Citations

Clear

2414 citation(s) found for "Yu, Jason W".

Advanced Respiratory Support in the Contemporary Cardiac ICU
Metkus, Thomas S. , Miller, P. Elliott , Alviar, Carlos L. , Baird-Zars, Vivian M., Bohula, Erin A. , Cremer, Paul , Keeley, Ellen C. , Kontos, Michael C. , Menon, Venu , Park, Jeong‐Gun , Schulman, Steven P. , Katz, Jason N. , Bohula, Erin A , Cremer, Paul C , Gerber, Daniel , Jentzer, Jacob C. , Roswell, Robert O. , Solomon, Michael A. , Diepen, Sean van , Morrow, David A.

Mayo Clinic

Critical Care Explorations | September 18, 2020 | Volume: 2 | Issue: 9 | Pages: e0182

10.1097/cce.0000000000000182 | PMID 33235999 Get It

Objectives: The medical complexity and critical care needs of patients admitted to cardiac ICUs are increasing, and prospective studies examining the underlying cardiac and noncardiac diagnoses, the management strategies, and the prognosis of cardiac ICU patients with respiratory failure are needed. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a research collaborative of cardiac ICUs across the United States and Canada. Patients: We included all medical cardiac ICU admissions at 25 cardiac ICUs during two consecutive months annually at each center from 2017 to 2019. Measurements: We evaluated the use of advanced respiratory therapies including invasive mechanical ventilation, noninvasive ventilation, and high-flow nasal cannula versus no advanced respiratory support across admission diagnoses and the association with in-hospital mortality. Main Results: Of 8,240 cardiac ICU admissions, 1,935 (23.5%) were treated with invasive mechanical ventilation, 573 (7.0%) with noninvasive ventilation, and 281 (3.4%) with high-flow nasal cannula. Admitting diagnoses among those with advanced respiratory support were diverse including general medical problems in patients with heart disease as well as primary cardiac problems. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation (38.1%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.53; 2.02–3.16) and noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula (8.8%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.25; 1.73–2.93) compared with patients without advanced respiratory support (4.6%). Reintubation rate was 7.6%. The most common variables associated with respiratory insufficiency included heart failure, infection, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and pulmonary vascular disease. Conclusions: One-third of cardiac ICU admissions receive respiratory support with associated increased mortality. These data provide benchmarks for quality improvement ventures in the cardiac ICU, inform cardiac critical care training and staffing patterns, and serve as foundation for future studies aimed at improving outcomes.
Survival in Patients With Brain Metastases: Summary Report on the Updated Diagnosis-Specific Graded Prognostic Assessment and Definition of the Eligibility Quotient
Sperduto, Paul W. , Mesko, Shane , Li, Jing , Cagney, Daniel , Aizer, Ayal A. , Lin, Nancy U. , Nesbit, Eric , Chan, Jason W., Braunstein, Steve , Breen, Will, Brown, Paul D. , Shi, Diana D. , Soliman, Hany , Sahgal, Arjun , Shanley, Ryan , Sperduto, William , Everett, Ashlyn S. , Boggs, Drexell H. , Masucci, Laura , Plichta, Kristin A. , Buatti, John M. , Jain, Supriya , Gaspar, Laurie E., Wu, Cheng–Chia , Wang, Tony J. C. , Bryant, John , Chuong, Michael D. , An, Yi , Chiang, Veronica , Nakano, Toshimichi , Aizer, Ayal , Chan, Jason , Braunstein, Steve , Breen, Will , Brown, Paul D , Shi, Diana , Shih, Helen A , Shanley, Ryan , Lou, Emil , Everett, Ashlyn , Boggs, Drexell H , Buatti, John M , Jain, Supriya , Wang, Tony J C , Chuong, Michael , An, Yi , Chiang, Veronica , Nakano, Toshimichi , Mehta, Minesh P , Lin, Nancy U , Kruser, Tim J. , Lee, Jessica , Kirkpatrick, John P. , Shih, Helen A. , Lou, Emil , Roberge, David , Remick, Jill S. , Aoyama, Hidefumi , Mehta, Minesh P.

