Citations

Objective: The specialty of critical care in the United States currently lacks a single, broad, unified database. We conducted a scoping review of existing established national ICU databases, describing national and international patterns of critical care delivery. Data Sources: A systematic literature search was undertaken using MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science search engines. Study Selection: Projects describing national critical care delivery (including any subspecialty) published in any language were included. Titles, abstracts, and full-text manuscripts were reviewed in duplicate for inclusion. Data Extraction: National database characteristics were collected, including the number and subspecialty of ICUs, the inaugural year, data entry methodology, the number of episodes of care included, and captured clinical data elements. Data Synthesis: Of 24,003 abstracts screened, 185 manuscripts were eligible for inclusion. Thirty countries were identified as having established national ICU registries: Argentina, Australia/New Zealand, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay. Data entry commonly incorporates a combination of automated data abstraction from electronic healthcare systems and manual data entry, followed by independent validation. Frequently recorded variables include patient demographics; admission vital signs and laboratory data; comorbidities; admission source and diagnoses; ICU diagnoses, treatments, and complications; illness severity scores; and clinically relevant outcomes including discharge disposition, functional status, lengths of stay, and mortality. Conclusions: Insights and experience gained from the study of mature national ICU registries may be used to guide an equivalent U.S. multidisciplinary program aimed at benchmarking, needs assessment, quality improvement, and research facilitation

ABSTRACT Acute renal failure due to cast nephropathy (CAN) is a severe complication of multiple myeloma (MM). Here, we aimed to identify parameters associated with renal outcomes and survival in newly diagnosed MM patients with CAN‐related acute renal failure and to validate the IMWG criteria for renal response. CAN diagnosis was based on biopsy or clinical assessment. Of 787 registered patients, 354 met the inclusion criteria, requiring at least two therapy cycles with documented chemotherapy response, renal response, and eGFR. Baseline free light chain (FLC) levels (median 6825.65 mg/L) decreased below 500 mg/L in 67.8% of patients. According to IMWG classification, renal complete response, partial response, and minimal response were achieved in 33.9%, 19.5%, and 28.0% of patients, respectively. The best eGFR values > 60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 were observed in 33.9% of patients, while 33.3%, 22.3%, and 10.5% had best eGFR values of 30–59, 15–29, and < 15 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , respectively. Renal response correlated with baseline FLC levels, IgG kappa, eGFR, and ECOG status in multivariate analysis, as well as with myeloma response and FLC reduction in univariate analysis. Median overall survival was 77.6 months. Survival correlated with age, myeloma response, ECOG status, FLC kappa type, baseline eGFR, standard‐risk cytogenetics, and calcium levels, among other factors. A comparison of IMWG renal response criteria with classification based solely on best eGFR showed similar utility. Of 136 patients requiring dialysis, 80 (58.8%) were able to discontinue dialysis during therapy. Bortezomib containing myeloma therapy, along with significant FLC reduction, was associated with favorable outcome.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (HCT) provide expert, multidisciplinary recommendations for autologous and allogeneic HCT based on current evidence. The NCCN Guidelines focus on pretransplant recipient evaluation, hematopoietic cell mobilization, conditioning, and the diagnosis and management of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a common complication of allogeneic HCT that is associated with significant morbidity. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for HCT focuses on the diagnosis, workup, and management of acute and chronic GVHD, as well as important supportive care considerations.

207 Background: CAR-T & bispecific antibodies (BsAb) for large B-cell lymphoma offer deep responses, but have unique toxicities requiring close monitoring. Different practice settings have varied strategies for managing these toxicities, leading to increased costs, healthcare resource use, & reduced quality of life. With no direct comparison, rationale for therapy selection may vary. This study explores provider choices, sequencing strategies & access barriers. Methods: A survey of US-based Hematologists was conducted on practice demographics, therapy availability, preferences, & barriers in LBCL. Responses were analyzed across clinical scenarios. Results: Responses were received from 45 physicians. Availability of CAR-T & BsAb varied with 75% prescribing both, & only BsAb being available at 9% of providers’ centers. There was a strong preference for CAR-T over BsAb—higher among academic vs. nonacademic providers (96% vs. 78%; p = 0.03) & at CAR-T vs. non-CAR-T centers (100% vs. 72%; p = 0.001). Even at BsAb-only centers, preference leaned toward CAR-T, though notably lower compared to CAR-T centers. Among centers without either, 86% preferred CAR-T. Practice volume had no impact. Reasons for favoring CAR-T included perceived better outcomes (55%), shorter treatment (26%), center choice (19%), more experience (48%), & curative potential (21%). BsAb selection was driven by CAR-T unavailability & logistical barriers (distance to specialized center, insurance delays, referral complexity, manufacturing time, & hospitalization needs). Axi-cel was preferred by 69% ( p = 0.0001) vs. other CAR-T for third-line or later due to experience with use, response rates, center choice, & logistical ease. Liso-cel (26%) & Tisa-cel (2%) were chosen for perceived favorable toxicity over Axi-cel. Axi-cel was also preferred second-line vs. Liso-cel (73% vs. 24%; p < 0.0001) for similar reasons. Among BsAb, Epcoritamab was favored by 56% for administration ease (subcutaneous), experience, & center preference; Glofitamab by 42% for shorter duration, experience, & center preference. There was no difference by academic vs nonacademic practice & volume for both CAR-T & BsAb. In patients with prior non-CAR-T anti-CD19 therapy, providers chose CD19 CAR-T over CD20 BsAb (80% vs. 18%; p < 0.0001). For relapse after second-line CAR-T, 78% providers preferred BsAb as the next line over other options ( p < 0.0001) due to more favorable response rates, toxicity profile, & experience with use. Providers prioritized response rates, survival, & toxicity profile in their treatment decisions. Logistics, duration, frequency, & cost were less important. There were no differences based on practice setting & CAR-T experience. Conclusions: Despite higher preference for CAR-T due to perceived superior outcomes, access barriers exist. Efforts to streamline referral pathways, logistics, & expand availability are crucial to improve outcomes.

