Routine imaging guided by a 31-gene expression profile assay results in earlier detection of melanoma with decreased metastatic tumor burden compared to patients without surveillance imaging studies.

Patients with early-stage disease typically have a good prognosis, but still have a risk of recurrence, even with negative sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). This study explores the utility of routine imaging to detect metastases in patients with negative SLNB but high-risk 31 gene expression profile (31-GEP) scores. We retrospectively identified melanoma patients with negative SLNBs. Patients with high-risk GEP results were placed in the experimental group and patients without GEP testing were placed in the control group. Among both cohorts, recurrent melanoma groups were identified. The tumor burden at the time of recurrence and the time to recurrence were compared between experimental group patients with routine imaging and control group patients without imaging schedules. We identified 327 control patients and 307 experimental patients, of which 14.1% versus 20.5% had melanoma recurrence, respectively. Of the patients with recurrent melanoma, those in the experimental group were older (65.75 versus 59.20), had higher Breslow depths (3.72 mm versus 3.31 mm), and had advanced tumor staging (89.5% versus 71.4% of patients presenting clinical stage ≥ II) compared to the control group at primary diagnosis. However, melanoma recurrence was detected earlier (25.50 months versus 35.35 months) in the experimental group at a lower overall tumor burden (73.10 mm versus 27.60 mm). A higher percentage of experimental patients started immunotherapy when offered (76.3% and 67.9%). Patients who received routine imaging after high-risk GEP test scores had an earlier recurrence diagnosis with lower tumor burden, leading to better clinical outcomes.

Minimizing Variance in Gastroschisis Management Leads to Earlier Full Feeds in Delayed Closure.

BACKGROUND: Limited guidance exists regarding appropriate timing for feed initiation and advancement in gastroschisis. We hypothesized that implementation of a gastroschisis management protocol would allow for standardization of antibiotic and nutritional treatment for these patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective comparison of patients with simple gastroschisis at two pediatric hospitals before and after initiation of our gastroschisis care protocol. Complicated gastroschisis and early mortality were excluded. The control group extended from January 2012 to January 2014 and the protocol group from July 2014 to July 2016. Variables of interest included time to feed initiation, time to goal feeds, length of stay, and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-defined complications. We performed a subgroup analysis for primary versus delayed gastroschisis closure. Statistical analyses, including F-tests for variance, were conducted in Prism. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients with simple gastroschisis were included (control = 22, protocol = 25). Protocol compliance was 76% with no increase in complication rates. There was no difference in length of stay or time from initiation to full feeds overall between the control and protocol groups. However, neonates who underwent delayed closure reached full feeds significantly earlier, averaging 9 d versus 15 d previously (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: For infants undergoing delayed closure, the time to full feeds in this group now appears to match that of patients undergoing primary closure, indicating that delayed closure should not be a reason for slower advancement. Additional studies are needed to assess the impact of earlier full enteral nutrition on rare complications and rates of necrotizing enterocolitis.