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Clinical Oncology | September 15, 2020 | Volume: 38 | Issue: 32 | Pages: 3773-3784

10.1200/jco.20.01255 | PMID 32931399 Get It

PURPOSE Conventional wisdom has rendered patients with brain metastases ineligible for clinical trials for fear that poor survival could mask the benefit of otherwise promising treatments. Our group previously published the diagnosis-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA). Updates with larger contemporary cohorts using molecular markers and newly identified prognostic factors have been published. The purposes of this work are to present all the updated indices in a single report to guide treatment choice, stratify research, and define an eligibility quotient to expand eligibility. METHODS A multi-institutional database of 6,984 patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases underwent multivariable analyses of prognostic factors and treatments associated with survival for each primary site. Significant factors were used to define the updated GPA. GPAs of 4.0 and 0.0 correlate with the best and worst prognoses, respectively. RESULTS Significant prognostic factors varied by diagnosis and new prognostic factors were identified. Those factors were incorporated into the updated GPA with robust separation ( P < .01) between subgroups. Survival has improved, but varies widely by GPA for patients with non–small-cell lung, breast, melanoma, GI, and renal cancer with brain metastases from 7-47 months, 3-36 months, 5-34 months, 3-17 months, and 4-35 months, respectively. CONCLUSION Median survival varies widely and our ability to estimate survival for patients with brain metastases has improved. The updated GPA (available free at brainmetgpa.com) provides an accurate tool with which to estimate survival, individualize treatment, and stratify clinical trials. Instead of excluding patients with brain metastases, enrollment should be encouraged and those trials should be stratified by the GPA to ensure those trials make appropriate comparisons. Furthermore, we recommend the expansion of eligibility to allow for the enrollment of patients with previously treated brain metastases who have a 50% or greater probability of an additional year of survival (eligibility quotient > 0.50).
Berberine alters gut microbial function through modulation of bile acids
Wolf, Patricia G. , Doden, Heidi L. , Ly, Lindsey K., Takei, Hajime , Murai, Tsuyoshi, Kurosawa, Takao, Kashyap, Purna , Gillevet, Patrick M. , Ridlon, Jason M. , Devendran, Saravanan , Moore, Tyler, Nittono, Hiroshi , Kurosawa, Takao, Chlipala, George E. , Green, Stefan J. , Kakiyama, Genta , McCracken, Vance J. , Gaskins, H. Rex

Mayo Clinic

No container title available | September 14, 2020 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.21203/rs.3.rs-32461/v2 Get It

Abstract Background: Berberine (BBR) is a plant-based nutraceutical that has been used for millennia to treat diarrheal infections and in contemporary medicine to improve patient lipid profiles. Reduction in lipids, particularly cholesterol, is achieved partly through up-regulation of bile acid synthesis and excretion into the gastrointestinal tract (GI). The efficacy of BBR is also thought to be dependent on structural and functional alterations of the gut microbiome. However, knowledge of the effects of BBR on gut microbiome communities is currently lacking. Distinguishing indirect effects of BBR on bacteria through altered bile acid profiles is particularly important in understanding how dietary nutraceuticals alter the microbiome. Methods: Germfree mice were colonized with a defined minimal gut bacterial consortium capable of functional bile acid metabolism (Bacteroides vulgatus, Bacteroides uniformis, Parabacteroides distasonis, Bilophila wadsworthia, Clostridium hylemonae, Clostridium hiranonis, Blautia producta; B4PC2). Multi-omics (bile acid metabolomics, 16S rDNA sequencing, cecal metatranscriptomics) were performed in order to provide a simple in vivo model from which to identify network-based correlations between bile acids and bacterial transcripts in the presence and absence of dietary BBR.Results: Significant alterations in network topology and connectivity in function were observed, despite similarity in gut microbial alpha diversity (P = 0.30) and beta-diversity (P = 0.123) between control and BBR treatment. BBR increased cecal bile acid concentrations, (P < 0.05), most notably deoxycholic acid (DCA) (P <0.001). Overall, analysis of transcriptomes and correlation networks indicates both bacterial species-specific responses to BBR, as well as functional commonalities among species, such as up-regulation of Na+/H+ antiporter, cell wall synthesis/repair, carbohydrate metabolism and amino acid metabolism. Bile acid concentrations in the GI tract increased significantly during BBR treatment and developed extensive correlation networks with expressed genes in the B4PC2 community. Conclusions: This work has important implications for interpreting the effects of BBR on structure and function of the complex gut microbiome, which may lead to targeted pharmaceutical interventions aimed to achieve the positive physiological effects previously observed with BBR supplementation.
Bronchiolar Adenoma/Pulmonary Ciliated Muconodular Papillary Tumor
Shirsat, Hemlata , Zhou, Fang , Rekhtman, Natasha , Saqi, Anjali , Argyropoulos, Kimon V. , Azour, Lea , Simms, Anthony, Melamed, Jonathan , Hung, Yin P. , Roden, Anja C. , Moreira, André L. , Narula, Navneet , Saqi, Anjali , Argyropoulos, Kimon , Azour, Lea , Hung, Yin P , Chang, Jason C. , Mino-Kenudson, Mari A.

