine the methodological characteristics and quality of MAs related to the use of SCS for chronic pain syndromes. Evidence review An online literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus databases (January 1, 2000 through June 30, 2023) to identify MAs that investigated changes in pain intensity, opioid consumption, and/or physical function after SCS for the treatment of chronic pain. MA quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) critical appraisal tool. Findings Twenty-five MAs were appraised in the final analysis. Three were considered “high” quality, three “low” quality, and 19 “critically low” quality, per the AMSTAR-2 criteria. There was no association between the publication year and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β 0.043; 95% CI −0.008 to 0.095; p=0.097). There was an association between the impact factor and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β 0.108; 95% CI 0.044 to 0.172; p=0.002), such that studies published in journals with higher impact factors were associated with higher overall quality. There was no association between the effect size and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β −0.168; 95% CI −0.518 to 0.183; p=0.320). According to our power analysis, three studies were adequately powered (>80%) to reject the null hypothesis, while the remaining studies were underpowered (<80%). Conclusions The study demonstrates a critically low AMSTAR-2 quality for most MAs published on the use of SCS for treating chronic pain. Future MAs should improve study quality by implementing the AMSTAR-2 checklist items. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023431155.

AbstractINTRODUCTIONAmyloidosis, including cerebral amyloid angiopathy, and markers of small vessel disease (SVD) vary across dominantly inherited Alzheimer's disease (DIAD) presenilin‐1 (PSEN1) mutation carriers. We investigated how mutation position relative to codon 200 (pre‐/postcodon 200) influences these pathologic features and dementia at different stages.METHODSIndividuals from families with known PSEN1 mutations (n = 393) underwent neuroimaging and clinical assessments. We cross‐sectionally evaluated regional Pittsburgh compound B‐positron emission tomography uptake, magnetic resonance imaging markers of SVD (diffusion tensor imaging‐based white matter injury, white matter hyperintensity volumes, and microhemorrhages), and cognition.RESULTSPostcodon 200 carriers had lower amyloid burden in all regions but worse markers of SVD and worse Clinical Dementia Rating® scores compared to precodon 200 carriers as a function of estimated years to symptom onset. Markers of SVD partially mediated the mutation position effects on clinical measures.DISCUSSIONWe demonstrated the genotypic variability behind spatiotemporal amyloidosis, SVD, and clinical presentation in DIAD, which may inform patient prognosis and clinical trials.Highlights Mutation position influences Aβ burden, SVD, and dementia. PSEN1 pre‐200 group had stronger associations between Aβ burden and disease stage. PSEN1 post‐200 group had stronger associations between SVD markers and disease stage. PSEN1 post‐200 group had worse dementia score than pre‐200 in late disease stage. Diffusion tensor imaging‐based SVD markers mediated mutation position effects on dementia in the late stage.

Abstract Aims Graft dysfunction (GD) after heart transplantation (HTx) can develop without evidence of cell- or antibody-mediated rejection. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) has an evolving role in detecting rejection; however, its role in biopsy-negative GD has not been described. This study examines CMR findings, evaluates outcomes based on CMR results, and seeks to identify the possibility of rejection missed through endomyocardial biopsy by using CMR in HTx recipients with biopsy-negative GD. Methods and results HTx recipients with GD [defined as a decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by &gt;5% and LVEF &lt; 50%] in the absence of rejection by biopsy or allograft vasculopathy and who underwent CMR were included in the study. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, re-transplantation, or persistent LVEF &lt; 50%. Overall, 34 HTx recipients developed biopsy-negative GD and underwent CMR. Left ventricular late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) on CMR was observed in 16 patients with two distinct patterns: diffuse epicardial (n = 13) and patchy (n = 3) patterns. Patients with LGE developed GD later after HTx [4 (1.4–6.8) vs. 0.8 (0.3–1.2) years, P &lt; 0.001], were more often symptomatic (88% vs. 56%, P = 0.06), and had greater haemodynamic derangement (pulmonary capillary wedge pressure: 19 ± 7 vs. 13 ± 3 mmHg, P = 0.002) as compared with those without LGE. No significant difference was observed in the primary composite outcome between patients with LGE and those without LGE (50% vs. 38% of patients with events, P = 0.515). During a median follow-up of 3.8 years, mean LVEF improved similarly in the LGE-negative (37–55%) and LGE-positive groups (32–55%) (P = 0.16). Conclusions Biopsy-negative GD occurs with and without LGE when assessed by CMR, indicative of possible rejection/inflammation occurring only in a subset of patients. Irrespective of LGE, LVEF improvement occurs in most GD patients, suggesting that other neurohormonal or immunomodulatory mechanisms may also contribute to GD development.

Abstract The Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS) is a community-driven standard for the organization of data and metadata from a growing range of neuroscience modalities. This paper is meant as a history of how the standard has developed and grown over time. We outline the principles behind the project, the mechanisms by which it has been extended, and some of the challenges being addressed as it evolves. We also discuss the lessons learned through the project, with the aim of enabling researchers in other domains to learn from the success of BIDS.