Role of vitamin D supplementation in modifying outcomes after surgery: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence to suggest vitamin D plays a role in immune and vascular function; hence, it may be of biological and clinical relevance for patients undergoing major surgery. With a greater number of randomised studies being conducted evaluating the impact of vitamin D supplementation on surgical patients, it is an opportune time to conduct further analysis of the impact of vitamin D on surgical outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Trials Register were interrogated up to December 2023 to identify randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation in surgery. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A narrative synthesis was conducted for all studies. The primary outcome assessed was overall postoperative survival. RESULTS: We screened 4883 unique studies, assessed 236 full-text articles and included 14 articles in the qualitative synthesis, comprising 1982 patients. The included studies were highly heterogeneous with respect to patient conditions, ranging from open heart surgery to cancer operations to orthopaedic conditions, and also with respect to the timing and equivalent daily dose of vitamin D supplementation (range: 0.5-7500 mcg; 20-300 000 IU). No studies reported significant differences in overall survival or postoperative mortality with vitamin D supplementation. There was also no clear evidence of benefit with respect to overall or intensive care unit length of stay. DISCUSSION: Numerous studies have reported the benefits of vitamin D supplementation in different surgical settings without any consistency. However, this systematic review found no clear evidence of benefit, which warrants the supposition that a single biological effect of vitamin D supplementation does not exist. The observed improvement in outcomes in low vitamin D groups has not been convincingly proven beyond chance findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021232067.

The effect of photobiomodulation on hearing loss: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess outcomes associated with photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) for hearing loss in human and animal studies. DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. SETTING: Data bases searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and Web of Science. No limits were placed on language or year of publication. Review conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statement. PARTICIPANTS: All human and animal subjects treated with PBMT for hearing loss. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pre- and post-PBMT audio metric outcomes. RESULTS: Searches identified 122 abstracts and 49 full text articles. Of these, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting outcomes in 327 animals (11 studies), 30 humans (1 study), and 40 animal specimens (5 studies). PBMT parameters included 6 different wavelengths: 908 nm (1 study), 810 nm (1 study), 532 & 635 nm (1 study), 830 nm (3 studies), 808 nm (11 studies). The duration ranged from 4 to 60 minutes in a session, and the follow-up ranged from 5-28 days. Outcomes improved significantly when wavelengths within the range of 800-830 nm were used, and with greater duration of PBMT exposure. Included studies predominantly consisted of non-randomized controlled trials (10 studies). CONCLUSIONS: Hearing outcomes following PBMT appear to be superior to no PBMT for subjects with hearing loss, although higher level evidence is required to verify this. PBMT enables concentrated, focused delivery of light therapy to the inner ear through a non-invasive manner with minimal side effects. As a result of heterogeneity in reporting PBMT parameters and outcomes across the included studies, direct comparison is challenging.

The effect of photobiomodulation on tinnitus: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To establish outcomes following photobiomodulation therapy for tinnitus in humans and animal studies. METHODS: A systematic review and narrative synthesis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. The databases searched were: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ('Central'), ClinicalTrials.gov and Web of Science including the Web of Science Core collection. There were no limits on language or year of publication. RESULTS: The searches identified 194 abstracts and 61 full texts. Twenty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting outcomes in 1483 humans (26 studies) and 34 animals (2 studies). Photobiomodulation therapy parameters included 10 different wavelengths, and duration ranged from 9 seconds to 30 minutes per session. Follow up ranged from 7 days to 6 months. CONCLUSION: Tinnitus outcomes following photobiomodulation therapy are generally positive and superior to no photobiomodulation therapy; however, evidence of long-term therapeutic benefit is deficient. Photobiomodulation therapy enables concentrated, focused delivery of light therapy to the inner ear through a non-invasive manner, with minimal side effects.

Best practices for multidisciplinary integration of a DCIS genomic assay into clinical practice.

Most newly diagnosed ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) ± radiation therapy (RT). A key challenge is deciding whether or not to include RT with BCS. This decision is often determined by the degree of risk associated with disease recurrence. However, methods for risk assessment have not kept pace with diagnostic advances. The DCIS Score is an independent predictor and quantifier of individualized recurrence risk in patients with DCIS. Although the test is the only available genomic classifier for DCIS, the degree of adoption is varied, and it has not yet been fully accepted as standard practice. Recognizing the importance of individualizing recurrence assessment in patients with DCIS, the authors convened to review relevant clinical data, share best practices, and establish recommendations regarding how the assay should be incorporated into the decision-making process. Based on their clinical experiences, the authors concluded that effective integration of the DCIS Score should involve shared decision-making between surgeons and other specialties (radiation oncologists, pathologists, patient navigators, and physician assistants), with the patient's preference being a primary consideration. This manuscript aims to provide easy-to-use, clear-cut, and practical guidance to help physicians utilize the DCIS Score to improve risk assessment and inform treatment decisions for their patients with DCIS, including how to understand, run, interpret, and communicate the actionable results to patients.