Mayo Clinic

American Journal of Clinical Pathology | September 11, 2020 | Volume: 155 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 832-844

10.1093/ajcp/aqaa194 | PMID 33313677 Get It

Abstract Objectives To describe the histologic features that are helpful in the diagnosis of the rare bronchiolar adenomas/ciliated muconodular papillary tumors (BAs/CMPTs) during intraoperative consultation. Methods Multi-institutional retrospective review of frozen sections of 18 BAs/CMPTs. Results In 14 of 18 cases, BA/CMPT was the primary reason for sublobar lung resection, and in 4 cases, BA/CMPT was an incidental finding intraoperatively for resections performed for carcinoma in other lobes. There were 11 proximal-type/classic BAs/CMPTs and 7 distal-type/nonclassic BAs/CMPTs. Only 3 (16.7%) of 18 were correctly diagnosed at the time of frozen section, all of which were proximal type/classic. The remainder were diagnosed as adenocarcinoma (n = 7); invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (n = 1); non–small cell lung carcinoma (n = 1); cystic mucinous neoplasm, favor adenocarcinoma (either mucinous or colloid type) (n = 1); favor adenocarcinoma, cannot exclude CMPT (n = 1); atypical proliferation (n = 2); mucinous epithelial proliferation (n = 1); and mucous gland adenoma (n = 1). Conclusions BA/CMPT can potentially be misdiagnosed as carcinoma during intraoperative consultation. On retrospective review of the frozen sections, the presence of the following may help to avoid misdiagnosis: a mixture of bland ciliated columnar cells, mucinous cells, and, most important, a basal cell layer, as well as a lack of necrosis, significant atypia, and mitoses.
Multicenter Interim Guidance on Use of Antivirals for Children With Coronavirus Disease 2019/Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2
Hayes, Molly , Kimberlin, David W. , Jones, Sarah Bruyn, James, Scott H. , Pinninti, Swetha , Yarbrough, April , Abzug, Mark J., MacBrayne, Christine E. , Soma, Vijaya L, Vora, Surabhi B , Wolf, Joshua , Olivero, Rosemary , Grapentine, Steven P, Wattier, Rachel L , Bio, Laura , Cross, Shane J. , Dillman, Nicholas O. , Oliveira, Carlos R. , Timberlake, Kathryn , Orscheln, Rachel C. , Schwenk, Hayden T. , Zachariah, Philip , Aldrich, Margaret, Goldman, David L., Groves, Helen , Rajapakse, Nipunie , Lamb, Gabriella S , Tribble, Alison C. , Hersh, Adam L. , Thorell, Emily A., Ratner, Adam J. , Newland, Jason G. , Nakamura, Mari , Rajapakse, Nipunie S, Ratner, Adam J , Schwenk, Hayden T , Wolf, Joshua , Oliveira, Carlos R , Chiotos, Kathleen , Jones, Sarah B, Dulek, Daniel E. , Waghmare, Alpana , Downes, Kevin J. , Young, Jennifer, Tamma, Pranita D. , Denison, Mark R.

Mayo Clinic

Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society | September 9, 2020 | Volume: 10 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 34-48

10.1093/jpids/piaa115 | PMID 32918548 Get It

AbstractBackgroundAlthough coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a mild infection in most children, a small proportion develop severe or critical illness. Data describing agents with potential antiviral activity continue to expand such that updated guidance is needed regarding use of these agents in children.MethodsA panel of pediatric infectious diseases physicians and pharmacists from 20 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a set of guidance statements was developed and refined based on review of the best available evidence and expert opinion.ResultsGiven the typically mild course of COVID-19 in children, supportive care alone is suggested for most cases. For children with severe illness, defined as a supplemental oxygen requirement without need for noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), remdesivir is suggested, preferably as part of a clinical trial if available. Remdesivir should also be considered for critically ill children requiring invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO. A duration of 5 days is appropriate for most patients. The panel recommends against the use of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir (or other protease inhibitors) for COVID-19 in children.ConclusionsAntiviral therapy for COVID-19 is not necessary for the great majority of pediatric patients. For children with severe or critical disease, this guidance offers an approach for decision-making regarding use of remdesivir.
Hypofractionated Proton Beam Radiotherapy in Patients With Unresectable Liver Tumors: Multi-institutional Prospective Results From the Proton Collaborative Group
Parzen, Jacob S. , Hartsell, William F. , Chang, John P., Molitoris, Jason K. , Durci, Michael, Urbanic, James J., Ashman, Jonathan B. , Vargas, Carlos , Stevens, Craig, Kabolizadeh, Peyman, Apisarnthanarax, Smith , Tsai, Henry K.

