Intravenous iron versus oral iron versus no iron with or without erythropoiesis- stimulating agents (ESA) for cancer patients with anaemia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anaemia is common among cancer patients and they may require red blood cell transfusions. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and iron might help in reducing the need for red blood cell transfusions. However, it remains unclear whether the combination of both drugs is preferable compared to using one drug. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the effect of intravenous iron, oral iron or no iron in combination with or without ESAs to prevent or alleviate anaemia in cancer patients and to generate treatment rankings using network meta-analyses (NMAs). SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by searching bibliographic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase; until June 2021). We also searched various registries, conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing intravenous, oral or no iron, with or without ESAs for the prevention or alleviation of anaemia resulting from chemotherapy, radiotherapy, combination therapy or the underlying malignancy in cancer patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes were on-study mortality, number of patients receiving red blood cell transfusions, number of red blood cell units, haematological response, overall mortality and adverse events. We conducted NMAs and generated treatment rankings. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Ninety-six trials (25,157 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 62 trials (24,603 participants) could be considered in the NMA (12 different treatment options). Here we present the comparisons of ESA with or without iron and iron alone versus no treatment. Further results and subgroup analyses are described in the full text. On-study mortality We estimated that 92 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia died up to 30 days after the active study period. Evidence from NMA (55 trials; 15,074 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (12 of 1000; risk ratio (RR) 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.29; low certainty) or oral iron (34 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 27.38; low certainty) may decrease or increase and ESA alone (103 of 1000; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.35; moderate certainty) probably slightly increases on-study mortality. Additionally, treatment with intravenous iron alone (271 of 1000; RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 12.34; low certainty) may increase and oral iron alone (24 of 1000; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.00 to 19.73; low certainty) may increase or decrease on-study mortality. Haematological response We estimated that 90 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia had a haematological response. Evidence from NMA (31 trials; 6985 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (604 of 1000; RR 6.71, 95% CI 4.93 to 9.14; moderate certainty), ESA and oral iron (527 of 1000; RR 5.85, 95% CI 4.06 to 8.42; moderate certainty), and ESA alone (467 of 1000; RR 5.19, 95% CI 4.02 to 6.71; moderate certainty) probably increases haematological response. Additionally, treatment with oral iron alone may increase haematological response (153 of 1000; RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.20; low certainty). Red blood cell transfusions We estimated that 360 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia needed at least one transfusion. Evidence from NMA (69 trials; 18,684 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (158 of 1000; RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.63; moderate certainty), ESA and oral iron (144 of 1000; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.66; moderate certainty) and ESA alone (212 of 1000; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.69; moderate certainty) probably decreases the need for transfusions. Additionally, treatment with intravenous iron alone (268 of 1000; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.28; low certainty) and with oral iron alone (333 of 1000; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.57; low certainty) may decrease or increase the need for transfusions. Overall mortality We estimated that 347 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia died overall. Low-certainty evidence from NMA (71 trials; 21,576 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (507 of 1000; RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.43) or oral iron (482 of 1000; RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.22) and intravenous iron alone (521 of 1000; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.56) or oral iron alone (534 of 1000; RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.56) may decrease or increase overall mortality. Treatment with ESA alone may lead to little or no difference in overall mortality (357 of 1000; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.10; low certainty). Thromboembolic events We estimated that 36 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed thromboembolic events. Evidence from NMA (50 trials; 15,408 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (66 of 1000; RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.41; moderate certainty) probably slightly increases and with ESA alone (66 of 1000; RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.47; high certainty) slightly increases the number of thromboembolic events. None of the trials reported results on the other comparisons. Thrombocytopenia or haemorrhage We estimated that 76 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage. Evidence from NMA (13 trials, 2744 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA alone probably leads to little or no difference in thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage (76 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.48; moderate certainty). None of the trials reported results on other comparisons. Hypertension We estimated that 10 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed hypertension. Evidence from NMA (24 trials; 8383 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA alone probably increases the number of hypertensions (29 of 1000; RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.19 to 7.25; moderate certainty). None of the trials reported results on the other comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When considering ESAs with iron as prevention for anaemia, one has to balance between efficacy and safety. Results suggest that treatment with ESA and iron probably decreases number of blood transfusions, but may increase mortality and the number of thromboembolic events. For most outcomes the different comparisons within the network were not fully connected, so ranking of all treatments together was not possible. More head-to-head comparisons including all evaluated treatment combinations are needed to fill the gaps and prove results of this review.

