Availability and Readability Level of Online Patient Education Materials Provided by Cleft Lip and Palate Teams.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the readability of online English and Spanish cleft lip and palate patient education materials. DESIGN: Review of free online materials. SETTING: English and Spanish language online patient education materials on cleft lip and palate were collected from American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA) approved teams. PARTICIPANTS: American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA) approved teams. INTERVENTIONS: English materials were analyzed using the Flesch-Kincaid, SMOG, and Coleman-Liau readability calculators. Spanish materials were analyzed using the Fry Graph, Fernandez Huerta, and INFLESZ calculators. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for variability between the readability tools. OUTCOMES: Readability levels were examined for both sets of materials. RESULTS: 171 (90.5%) teams provided English language materials online, with an average readability score calculated as 10.5 ± 2.9 (10th-11th grade). A total of 44 (23.2%) teams listed Spanish language materials online, with average readability score of 7.9 ± 1.2 (8th grade). ANOVA demonstrated statistically significant variability between the readability assessment tools (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Online cleft lip and palate patient education material provided by ACPA craniofacial teams were more available in English than in Spanish. Both sets of materials demonstrated readability levels above the recommended 6th-7th grade. Refining readability is associated with lowered healthcare costs and increased patient satisfaction.

The efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade for melanoma in-transit with or without nodal metastases - A multicenter cohort study.

PURPOSE: Guidelines addressing melanoma in-transit metastasis (ITM) recommend immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) as a first-line treatment option, despite the fact that there are no efficacy data available from prospective trials for exclusively ITM disease. The study aims to analyze the outcome of patients with ITM treated with ICI based on data from a large cohort of patients treated at international referral clinics. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients treated between January 2015 and December 2020 from Australia, Europe, and the USA, evaluating treatment with ICI for ITM with or without nodal involvement (AJCC8 N1c, N2c, and N3c) and without distant disease (M0). Treatment was with PD-1 inhibitor (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) and/or CTLA-4 inhibitor (ipilimumab). The response was evaluated according to the RECIST criteria modified for cutaneous lesions. RESULTS: A total of 287 patients from 21 institutions in eight countries were included. Immunotherapy was first-line treatment in 64 (22%) patients. PD-1 or CTLA-4 inhibitor monotherapy was given in 233 (81%) and 23 (8%) patients, respectively, while 31 (11%) received both in combination. The overall response rate was 56%, complete response (CR) rate was 36%, and progressive disease (PD) rate was 32%. Median PFS was ten months (95% CI 7.4-12.6 months) with a one-, two-, and five-year PFS rate of 48%, 33%, and 18%, respectively. Median MSS was not reached, and the one-, two-, and five-year MSS rates were 95%, 83%, and 71%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Systemic immunotherapy is an effective treatment for melanoma ITM. Future studies should evaluate the role of systemic immunotherapy in the context of multimodality therapy, including locoregional treatments such as surgery, intralesional therapy, and regional therapies.

A Dedicated Surveillance Program Improves Compliance with Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Current recommendations suggest lifetime follow-up for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) patients to avoid consequences associated with endoleak and aneurysm enlargement. Follow-up compliance has been reported between 43% and 92%, with most single-center studies citing successful follow-up surveillance at less than 60%. We investigated follow-up completeness with a defined surveillance program and subsequent secondary intervention prevalence from a single center. METHODS: Our surveillance program notified patients of the need for follow-up imaging and surgeon review. Data were obtained from retrospective review of a prospective database, including operative and follow-up details, follow-up imaging completeness, endoleak incidence, and secondary intervention prevalence. RESULTS: Five hundred seventeen patients received elective EVAR from 2005 to 2015. Surveillance was achieved in 425 (82.3%). Mean number of follow-up studies was 4.2 ± 2.9 and median time to first follow-up was 36 days. Four hundred forty-eight patients (86.7%) had freedom from intervention. Sixty-nine unique patients (13.3%) had 107 secondary interventions. Median time to first secondary intervention in 69 patients was 476 days. Mean number of imaging studies for secondary intervention patients was 6.1 ± 3.9, compared with mean 3.4 ± 2.3 for patients without (P < 0.001). Overall mortality was 24.6% (n = 127), including 32 deaths of unknown cause (6.2% overall) and 95 of non-EVAR-related causes (18.3%). No aneurysm-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Regular post-EVAR surveillance through a dedicated program resulted in a high rate of follow-up compliance, 13.3% rate of secondary intervention, and low aneurysm-related mortality. Careful lifetime surveillance remains important in long-term care following elective EVAR.