Citations

AbstractObjectiveThe aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta‐analyses of observational studies of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (BcAV).BackgroundTAVR for BcAV stenosis has been associated with an increased incidence of paravalvular leaks, valve malposition, pacemaker placement and all‐cause mortality. The conclusions drawn have been limited by small sample sizes. The use of TAVR for BcAV stenosis remains controversial.MethodsWe searched multiple databases from the inception of the databases through September 30, 2016 for studies of TAVR for BcAV stenosis. We included all observational studies with more than one patient and at least 1 month of outcomes.ResultsWe analyzed 13 observational studies with 758 patients. Meta analyses showed device success rate of 95% [95% confidence interval (CI) 90.2% to 98.5%] and an early safety event in 16.9% [95% CI 12.2% to 22%]. At 30 days, moderate to severe paravalvular leak was seen in 12.2% [95% CI 3.1% to 24.8%] and new pacemaker implantation in 17.9% [95% CI 14.2% to 22%]. All‐cause mortality was 3.7% [95% CI 2.1% to 5.6%], which should be viewed in the context of an STS PROM of 5.0%.ConclusionsThis analysis suggests that TAVR for BcAV is not associated with excess mortality. The incidence of paravalvular leaks and pacemaker implant is increased compared to tricuspid aortic valve cohorts undergoing TAVR, and operators should weigh these potential complications against the clinical benefit provided by TAVR for BcAV patients at high risk for surgical valve replacement.

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are listed for liver transplantation (LT) are often treated while on the waiting list with locoregional therapy (LRT), which is aimed at either preventing progression of HCC or reducing the measurable disease burden of HCC in order to receive increased allocation priority. We aimed to synthesize evidence regarding the effectiveness of LRT in the management of patients with HCC who were on the LT waitlist. We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases from 1996 to April 25, 2016, for studies that enrolled adults with cirrhosis awaiting LT and treated with bridging or down‐staging therapies before LT. Therapies included transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, transarterial radioembolization, ablation, and radiotherapy. We included both comparative and noncomparative studies. There were no randomized controlled trials identified. For adults with T1 HCC and waiting for LT, there were only two nonrandomized comparative studies, both with a high risk of bias, which reported the outcome of interest. In one series, the rate of dropout from all causes at 6 months in T1 HCC patients who underwent LRT was 5.3%, while in the other series of T1 HCC patients who did not receive LRT, the dropout rate at median follow‐up of 2.4 years and the progression rate to T2 HCC were 30% and 88%, respectively. For adults with T2 HCC awaiting LT, transplant with any bridging therapy showed a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of waitlist dropout due to progression (relative risk [RR], 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06‐1.85; I 2 = 0%) and of waitlist dropout from all causes (RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.060‐2.370; I 2 = 85.7%) compared to no therapy based on three comparative studies. The quality of evidence is very low due to high risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. There were five comparative studies which reported on posttransplant survival rates and 10 comparative studies which reported on posttransplant recurrence, and there was no significant difference seen in either of these endpoints. For adults initially with stage T3 HCC who received LRT, there were three studies reporting on transplant with any down‐staging therapy versus no downstaging, and this showed a significant increase in 1‐year (two studies, RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01‐1.23) and 5‐year (1 study, RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03‐1.32) post‐LT survival rates for patients who received LRT. The quality of evidence is very low due to serious risk of bias and imprecision. Conclusion: In patients with HCC listed for LT, the use of LRT is associated with a nonsignificant trend toward improved waitlist and posttransplant outcomes, though there is a high risk of selection bias in the available evidence. (H epatology 2018;67:381‐400).

BACKGROUNDThere are limited therapeutic options for treatment‐refractory pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), with a paucity of data to support the best option after progression on gemcitabine‐based regimens. The authors performed a meta‐analysis to determine the effectiveness of adding oxaliplatin (OX) or various irinotecan formulations to a fluoropyrimidine (FP) after first‐line treatment progression in patients with PDAC.METHODSDifferent databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane, were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing FP monotherapy versus FP combination therapy that included either oxaliplatin (FPOX) or various irinotecan formulations (FPIRI) in patients with PDAC who progressed after first‐line treatment. Secondary analyses were planned to assess the effectiveness of FPOX and FPIRI compared with FP. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS).RESULTSFive studies with 895 patients were identified. Patients randomized to receive FPIRI/FPOX had a significantly improved PFS and a trend toward improved OS compared with those who received FP monotherapy. When comparing FPIRI with FP, there was an improvement in both PFS (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.47‐0.87; P = .005) and OS (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.55‐0.89; P = .004) in patients who received the combination. Conversely, FPOX produced only a modest improvement in PFS with no improvement in OS.CONCLUSIONSCombination chemotherapy with OX or various IRI formulations appears to improve PFS compared with single‐agent FP. FPIRI, but not FPOX, appears to confer an OS advantage. The combination of FP with irinotecan formulations appears to be the appropriate next line of treatment upon progression after gemcitabine‐based chemotherapy regimens. Cancer 2017;123:4680‐4686. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