Short- and long-term follow-up of patients with non-neoplastic esophageal perforation.

PURPOSE: Esophageal perforation is associated with high morbidity and mortality. In addition to surgical treatment, endoscopic endoluminal stent placement and endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) are established methods in the management of this emergency condition. Although health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is becoming a major issue in the evaluation of any therapeutic intervention, not much is known about HRQoL, particularly in the long-term follow-up of patients treated for non-neoplastic esophageal perforation with different treatment strategies. The aim of this study was to evaluate patients' outcome after non-neoplastic esophageal perforation with focus on HRQoL in the long-term follow-up. METHODS: Patients treated for non-neoplastic esophageal perforation at the University Hospital Cologne from January 2003 to December 2014 were included. Primary outcome and management of esophageal perforation were documented. Long-term quality of life was assessed using the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI), the Health-Related Quality of Life Index (HRQL) for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires for general and esophageal specific QoL (QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES18). RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were included in the study. Based on primary treatment, patients were divided into an endoscopic (n = 27; 46.6%), surgical (n = 20; 34.5%), and a conservative group (n = 11; 19%). Short- and long-term outcome and quality of life were compared. HRQoL was measured after a median follow-up of 49 months. HRQoL was generally reduced in patients with non-neoplastic esophageal perforation. Endoscopically treated patients showed the highest GIQLI overall score and highest EORTC general health status, followed by the conservative and the surgical group. CONCLUSION: HRQoL in patients with non-neoplastic esophageal perforation is reduced even in the long-term follow-up. Temporary stent or EVT is effective and provides a good alternative to surgery, not only in the short-term but also in the long-term follow-up.

Antiemetics for adults for prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another.  OBJECTIVES: • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC - To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK1 receptor antagonists, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA) - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC - To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK1 receptor antagonists, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK1 and 5-HT3 inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC. MAIN RESULTS: Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) We included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK1 and 5-HT3 inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK1 and 5-HT3 inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98  to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty).  Netupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty). We could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  We could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) We included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK1 and 5-HT3 inhibitors, or 5-HT3 inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty).  Palonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 100; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty). We could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Certainty of evidence Our main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researchedand assessed. For people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.  For people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK1 and 5-HT3 inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT3 inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT3 inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV.  When interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.

Morbidity and quality of life in patients with vulvar cancer after inguinal sentinel lymphadenectomy compared to radical inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy.

AIM: Probability of survival of patients with vulvar cancer directly depends on the lymph node status. Surgery of lymph nodes can be performed as radical inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy or in cases with certain conditions as sentinel lymph node surgery. The aim of this study is to obtain an overview of the intervention-related morbidity and quality of life in patients with vulvar carcinoma after lymphadenectomy. METHODS: Quality of life and morbidity was compared between patients who underwent radical inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy with those who underwent sentinel lymph node surgery. RESULTS: All recorded postoperative complications occur more frequently in the non-sentinel group, Significant difference was shown for the occurrence of lymphedema (p-value = 0.024) and sensitivity loss (p-value = 0.024). Recurrence of disease was more frequent in the non-sentinel group (38 % vs. 20 %, p = 0.621, n.s.) and satisfaction with groin surgery is slightly higher in the sentinel group (94 % vs. 89 %, p = 1.000, n.s.). CONCLUSION: We could demonstrate a significantly lower morbidity of sentinel lymphadenectomy compared to conventional inguinofemoral lymphadenectomy while maintaining the same oncological safety. The low morbidity of sentinel- lymphadenectomy does not seem to influence the postoperative quality of life significantly. However, recording of the individual burden of lymphadenectomy by questionnaires should be optimized.