Autologous Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies have demonstrated substantial efficacy in patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies; however, their implementation has been constrained by regulatory barriers. Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS), mandated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), were initially implemented to mitigate risks associated with cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), and other treatment-related toxicities. On 27 June 2025, the FDA removed REMS requirements for all approved B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) and CD19-directed autologous CAR T-cell therapies, citing that current product labeling sufficiently communicates safety information. Key regulatory changes include the elimination of site certification and tocilizumab stocking requirements, a reduction in the recommended post-infusion proximity period from four weeks to two weeks, increased flexibility regarding monitoring locations, and a shortened driving restriction from eight weeks to two weeks. This review examines the rationale for the REMS requirements for CAR T-cell therapies, synthesizes contemporary safety data from clinical trials and real-world practice, and explores the implications of this regulatory shift for access to care, particularly in rural and underserved populations. The removal of REMS requirements may facilitate broader implementation of CAR T-cell therapies and alleviate logistical and institutional barriers, offering the potential to expand access while preserving patient safety.

ABSTRACT Introduction Sinonasal sarcomas are exceedingly rare entities, constituting less than 7% of head and neck sarcomas. Their complex histology needs specialized treatment, which is often based on multimodal approaches including surgery, radiation therapy, and/or chemotherapy. This manuscript aims to gather expert opinions to establish common management principles for sinonasal sarcomas. Methods This international consensus followed a modified Delphi method in seven steps, including statements definition by the core group, expert panel recruitment, and a two‐round survey. Sixty‐two statements on sinonasal sarcoma management were developed. Experts from multiple continents participated, and results were anonymized and analyzed between March and May 2025. Results A total of 44 invited experts were recruited, 43.2% otorhinolaryngologists/head and neck surgeons, 31.8% medical oncologists, and 25% radiation oncologists. Participants varied in age and experience, representing Europe (70.5%), North America (18.2%), South America (6.8%), and Asia (4.5%). Among all histologies, biphenotypic sarcoma, chondrosarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, and myofibrosarcoma are principally treated with an upfront surgical management, differently from Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma in which chemotherapy, eventually associated with radiotherapy, is often chosen. In the remaining histologies (angiosarcoma, liposarcoma, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor [MPNST], osteosarcoma, and synovial sarcoma), a precise multimodal treatment is less standardized and needs to be discussed on a case‐by‐case basis. Conclusion Sinonasal sarcomas require a histology‐driven approach to determine upfront treatment, whether surgical, medical, or multimodal. Despite this structured strategy, prognosis remains highly variable across subtypes. Multidisciplinary evaluation and individualized management in referral centers are crucial to address the biological diversity and anatomical complexity of these rare malignancies.