Mayo Clinic

No container title available | September 8, 2020 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.21203/rs.3.rs-70862/v1 Get It

Abstract Background: Recent advances in radiotherapy techniques have allowed ablative doses to be safely delivered to inoperable liver tumors. In this setting, proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) provides the means to escalate radiation dose to the target volume while sparing the uninvolved liver. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of hypofractionated PBT for liver tumors, predominantly hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC).Methods: We evaluated the prospective registry of the Proton Collaborative Group for patients undergoing definitive PBT for liver tumors. Demographic, clinicopathologic, toxicity, and dosimetry information were compiled.Results: To date, 63 patients have been treated at 9 institutions between 2013-2019. Thirty (48%) had HCC and 25 (40%) had ICC. The median dose and biological equivalent dose (BED) delivered was 58.05 GyE (range, 32.5-75) and 80.5 GyE (range, 53.6-100), respectively. The median mean liver BED was 13.9 GyE. Three (4.8%) patients experienced at least one grade ³3 toxicity. With median follow-up of 5.1 months (range, 0.1-40.8), the local control (LC) rate at 1 year was 91.2% for HCC and 90.9% for ICC. The 1-year LC was significantly higher (95.7%) for patients receiving BED greater than 75.2 GyE than for patients receiving BED of 75.2 GyE or lower (84.6%, p = 0.029). The overall survival rate at 1 year was 65.6% for HCC and 81.8% for ICC. Conclusions: Hypofractionated PBT results in excellent LC, sparing of the uninvolved liver, and low toxicity, even in the setting of dose-escalation. Higher dose correlates with improved LC, highlighting the importance of PBT especially in patients with recurrent or bulky disease.
Myeloid/Lymphoid Neoplasms with Eosinophilia and TK Fusion Genes, Version 3.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology
Deininger, Michael W. , Dunbar, Andrew , Elshoury, Amro, Gojo, Ivana , Gundabolu, Krishna , Jain, Tania , Jamieson, Catriona , McMahon, Brandon , Oehler, Vivian G. , Pardanani, Animesh , Ranheim, Erik A. , Rein, Lindsay , Salit, Rachel B. , Snyder, David S., Stein, Brady L. , Vachhani, Pankit , Wadleigh, Martha , Walsh, Katherine, Ward, Dawn C., Bergman, Mary Anne, Sundar, Hema, Jain, Tania , Gerds, Aaron T. , Gotlib, Jason , Bose, Prithviraj , George, Tracy I. , Hexner, Elizabeth O. , Hobbs, Gabriela , Kuykendall, Andrew , Mohan, Sanjay , Oh, Stephen T. , Podoltsev, Nikolai , Talpaz, Moshe , Thota, Swapna

Mayo Clinic

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network | September 4, 2020 | Volume: 18 | Issue: 9 | Pages: 1248-1269