Bisphosphonates or RANK-ligand-inhibitors for men with prostate cancer and bone metastases: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Different bone-modifying agents like bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are used as supportive treatment in men with prostate cancer and bone metastases to prevent skeletal-related events (SREs). SREs such as pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, surgery and radiotherapy to the bone, and hypercalcemia lead to morbidity, a poor performance status, and impaired quality of life. Efficacy and acceptability of the bone-targeted therapy is therefore of high relevance. Until now recommendations in guidelines on which bone-modifying agents should be used are rare and inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of bisphosphonates and RANKL-inhibitors as supportive treatment for prostate cancer patients with bone metastases and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to their safety and efficacy using network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by electronically searching the bibliographic databases Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase until 23 March 2020. We searched the Cochrane Library and various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for men with prostate cancer and bone metastases. We included men with castration-restrictive and castration-sensitive prostate cancer and conducted subgroup analyses according to this criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We defined proportion of participants with pain response and the adverse events renal impairment and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) as the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were SREs in total and each separately (see above), mortality, quality of life, and further adverse events such as grade 3 to 4 adverse events, hypocalcemia, fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea. We conducted network meta-analysis and generated treatment rankings for all outcomes, except quality of life due to insufficient reporting on this outcome. We compiled ranking plots to compare single outcomes of efficacy against outcomes of acceptability of the bone-modifying agents. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Twenty-one trials could be considered in the quantitative analysis, of which six bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid, risedronate, pamidronate, alendronate, etidronate, or clodronate) were compared with each other, the RANKL-inhibitor denosumab, or no treatment/placebo. By conducting network meta-analysis we were able to compare all of these reported agents directly and/or indirectly within the network for each outcome. In the abstract only the comparisons of zoledronic acid and denosumab against the main comparator (no treatment/placebo) are described for outcomes that were predefined as most relevant and that also appear in the 'Summary of findings' table. Other results, as well as results of subgroup analyses regarding castration status of participants, are displayed in the Results section of the full text. Treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases the proportion of participants with pain response when compared to no treatment/placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 2.32; per 1000 participants 121 more (19 less to 349 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 1013 participants). For this outcome none of the trials reported results for the comparison with denosumab. The adverse event renal impairment probably occurs more often when treated with zoledronic acid compared to treatment/placebo (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.45; per 1000 participants 78 more (10 more to 180 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 6 trials including 1769 participants). Results for denosumab could not be included for this outcome, since zero events cannot be considered in the network meta-analysis, therefore it does not appear in the ranking. Treatment with denosumab results in increased occurrence of the adverse event ONJ (RR 3.45, 95% CI 1.06 to 11.24; per 1000 participants 30 more (1 more to 125 more); high-certainty evidence; 4 trials, 3006 participants) compared to no treatment/placebo. When comparing zoledronic acid to no treatment/placebo, the confidence intervals include the possibility of benefit or harm, therefore treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases ONJ (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.87; per 1000 participants 11 more (3 less to 47 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 3006 participants). Compared to no treatment/placebo, treatment with zoledronic acid (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) and denosumab (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96) may result in a reduction of the total number of SREs (per 1000 participants 75 fewer (131 fewer to 14 fewer) and 131 fewer (215 fewer to 19 fewer); both low-certainty evidence; 12 trials, 5240 participants). Treatment with zoledronic acid and denosumab likely neither reduces nor increases mortality when compared to no treatment/placebo (zoledronic acid RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; per 1000 participants 48 fewer (97 fewer to 5 more); denosumab RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; per 1000 participants 34 fewer (111 fewer to 54 more); both moderate-certainty evidence; 13 trials, 5494 participants). Due to insufficient reporting, no network meta-analysis was possible for the outcome quality of life. One study with 1904 participants comparing zoledronic acid and denosumab showed that more zoledronic acid-treated participants than denosumab-treated participants experienced a greater than or equal to five-point decrease in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General total scores over a range of 18 months (average relative difference = 6.8%, range -9.4% to 14.6%) or worsening of cancer-related quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When considering bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment, one has to balance between efficacy and acceptability. Results suggest that Zoledronic acid likely increases both the proportion of participants with pain response, and the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events However, more trials with head-to-head comparisons including all potential agents are needed to draw the whole picture and proof the results of this analysis.

Impact of device landing zone calcification patterns on paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with different next-generation devices.