Abstract Background The past two decades have witnessed tremendous growth in the appreciation and treatment of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) complex pain, including anatomical dissections that shed light on innervation, an appreciation for the contribution of extra-articular components to SIJ complex pain, the advent of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and a host of minimally invasive surgical techniques. Yet, there is no standardization on diagnosis and treatment paradigms. Methods In February 2023, the Boards of Directors for the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) and American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine (ASRA-PM) approved the development of multispecialty guidelines on SIJ complex pain. Thirty partner organizations with clinical and scientific interests in SIJ complex pain were identified, and formal letters of request-for-participation were sent to each, along with a request for nominees to serve on the committee. Twenty five organizations agreed to participate in addition to the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. A steering committee developed 21 questions, which spanned criteria for diagnosis, non-interventional and interventional treatments including surgery, technical parameters on how to optimize results, and what constitutes positive outcomes. Questions were methodically assigned to specialized modules comprising 4-5 members with complementary expertise, who collaborated with the Subcommittee Lead and one of three Committee Chairs to develop preliminary drafts. Following thorough revisions, these drafts were subsequently submitted to the full committee for comprehensive review. A modified Delphi method was used in which the answers to questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was achieved. During a committee meeting before commencement, it was agreed that recommendations would be noted when there was &gt;50% agreement among committee members, but that a formal recommendation would require ≥75% consensus. Results Twenty-one organizations formally endorsed the guidelines. The American Society of Anesthesiologists, and American Academy of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, and the North American Spine Society affirmed the benefit of the guidelines but did not officially endorse them. The American Academy of Neurology declined to affirm the benefit of the guidelines citing “lack of relevance to their membership.” Per policies, while the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs did not formally review the guidelines for endorsement, their representatives approved them. In addition to being endorsed or the benefit affirmed by all voting organizations, complete consensus from committee members was obtained on all 21 questions. On 2 recommendations, there were dissensions from 3 societies who thought that selecting patients for sacral lateral branch RFA and minimally invasive fusion should be based on ≥75% relief from 2 blocks instead of at least 50% relief from a single block before RFA, and greater than 50% pain relief with documented functional improvement after a single block before fusion. One additional society (Latin American Society of Regional Anesthesia) abstained on the statement that the evidence is stronger for extra-articular than intra-articular injections. The committee found that a battery of physical exam tests has reasonable sensitivity, but lower specificity, for identifying intra-articular but not extra-articular pathology, with negative tests having greater predictive value than positive ones. Intra-articular injections have diagnostic validity for SIJ intra-articular, but not extra-articular pain. There is unclear or negative evidence for imaging. The prevalence rates of intra-articular and extra-articular pathology are comparable, with both intra- and extra-articular steroid injections providing at least 4 weeks of relief in well-selected patients. However, the evidence is slightly stronger for extra-articular corticosteroid injections to provide short-term relief. The evidence base for non-interventional therapies is indirect, extrapolated mostly from low back pain studies. There is weak evidence supporting dextrose-based prolotherapy and platelet-rich plasma to provide at least 3 months of pain relief. There is strong evidence for sacral lateral branch RFA to provide relief for at least 6 months in individuals with extra-articular pathology, with face validity and indirect evidence from randomized trials supporting sacral lateral branch blocks as a prognostic tool. There is stronger evidence for larger lesions or more aggressive lesioning strategies than for less stringent techniques. There is weak evidence to support non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to prevent neuritis after RFA, and in most cases anticoagulation does not require cessation in the periprocedural perioid. With an aggressive lesioning strategy, sensory stimulation provides minimal therapeutic benefit, with weak, extrapolated evidence that motor stimulation can provide safety benefit. The cutoff to designate diagnostic or prognostic blocks as positive is most commonly set at 50%, with higher values not shown to improve outcomes for more definitive procedures; for therapeutic treatment outcomes, the evidence supports a lower threshold of ≥30% pain relief or meaningful benefit on non-pain outcomes (eg, opioid cessation) for designation of a positive response. For carefully selected patients with intra-articular SIJ complex pain based on controlled blocks who have failed conservative therapies, there is weak or very weak evidence that minimally invasive SIJ fusion can provide benefit for at least one year. Conclusions SIJ complex pain remains an underappreciated source of chronic low back pain, affecting between 15% and 30% of patients with axial pain predominantly below L5. Answers to many questions were limited by low-quality evidence, indicating the need for better research. SIJ complex pain is a multifarious condition (ie, pain can be from different portions of both the intra- and extra-articular components of the joint) for which an interdisciplinary, multimodal treatment plan can optimize treatment outcomes.

ABSTRACT Anaplastic lymphoma kinase‐positive large B‐cell lymphoma (ALK+ LBCL) is a rare, aggressive subtype of diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma with poor outcomes using standard chemotherapy. In this multi‐institutional retrospective study, we analyzed 39 cases of ALK+ LBCL identified at six US academic centers from 2002 to 2024, with treatment including conventional cytotoxic regimens in frontline and biologically informed and nonchemotherapy‐based strategies in the relapsed setting. Ninety‐two percent of patients received frontline anthracycline‐based chemotherapy; 43% received intensified regimens, and 15% underwent upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Despite these approaches, outcomes remained poor. At a median follow‐up of 5.4 years, median event‐free survival (EFS) was 0.6 years (95% CI, 0.4–0.9), and median overall survival (OS) was 1.5 years (95% CI, 1.3–NR). One‐ and five‐year EFS rates were 28% and 17%, while corresponding OS rates were 72% and 42%, respectively. Advanced stage and high IPI scores were associated with inferior outcomes. Twelve patients received ALK inhibitors, with alectinib showing more durable responses than crizotinib. Lenalidomide and immune checkpoint inhibitors also demonstrated activity, including durable complete responses. Five patients underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation, with three achieving sustained remission. In conclusion, our findings highlight the limited benefit of chemotherapy, even when intensified or followed by ASCT, and support the integration of biologically targeted therapies, which may have contributed to improved OS in our cohort compared to historical outcomes. Prospective, collaborative studies are needed to better understand disease biology and define optimal use of modern therapies in this rare lymphoma.