Citations

ABSTRACT Background The optimal long‐term antithrombotic strategy after apparently successful catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) remains uncertain, particularly in patients who meet conventional guideline thresholds for oral anticoagulation (OAC). Objectives To compare continuation versus cessation strategies of long‐term OAC after successful AF ablation and to quantify net clinical benefit (NCB) integrating thromboembolic and bleeding outcomes. Methods We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase from inception through February 2026 for randomized and comparative observational studies evaluating long‐term OAC continuation versus cessation (no OAC and/or switch to aspirin) after successful AF ablation. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB2 for randomized trials and a modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies. Random‐effects meta‐analyses used a restricted maximum likelihood estimator with Hartung–Knapp adjustment. NCB was calculated as: thromboembolic event rate − (1.5 × major bleeding rate). Results Six studies met the inclusion criteria (four randomized trials and two observational cohorts). Stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) events were reported in six studies and were not significantly different between OAC continuation and cessation strategies (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.24–1.99; p = 0.49). Systemic embolism (three studies) did not differ between groups ( p = 0.12). Major bleeding (five studies) was numerically higher with continued OAC but not statistically significant (OR 2.07; 95% CI 0.88–4.86; p = 0.09). In NCB analysis, continued OAC yielded more negative or near‐neutral NCB values, whereas, the cessation strategies were less negative or marginally positive; the fixed‐effect risk difference in NCB (continued OAC vs cessation) was +0.00067 (95% CI −0.00279 to +0.00413). Conclusion This meta‐analysis suggests that after successful AF ablation, continuing OAC does not significantly reduce stroke risk compared to cessation or switching to aspirin, but it may increase major bleeding. While NCB trends favor cessation, the low absolute event rates and the risk of silent AF recurrence necessitate caution.

Background: To our knowledge, there are no studies assessing associations between patients on preoperative estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) undergoing distal radius open reduction and internal fixation (DRORIF) and postoperative outcomes. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare surgical and medical complications in patients on ERT undergoing DR-ORIF with a matched control cohort. Materials and Methods: The PearlDiver Mariner database was searched for female patients who took ERT within 3 months of the index procedure. Patients were matched 1:4 with non-ERT controls using propensity score matching. Complications were assessed at 90 days, 2 years, and 5 years. Statistical analyses were conducted using odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Statistical significance was determined at a P value of <.05. Results: The ERT cohort consisted of 1,815 ERT users, and the control cohort consisted of 7,247 patients. At 2 years, the ERT cohort was associated with a slightly greater incidence of malunion/nonunion (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.13–2.18) but with no increased risk of revision surgery (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.50–2.10). Similarly, at 5 years, the ERT cohort was associated with a slightly higher likelihood of a malunion/nonunion diagnosis (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.24–2.30). Conclusion: The current study suggests that patients on preoperative ERT had a slightly increased risk of malunion/nonunion at 2 years and 5 years after DR-ORIF. We did not find associations between increases in the risk of any other major or minor complications and the cohort of patients on preoperative ERT within 5 years postoperatively.

Background: Sinonasal malignancies (SNM) are rare cancers associated with poor prognosis and impaired quality of life (QOL). The 22-question Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) has been used to assess QOL in patients with SNM. Objective: To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the SNOT-22 in patients with SNM. Methods: About 264 patients with SNM were drawn from a prospective, longitudinal, multi-institutional study. SNOT-22 scores were collected at pre-treatment baseline and follow-up through 5 years post-treatment. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the internal consistency of the SNOT-22. Distribution-based approaches were used to estimate the MCID. Multivariable regression identified factors associated with SNOT-22 improvement exceeding the determined MCID. Results: Cronbach’s alpha was >.85. The estimated MCIDs were: 1.44 (Cohen’s effect size), 1.32 (standard error of the mean), 10.45 (1/2 of baseline standard deviation), and 3.67 (minimum detectable change). The mean MCID across methods was 4.22. Multivariable regression demonstrated higher odds of clinically meaningful improvement from baseline in patients with early-stage disease (odds ratio (OR) 3.510, P = .035), no neck irradiation (OR 11.050, P = .014), and neoadjuvant therapy (OR 16.667, P = .047). Conclusions: The SNOT-22 MCID was estimated as 4.22 in a large multi-center cohort of patients with SNM, suggesting that relatively small QOL changes are clinically relevant. When applying the MCID to the current cohort, advanced stage, treatment of neck disease, and not requiring neoadjuvant therapy were predictive of worse QOL.