10.6004/jnccn.2020.0042 | PMID 32886902 Get It

Eosinophilic disorders and related syndromes represent a heterogeneous group of neoplastic and nonneoplastic conditions, characterized by more eosinophils in the peripheral blood, and may involve eosinophil-induced organ damage. In the WHO classification of myeloid and lymphoid neoplasms, eosinophilic disorders characterized by dysregulated tyrosine kinase (TK) fusion genes are recognized as a new category termed, myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and rearrangement of PDGFRA , PDGFRB or FGFR1 or with PCM1-JAK2 . In addition to these aforementioned TK fusion genes, rearrangements involving FLT3 and ABL1 genes have also been described. These new NCCN Guidelines include recommendations for the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of any one of the myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia (MLN-Eo) and a TK fusion gene included in the 2017 WHO Classification, as well as MLN-Eo and a FLT3 or ABL1 rearrangement.
Abstract 3215: ClinGen somatic cancer working group: Disseminating standardized cancer molecular diagnostic data and evidence through global collaboration and expert curation
Ritter, Deborah , Danos, Arpad , Raca, Gordana , Roy, Angshumoy , Lin, Wan‐Hsin , Wang, Jue , Hosseini, Seyed Ali, Kanagal-Shamana, Rashmi, Xu, Xinjie , Merker, Jason D. , Kulkarni, Shashikant , Madhavan, Subha , Rao, Shruti , Krysiak, Kilannin , Barnell, Erica K. , McCoy, Matthew , Pitel, Beth A. , Sonkin, Dmitriy , Selvarajah, Shamini , King, Ian F. G. , Warner, Jeremy L. , Meric‐Bernstam, Funda , Li, Marilyn M , Wagner, Alex H. , Griffith, Malachi , Griffith, Obi L.

Mayo Clinic

Cancer Research | September 4, 2020 | Volume: 80 | Issue: 16_Supplement | Pages: 3215-3215

10.1158/1538-7445.am2020-3215 Get It

Abstract The Clinical Genome (ClinGen) Resource is a US National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)-funded program dedicated to building an expert curated and freely available central resource that defines the clinical relevance of genes and variants for use in precision medicine. Teams of experts in various clinical domains come together as working groups within ClinGen to facilitate the interpretation, annotation and utilization of genes-variants for clinical application. Somatic Cancer is one such ClinGen Clinical Domain Working Group (CDWG) that consists of over 90 members worldwide, including clinicians, clinical laboratory diagnosticians, genomic scientists and bioinformaticians. Members of this CDWG identify high priority somatic variants in different cancer types that require expert curation and consensus in their clinical interpretation. In order to accurately implement practice guidelines/standards for variant interpretation, the Somatic Cancer CDWG recently established a somatic Variant Curation Expert Panel (VCEP) approval process. Based on their interest and clinical domain expertise, a subset of the CDWG members formed somatic VCEPs to perform authoritative curation on the shortlisted genes-somatic variants within the context of a disease, therapeutic indication or biological pathway. Expert curation within these VCEPs is performed by utilizing guidelines such as those recommended by AMP/ASCO/CAP (Li et al. 2017) and the Somatic Cancer CDWG (Ritter et al. 2016). Wherever necessary, the somatic VCEPs will develop: 1) gene- and disease-specific modifications to address gaps in existing variant assessment guidelines, 2) quantitative approaches for variant interpretation, and 3) implement standardized protocols for annotating somatic variants in genes for a specific disease, drug or biological pathway. Furthermore, ClinGen recently formed the Cancer Variant Interpretation (CVI) committee to provide support, review and feedback on the provisional somatic variant interpretation proposals developed by the VCEPs. The CVI provides somatic VCEPs with a preliminary approval before the final approval by the ClinGen CDWG oversight committee and ultimately ‘expert panel' status in ClinVar, an NCBI-maintained database of clinically relevant gene variants. NTRK fusions in cancer is the first Somatic VCEP going through the ClinGen Somatic Expert Panel approval process. Alterations in the FGFR pathway in GU cancers is the second somatic VCEP under consideration. The Somatic CDWG uses the CIViC (Clinical Interpretation of Variants in Cancer) platform for curation of somatic variants. To date, the CDWG has curated 268 evidence items relating to cancer variants in CIViC, 6 assertions, and 33 evidence source suggestions. The ultimate goal of the Somatic CDWG is to enhance the usability, dissemination and implementation of cancer somatic changes in the ClinGen resource and other cancer variant knowledgebases. Citation Format: Shruti Rao, Deborah Ritter, Arpad Danos, Gordana Raca, Angshumoy Roy, Kilannin Krysiak, Wan-Hsin Lin, Erica Barnell, Matthew McCoy, Beth Pitel, Dmitriy Sonkin, Jue Wang, Seyed Ali Hosseini, Shamini Selvarajah, Ian King, Rashmi Kanagal-Shamana, Xinjie Xu, Jeremy L. Warner, Funda Meric-Bernstam, Jason D. Merker, Marilyn Li, Alex H. Wagner, Malachi Griffith, Obi L. Griffith, Shashikant Kulkarni, Subha Madhavan. ClinGen somatic cancer working group: Disseminating standardized cancer molecular diagnostic data and evidence through global collaboration and expert curation [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 3215.