AbstractBackgroundColonic pseudo‐obstruction (CPO) is characterized by colonic distention in the absence of mechanical obstruction or toxic megacolon. Concomitant secretory diarrhea (SD) with hypokalemia (SD‐CPO) due to gastrointestinal (GI) loss requires further characterization.AimTo perform a systematic review of SD‐CPO, report a case study, and compare SD‐CPO with classical CPO (C‐CPO).MethodsWe performed a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus for reports based on a priori criteria for CPO, SD and GI loss of potassium. An additional case at Mayo Clinic was included.ResultsNine publications met inclusion criteria, with a total of 14 cases. Six studies had high, three moderate, and our case high methodological quality. Median age was 74 years (66‐97), with 2:1 male/female ratio. Kidney disease was present in 6/14 patients. Diarrhea was described as profuse, watery, or viscous in 10 patients. Median serum, stool, and urine potassium concentrations (mmol/L) were 2.4 (range: 1.9‐3.1), 137 (100‐180), and 17 (8‐40), respectively. Maximal diameter of colon and cecum (median) were 10.2 cm and 10.5 cm, respectively. Conservative therapy alone was effective in five out of 14 patients. Median potassium supplementation was 124 mEq/d (40‐300). Colonic decompression was effective in three out of six patients; one had a total colectomy; three out of 14 had died. The main differences between SD‐CPO and C‐CPO were lower responses to treatments: conservative measures (35.7% vs 73.6%, P=.01), neostigmine (17% vs 89.2%, P<.001), and colonic decompression (50% vs 82.4%, P=.02).ConclusionSD‐CPO is a rare phenotype associated with increased fecal potassium and is more difficult to treat than C‐CPO.

432 Background: In clinical trials and clinical practice, tumor response assessment with computed tomography (CT) defines critical end points in patients with metastatic disease treated with systemic agents. Methods to reduce errors and improve efficiency in tumor response assessment could improve patient care. Methods: Eleven readers from 10 different institutions independently categorized tumor response according to three different therapeutic response criteria using paired baseline and initial post-therapy CT studies from 20 randomly selected patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib as part of a completed phase III multi-institutional study. Images were evaluated with a manual tumor response evaluation method (standard-of-care) and with computer-assisted response evaluation (CARE) that included stepwise guidance, interactive error-identification and correction methods, automated tumor metric extraction, calculations, response categorization, and data/image archival. A cross-over design, patient randomization, and two-week washout period were used to reduce recall bias. Comparative effectiveness metrics included error rate and mean patient evaluation time. Results: The standard-of-care method was on average associated with one or more errors in 30.5% (6.1/20) of patients while CARE had a 0.0% (0.0/20) error rate (p<0.001). The most common errors were related to data transfer and arithmetic calculation. In patients with errors, the median number of error types was 1 (range 1-3). Mean patient evaluation time with CARE was twice as fast as the standard-of-care method (6.4 vs. 13.1 minutes, p<0.001). Conclusions: Computer-assisted tumor response evaluation reduced errors and time of evaluation, indicating better overall effectiveness than manual tumor response evaluation methods that are the current standard-of-care.

AbstractObjectivesWe performed a systematic review and meta‐regression analysis of randomized control trials to investigate the association between response to initial treatment and survival outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).MethodsResponse outcomes included complete response (CR) and the combined outcome of CR or very good partial response (VGPR), while survival outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS). We used random‐effect meta‐regression models and conducted sensitivity analyses based on definition of CR and study quality.ResultsSeventy‐two trials were included in the systematic review, 63 of which contributed data in meta‐regression analyses. There was no association between OS and CR in patients without autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) (regression coefficient: .02, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.06, 0.10), in patients undergoing ASCT (−.11, 95% CI −0.44, 0.22) and in trials comparing ASCT with non‐ASCT patients (.04, 95% CI −0.29, 0.38). Similarly, OS did not correlate with the combined metric of CR or VGPR, and no association was evident between response outcomes and PFS. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results.ConclusionsThis meta‐regression analysis suggests that there is no association between conventional response outcomes and survival in patients with newly diagnosed MM.