PURPOSE Gastroesophageal carcinoma (GEC) is increasingly managed using biomarker-guided therapies. Although both tissue DNA (tDNA) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing are used clinically, the concordance of genomic alterations between primary tumors, metastatic sites, and liquid biopsy remains incompletely understood. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed 345 patients with GEC who underwent ctDNA testing at Mayo Clinic. tDNA next-generation sequencing and immunohistochemistry (IHC) for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)/erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 ( ERBB2 ) and mismatch repair (MMR) were collected. Concordance was evaluated between ctDNA and tDNA, ctDNA and IHC, and across all three modalities, using 60-day and 30-day intervals. RESULTS Among 345 patients with ctDNA testing, 186 had tDNA testing, and 310 underwent IHC. ctDNA testing showed a shorter turnaround time than tDNA (median 6 v 13 days). The most frequent alteration in ctDNA, primary tDNA, and metastatic tDNA was TP53. Concordance between ctDNA and primary tDNA was ≥78.8% for key genes; between ctDNA and metastatic tDNA, it was ≥84.8%. IHC-ctDNA concordance was higher in metastatic tumors, with 91.1% for HER2/ ERBB2 and 97.7% for mismatch repair (MMR)/microsatellite instability (MSI) compared with 81.1% and 95.8%, respectively, in primary tumors. Triplet concordance for MSI/MMR was 97.6% in primary tumors and 100% in metastatic tumors, while ERBB2 /HER2 showed 84.4% and 93.9% concordance, respectively. ctDNA temporal heterogeneity analysis revealed 14 patients with fluctuating ERBB2 status and 3 with fluctuating MSI-H status. CONCLUSION ctDNA testing demonstrates high concordance with tDNA and IHC and offers faster turnaround. Given its minimally invasive nature and strong concordance with tissue-based testing, ctDNA is a reliable tool for genomic profiling and longitudinal monitoring in GEC.

PURPOSE The primary objective of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase II study (Alliance A221805) was to screen two doses of duloxetine for preventing sensory oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy (OIPN). METHODS Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive once daily 30 mg duloxetine, 60 mg duloxetine, or placebo. Eligible participants had stage II to III colorectal cancer and no baseline neuropathy, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, were age 25 years and older, and received oxaliplatin via one of the following doses and schedules: 85 mg/m 2 every 2 weeks (6 or 12 doses) or 130 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks (4 doses). Duloxetine/placebo was taken once daily beginning day 1 of cycle 1 and continued for 17 weeks. The primary end point, a composite response reflecting sensory OIPN symptom severity and onset, was measured in weeks 19-21 using a validated participant-reported outcome survey assessing extremity numbness, tingling, and pain. Response was defined as a participant-reported highest score of ≤2 (ie, 1 = not at all; 2 = a little) on survey items. To be evaluable for the response end point, eligible participants must have initiated oxaliplatin and submitted ≥1 postbaseline OIPN survey. RESULTS Of the 199 participants (n = 66, 30 mg duloxetine; n = 66, 60 mg duloxetine; n = 67, placebo), 46, 47, and 50 (N = 143, 71.8%), respectively, were evaluable for primary end point analysis based on modified intention-to-treat criteria. Participant mean age was 55.1 years (standard deviation = 10.4). Most were White (n = 113, 80.7%) and male (n = 82, 58.6%). The proportion of responders among those receiving placebo (68.0%) was similar to those receiving duloxetine 30 mg (65.2%) or 60 mg (66.0%). Duloxetine adherence rates, measured via pill counts—30 mg (54%), 60 mg (57%), and placebo (59%) groups—were low (<75%). CONCLUSION Duloxetine is not more promising than placebo for preventing sensory OIPN.