Combination lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the treatment of ovarian clear cell carcinoma: A case series.

Effective second-line treatment options for patients with recurrent ovarian clear cell carcinoma (OCCC) are limited. This case series sought to report tumor characteristics and oncologic outcomes in a small group of patients treated with combination lenvatinib and pembrolizumab. A retrospective analysis of patients with ovarian clear cell carcinoma treated with combination lenvatinib and pembrolizumab at a single institution was performed. Patient and tumor characteristics were collected including demographics and germline/somatic testing. Clinical outcomes were also evaluated and reported. Three patients with recurrent OCCC were included in the study. The median age of patients was 48 years old. All patients had platinum-resistant disease and had received 1-3 prior lines of therapy. The overall response rate was 100% (3/3). Progression-free survival ranged from 10 months to not-yet-reached. One patient remains on treatment, while the other two died of disease with overall survival of 14 and 27 months. Combination lenvatinib-pembrolizumab demonstrated favorable clinical response in these patients with platinum-resistant, recurrent, ovarian clear cell carcinoma.

A psoas splitting approach developed for outpatient lateral interbody fusion versus a standard transpsoas approach.

BACKGROUND: The technique of transpsoas lateral interbody fusion has been adopted to avoid direct anterior interbody fusion, but lateral fusions have been limited to disc spaces above L5 and are associated with neurologic injuries especially to the lumbar plexus when approaching L4-5. The authors aim to demonstrate a psoas splitting technique to decrease risk of complications associated with the standard transpsoas technique. METHODS: Medical records of 84 patients with prospectively collected data reviewed. Two groups created 44 patients with standard lateral transpsoas approach (group 1) and 40 patients with psoas splitting approach (group 2). The psoas splitting approach utilizes two blades placed anteriorly and posteriorly to split the psoas fibers anteriorly while keeping the posterior blade docked in place where it enters the psoas muscle. The cephalocaudal blades sit above the psoas muscle measuring 30-40 mm shorter than the posterior docking blade. RESULTS: Thirty-nine males and 45 females, age range 31-71 years, average 58±2 years. Average body mass index (BMI) was 28.4±1.1 kg/m2. Mean preoperative standard approach Oswestry disability index (ODI) increased from 48.4±3.0 to 55.2±4.0 compared to psoas splitting approach preoperative ODI means reduced from 45.1±5.0 to 34.9±6.0 (P=0.010). Group 1 mean preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score improved from 7.8±0.3 to 3.8±0.6 compared to group 2 mean preoperative VAS score which improved from 7.2±0.4 to 2.7±0.5 (P=0.048). Major complication rate of 20.5% was noted in standard transpsoas approach patients, including inability to walk and dermatome numbness. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of this study have shown that patients who had lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with the psoas splitting approach had statistically significant improvement in ODI scores compared to the standard approach. Fusion was achieved in all patients and there was no evidence of implant failure or subsidence. In the psoas splitting group the major complication rate was only 5%.

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Ambulatory Surgery Centers: Patient Selection and Outcome Measures Compared With an Inhospital Cohort.

STUDY DESIGN: Comparative analysis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and outcomes of moving lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) surgeries to an outpatient setting. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: LLIF has been popularized as a less invasive lumbar fusion surgery as an alternative approach to anterior lumbar interbody fusions, posterior lateral interbody fusion, and transforaminal lateral interbody fusion (TLIF). Lumbar fusions have been traditionally performed in a hospital setting because of the potential blood loss, length of surgery, and need for longer recovery. There is a movement to transition spine surgeries to outpatient settings with many benefits afforded by less invasive techniques and technologies. METHODS: The medical records of 70 consecutive patients with prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed. Two cohort groups, inpatients (40 patients) and outpatients (30 patients), were created. Patient demographics, risk factors, and body mass index (BMI) were evaluated to determine inclusion criteria for study. RESULT: A total of 34 males and 36 females, age range (31-71) average 59.3 ±â€Š2.3 years. Average BMI was 29.6 ±â€Š1.1 kg/m. The most common level operated on being L3-L4 in both groups (63%). Mean preoperative inpatient Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) increased from 48.5 ±â€Š3.0 to 55.5 ±â€Š3.2 compared with outpatient preoperative ODI means reduced from 45.2 ±â€Š5.1 to 39.1 ±â€Š4.6. There was no statistically significant change in VAS scores between groups. There was however significant improvement in outpatient preoperative VAS scores from 7.3 ±â€Š0.5 to 4.1 ±â€Š0.5, P = 0.045. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of the present study have shown that patients who had LLIF performed in the outpatient setting had statistically significant improvement in ODI scores compared with the inpatient setting (P = 0.013). Fusion was achieved in all patients and there was no evidence of implant failure or subsidence. Complications were transient in both settings. We conclude that outpatient LLIF improves patients' outcomes with similar safety profile as the hospital setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.