OBJECTIVE: Residual paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) has been associated to adverse outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study sought to evaluate the impact of device landing zone (DLZ) calcification on residual PVR after TAVR with different next-generation transcatheter heart valves. METHODS: 642 patients underwent TAVR with a SAPIEN 3 (S3; n=292), ACURATE neo (NEO; n=166), Evolut R (ER; n=132) or Lotus (n=52). Extent, location and asymmetry of DLZ calcification were assessed from contrast-enhanced CT imaging and correlated to PVR at discharge. RESULTS: PVR was ≥moderate in 0.7% of S3 patients, 9.6% of NEO patients, 9.8% of ER patients and 0% of Lotus patients (p<0.001), and these differences remained after matching for total DLZ calcium volume. The amount of DLZ calcium was significantly related to the degree of PVR in patients treated with S3 (p=0.045), NEO (p=0.004) and ER (p<0.001), but not in Lotus patients (p=0.698). The incidence of PVR ≥moderate increased significantly over the tertiles of DLZ calcium volume (p=0.046). On multivariable analysis, calcification of the aortic valve cusps, LVOT calcification and the use of self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) prostheses emerged as predictors of PVR. CONCLUSIONS: The susceptibility to PVR depending on the amount of calcium was mainly observed in self-expanding TAVI prostheses. Thus, DLZ calcification is an important factor to be considered in prosthesis selection for each individual patient, keeping in mind the trade-off between PVR reduction, risk of new pacemaker implantation and unfavourable valve ha emodynamics.