Clinical Utility of the 12-Gene DCIS Score Assay: Impact on Radiotherapy Recommendations for Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the results of the 12-gene DCIS Score assay on (i) radiotherapy recommendations for patients with pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS), and (ii) patient decisional conflict and state anxiety. METHODS: Thirteen sites across the US enrolled patients (March 2014-August 2015) with pure DCIS undergoing BCS. Prospectively collected data included clinicopathologic factors, physician estimates of local recurrence risk, DCIS Score results, and pre-/post-assay radiotherapy recommendations for each patient made by a surgeon and a radiation oncologist. Patients completed pre-/post-assay decisional conflict scale and state-trait anxiety inventory instruments. RESULTS: The analysis cohort included 127 patients: median age 60 years, 80 % postmenopausal, median size 8 mm (39 % ≤5 mm), 70 % grade 1/2, 88 % estrogen receptor-positive, 75 % progesterone receptor-positive, 54 % with comedo necrosis, and 18 % multifocal. Sixty-six percent of patients had low DCIS Score results, 20 % had intermediate DCIS Score results, and 14 % had high DCIS Score results; the median result was 21 (range 0-84). Pre-assay, surgeons and radiation oncologists recommended radiotherapy for 70.9 and 72.4 % of patients, respectively. Post-assay, 26.4 % of overall recommendations changed, including 30.7 and 22.0 % of recommendations by surgeons and radiation oncologists, respectively. Among patients with confirmed completed questionnaires (n = 32), decision conflict (p = 0.004) and state anxiety (p = 0.042) decreased significantly from pre- to post-assay. CONCLUSIONS: Individualized risk estimates from the DCIS Score assay provide valuable information to physicians and patients. Post-assay, in response to DCIS Score results, surgeons changed treatment recommendations more often than radiation oncologists. Further investigation is needed to better understand how such treatment changes may affect clinical outcomes.

The impact of genomic testing on the recommendation for radiation therapy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: A prospective clinical utility assessment of the 12-gene DCIS score™ result.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Twenty percent of breast cancers are ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), with 15-60% having a local recurrence (LR) after surgery. Radiotherapy reduces LR by 50% but has not impacted survival. The validated Oncotype DX(®) 12-gene assay (DCIS Score) provides individualized 10-year LR estimates. This is the first study to assess whether DCIS Score impacts physicians' recommendations for radiation. METHODS: Ten sites enrolled women (9/2012-2/2014) with DCIS eligible for breast-conserving therapy, excluding patients with invasive carcinoma and planned mastectomy. Prospective data collected included clinicopathologic factors, DCIS Score assay, and treatment recommendation before and after the assay result was known. RESULTS: In 115 patients (median age: 61 years; 74.8% postmenopausal), median DCIS size was 8 mm; 20% were nuclear grade 1, 46.1% grade 2; 64.4% reported necrosis. 86.1% were ER+, 79.1% PR+ (immunohistochemistry assay). Median DCIS Score: 29 (range: 0-85). Pre-assay, 73% (95%CI: 64.0-80.9%) had radiotherapy recommendations vs. 59.1% (95%CI: 49.6-68.2%) post-assay (P= 0.008). Physicians rated DCIS Score as the most impactful factor in planning treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The radiotherapy recommendation changed from pre-assay to post-assay 31.3% (95%CI: 23.0-40.6%) of the time--a clinically significant change. This study supports the clinical utility of the DCIS Score and indicates that the test provides additional, individualized information on LR risk.

The current clinical value of the DCIS Score.

The management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can be controversial. Widespread adoption of mammographic screening has made DCIS a more frequent diagnosis, and increasingly smaller, lower-grade lesions are being detected. DCIS is commonly treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiation. However, there is greater recognition that acceptable cancer control outcomes can be achieved for some patients with breast-conserving surgery alone, with radiotherapy reserved for those at higher risk of in-breast recurrence. The primary clinical dilemma is that there are currently no reliable clinicopathologic features that accurately predict which patients will have a recurrence, but risk stratification is an area of active research. Molecular profiling has the potential to assess recurrence risk based on the individual patient's tumor biology and guide treatment decisions. The DCIS Score is a 12-gene assay intended to support personalized treatment planning for patients with DCIS following local excision. It provides information on local failure risk independent of traditional clinicopathologic features. Our group of expert breast surgeons and radiation oncologists met in December 2013 at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium to discuss current controversies in DCIS management and determine the potential value of the DCIS Score in managing these situations. We concluded that the DCIS Score provides clinically relevant information about personal risk that can guide patient discussions and facilitate shared decision making.

Retrospective comparison of patient outcomes after in-person and telephone results disclosure counseling for BRCA1/2 genetic testing.

Telephone disclosure of BRCA1/2 molecular genetic test results has been proposed as a feasible alternative to traditional in-person results disclosure. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between method of result disclosure with the patient outcome variables of knowledge, cancer worry, cancer risk perception, satisfaction, and cancer screening and prophylactic surgery behaviors. Study participants included 228 women who completed retrospective, self-administered, mailed surveys regarding their pre-test genetic counseling and results disclosure. No significant relationships were found between result disclosure method and the outcome variables investigated. A majority (90%) of individuals who received positive results by telephone returned for follow up visits. Factors which genetic counselors believed influenced their clinical decision to offer telephone disclosure, such as history of breast cancer, a priori risk of genetic mutation and family history of known mutation were not shown to significantly impact the actual disclosure method. This study suggests that telephone results disclosure is clinically appropriate when counselors utilize their clinical judgment to determine which patients are appropriate candidates.