Citations

PURPOSE The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected cancer care worldwide, including radiation therapy (RT) for breast cancer (BC), because of risk-based resource allocation. We report the evolution of international breast RT practices during the beginning of the pandemic, focusing on differences in treatment recommendations between countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS Between July and November 2020, a 58-question survey was distributed to radiation oncologists (ROs) through international professional societies. Changes in RT decision making during the first surge of the pandemic were evaluated across six hypothetical scenarios, including the management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), early-stage, locally advanced, and metastatic BC. The significance of changes in responses before and during the pandemic was examined using chi-square and McNemar-Bowker tests. RESULTS One thousand one hundred three ROs from 54 countries completed the survey. Incomplete responses (254) were excluded from the analysis. Most respondents were from the United States (285), Japan (117), Italy (63), Canada (58), and Brazil (56). Twenty-one percent (230) of respondents reported treating at least one patient with BC who was COVID-19–positive. Approximately 60% of respondents reported no change in treatment recommendation during the pandemic, except for patients with metastatic disease, for which 57.7% (636/1,103; P < .0005) changed their palliative practice. Among respondents who noted a change in their recommendation during the first surge of the pandemic, omitting, delaying, and adopting short-course RT were the most frequent changes, with most transitioning to moderate hypofractionation for DCIS and early-stage BC. CONCLUSION Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, significant changes in global RT practice patterns for BC were introduced. The impact of published results from the FAST FORWARD trial supporting ultrahypofractionation likely confounded the interpretation of the pandemic's independent influence on RT delivery.

Background The 2021 Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines recommend following anti-phospholipase A2 receptor (PLA2R) antibody levels as a marker of treatment response in membranous nephropathy; however, the optimal timing to evaluate antibody levels and how to combine them with other clinical variables are currently unknown. Methods We used a cohort of 85 patients from the Membranous Nephropathy Trial Of Rituximab (MENTOR) with anti-PLA2R antibodies ≥14 RU/ml to identify risk factors for not experiencing proteinuria remission after 12 months of treatment with cyclosporine or rituximab. Three landmark times were considered: at baseline and after 3 and 6 months of treatment. Logistic regression model performance was evaluated using C-statistics and model fit (Akaike information criterion [AIC], R 2 ). Results The model at baseline that best predicted no remission included anti-PLA2R antibodies >323 RU/ml and creatinine clearance; the best model after 3 months included the change from baseline in both antibody and albumin levels; and the best model after 6 months included antibody levels >14 RU/ml, creatinine clearance, and the change from baseline in albumin. Compared with the model at baseline, the model at 3 months had better model fit (AIC 70.9 versus 96.4, R 2 51.8% versus 30.1%) and higher C-statistic (0.93 versus 0.83, P = 0.008). The model at 6 months had no difference in performance compared with the model at 3 months (AIC 68.6, R 2 53.0%, C-statistic 0.94, P = 0.67). Conclusions In patients with membranous nephropathy treated with cyclosporine or rituximab in the MENTOR trial, we found that the optimal method to evaluate risk factors for the probability of treatment response was to use anti-PLA2R antibody levels combined with albumin levels after 3 months of treatment, which was significantly better than using antibody levels alone or risk factor evaluation at baseline, with no added benefit of waiting until 6 months of treatment. Podcast This article contains a podcast at https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2023_10_09_CJN0000000000000237.mp3

Importance Recently, several states have granted optometrists privileges to perform select laser procedures (laser peripheral iridotomy, selective laser trabeculoplasty, and YAG laser capsulotomy) with the aim of increasing access. However, whether these changes are associated with increased access to these procedures among each state’s Medicare population has not been evaluated. Objective To compare patient access to laser surgery eye care by estimated travel time and 30-minute proximity to an optometrist or ophthalmologist. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort database study used Medicare Part B claims data from 2016 through 2020 for patients accessing new patient or laser eye care (laser peripheral iridotomy, selective laser trabeculoplasty, YAG) from optometrists or ophthalmologists in Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri. Analysis took place between December 2021 and March 2023. Main Outcome and Measures Percentage of each state’s Medicare population within a 30-minute travel time (isochrone) of an optometrist or ophthalmologist based on US census block group population and estimated travel time from patient to health care professional. Results The analytic cohort consisted of 1 564 307 individual claims. Isochrones show that optometrists performing laser eye surgery cover a geographic area similar to that covered by ophthalmologists. Less than 5% of the population had only optometrists (no ophthalmologists) within a 30-minute drive in every state except for Oklahoma for YAG (301 470 [7.6%]) and selective laser trabeculoplasty (371 097 [9.4%]). Patients had a longer travel time to receive all laser procedures from optometrists than ophthalmologists in Kentucky: the shortest median (IQR) drive time for an optometrist-performed procedure was 49.0 (18.4-71.7) minutes for YAG, and the the longest median (IQR) drive time for an ophthalmologist-performed procedure was 22.8 (12.1-41.4) minutes, also for YAG. The median (IQR) driving time for YAG in Oklahoma was 26.6 (12.2-56.9) for optometrists vs 22.0 (11.2-40.8) minutes for ophthalmologists, and in Arkansas it was 90.0 (16.2-93.2) for optometrists vs 26.5 (11.8-51.6) minutes for ophthalmologists. In Louisiana, the longest median (IQR) travel time to receive laser procedures from optometrists was for YAG at 18.5 (7.6-32.6) minutes and the shortest drive to receive procedures from ophthalmologists was for YAG at 20.5 (11.7-39.7) minutes. Conclusions and Relevance Although this study did not assess impact on quality of care, expansion of laser eye surgery privileges to optometrists was not found to lead to shorter travel times to receive care or to a meaningful increase in the percentage of the population with nearby health care professionals.

Background: Full-thickness acetabular cartilage lesions are common findings during primary surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Purpose: To evaluate clinical outcomes after acetabular microfracture performed during FAI surgery in a prospective, multicenter cohort. Study Design: Cohort Study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients with FAI who had failed nonoperative management were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter cohort. Preoperative and postoperative (mean follow-up, 4.3 years) patient-reported outcome measures were obtained with a follow-up rate of 81.6% (621/761 hips), including 54 patients who underwent acetabular microfracture. Patient characteristics, radiographic parameters, intraoperative disease severity, and operative procedures were analyzed. Propensity matching using linear regression was used to match 54 hips with microfracture to 162 control hips (1:3) to control for confounding variables. Subanalyses of hips ≤35 and >35 years of age with propensity matching were also performed. Results: Patients who underwent acetabular microfracture were more likely to be male (81.8% vs 40.9%; P < .001), be older in age (35.0 vs 29.9 years; P = .001), have a higher body mass index (27.2 vs 25.0; P = .001), and have a greater alpha angle (69.6° vs 62.3°; P < .001) compared with the nonmicrofracture cohort (n = 533). After propensity matching to control for covariates, patients treated with microfracture displayed no differences in the modified Harris Hip Score or Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score ( P = .22-.95) but were more likely to undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA) (13% [7/54] compared with 4% [6/162] in the control group; P = .002), and age >35 years was associated with conversion to THA after microfracture. Microfracture performed at or before 35 years of age portended good outcomes with no significant risk of conversion to THA at the most recent follow-up. Conclusion: Microfracture of acetabular cartilage defects appears to be safe and associated with reliably improved short- to mid-term results in younger patients; modified expectations should be realized when full-thickness chondral lesions are identified in patients >35 years of age.