Vertebral Osteomyelitis After Spine Surgery: A Disease With Distinct Characteristics.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the 2-year survival and to identify clinical and microbiological characteristics of patients with native vertebral osteomyelitis (VO) as compared to postoperative VO to find further strategies for improvement of the management of VO. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A relevant subgroup (20%-30%) of patients with VO has a history of spine surgery. Infection in these patients might be clinically different from native VO. However, clinical, microbiological, and outcome characteristics of this disease entity have not been well studied as most trials either excluded these patients or are limited by a small cohort and short observation period. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2013, patients who presented at a tertiary care center with symptoms and imaging findings suggestive of VO were reviewed by specialists in infectious diseases, clinical microbiology, and orthopedics to confirm the diagnosis and followed prospectively for a period of 2 years. Statistical analysis for group comparisons, survival analysis, and uni- and multivariable Cox regression models were performed. RESULTS: Thirty percent of the patients with VO (56/189) reported a history of spine surgery in the same segment. Patients with postoperative infection had a lower ASA score (American Society of Anesthesiologists) (P = 0.01) and were less likely to suffer from comorbidities compared to native cases (P = 0.003). Infections caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci (33.3 vs. 6.5%, P < 0.001) and other bacteria of the skin flora (15.2 vs. 0%, P = 0.002) were more prevalent in postoperative patients. Suffering from native VO increased the 2-year mortality risk 3-fold, also when adjusted for the remaining risk factors ASA score and number of comorbidities (hazard ratio 2.916 [95% confidence interval 1.215 -6.999], P = 0.017). CONCLUSION: Beside clear microbiological differences, the significant better 2-year survival supports the concept of postoperative VO presenting a distinct disease entity. The subtle disease presentation of patients with postoperative VO should not attenuate clinical suspicion of physicians. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Multiple drug combinations of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and thalidomide for first-line treatment in adults with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is a bone marrow-based hematological malignancy accounting for approximately two per cent of cancers. First-line treatment for transplant-ineligible individuals consists of multiple drug combinations of bortezomib (V), lenalidomide (R), or thalidomide (T). However, access to these medicines is restricted in many countries worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of multiple drug combinations of V, R, and T for adults with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma and to inform an application for the inclusion of these medicines into the World Health Organization's (WHO) list of essential medicines. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL and MEDLINE, conference proceedings and study registries on 14 February 2019 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multiple drug combinations of V, R and T for adults with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing combination therapies of V, R, and T, plus melphalan and prednisone (MP) or dexamethasone (D) for first-line treatment of adults with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma. We excluded trials including adults with relapsed or refractory disease, trials comparing drug therapies to other types of therapy and trials including second-generation novel agents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included trials. As effect measures we used hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events. An HR or RR < 1 indicates an advantage for the intervention compared to the main comparator MP. Where available, we extracted quality of life (QoL) data (scores of standardised questionnaires). Results quoted are from network meta-analysis (NMA) unless stated. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 studies (148 references) comprising 11,403 participants and 21 treatment regimens. Treatments were differentiated between restricted treatment duration (treatment with a pre-specified amount of cycles) and continuous therapy (treatment administered until disease progression, the person becomes intolerant to the drug, or treatment given for a prolonged period). Continuous therapies are indicated with a "c". Risk of bias was generally high across studies due to the open-label study design. Overall survival (OS) Evidence suggests that treatment with RD (HR 0.63 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.99), median OS 55.2 months (35.2 to 87.0)); TMP (HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.97), median OS: 46.4 months (35.9 to 60.0)); and VRDc (HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.92), median OS 71.0 months (37.8 to 133.8)) probably increases survival compared to median reported OS of 34.8 months with MP (moderate certainty). Treatment with VMP may result in a large increase in OS, compared to MP (HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.07), median OS 49.7 months (32.5 to 77.3)), low certainty). Progression-free survival (PFS) Treatment withRD (HR 0.65 (95% CI0.44 to 0.96), median PFS: 24.9 months (16.9 to 36.8)); TMP (HR 0.63 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.78), median PFS:25.7 months (20.8 to 32.4)); VMP (HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.90), median PFS: 28.9 months (18.0 to 46.3)); and VRDc (HR 0.34 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.58), median PFS: 47.6 months (27.9 to 81.0)) may result in a large increase in PFS (low certainty) compared to MP (median reported PFS: 16.2 months). Adverse events The risk of polyneuropathies may be lower with RD compared to treatment with MP (RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.99), risk for RD: 0.5% (0.1 to 1.8), mean reported risk for MP: 0.9% (10 of 1074 patients affected), low certainty). However, the CIs are also compatible with no difference or an increase in neuropathies. Treatment with TMP (RR 4.44 (95% CI1.77 to 11.11), risk: 4.0% (1.6 to 10.0)) and VMP (RR 88.22 (95% CI 5.36 to 1451.11), risk: 79.4% (4.8 to 1306.0)) probably results in a large increase in polyneuropathies compared to MP (moderate certainty). No study reported the amount of participants with grade ≥ 3 polyneuropathies for treatment with VRDc. VMP probably increases the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MP (RR 1.28 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.54), risk for VMP: 46.2% (38.3 to 55.6), mean risk for MP: 36.1% (177 of 490 patients affected), moderate certainty). RD, TMP, and VRDc were not connected to MP in the network and the risk of SAEs could not be compared. Treatment with RD (RR 4.18 (95% CI 2.13 to 8.20), NMA-risk: 38.5% (19.6 to 75.4)); and TMP (RR 4.10 (95% CI 2.40 to 7.01), risk: 37.7% (22.1 to 64.5)) results in a large increase of withdrawals from the trial due to adverse events (high certainty) compared to MP (mean reported risk: 9.2% (77 of 837 patients withdrew)). The risk is probably slightly increased with VMP (RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.81), risk: 9.75% (5.8 to 16.7), moderate certainty), while it is much increased with VRDc (RR 8.92 (95% CI 3.82 to 20.84), risk: 82.1% (35.1 to 191.7), high certainty) compared to MP. Quality of life QoL was reported in four studies for seven different treatment regimens (MP, MPc, RD, RMP, RMPc, TMP, TMPc) and was measured with four different tools. Assessment and reporting differed between studies and could not be meta-analysed. However, all studies reported an improvement of QoL after initiation of anti-myeloma treatment for all assessed treatment regimens. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on our four pre-selected comparisons of interest, continuous treatment with VRD had the largest survival benefit compared with MP, while RD and TMP also probably considerably increase survival. However, treatment combinations of V, R, and T also substantially increase the incidence of AEs, and lead to a higher risk of treatment discontinuation. Their effectiveness and safety profiles may best be analysed in further randomised head-to-head trials. Further trials should focus on consistent reporting of safety outcomes and should use a standardised instrument to evaluate QoL to ensure comparability of treatment-combinations.

Determination of Electrolytes in Critical Illness Patients at Different pH Ranges: Whom Shall We Believe, the Blood Gas Analysis or the Laboratory Autoanalyzer?

INTRODUCTION: The determination of the electrolytes sodium and potassium is essential in critical care. In daily clinical practice, both the blood gas analyzer (ABG) and the laboratory autoanalyzer (AA) are generally applied. However, there is still uncertainty regarding the convergence of the prementioned assays, and data about the comparability dependent on the pH value are still lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred samples from intensive care unit patients with a range in pH values between 7.20 and 7.49 were evaluated in this retrospective cohort study. All patients suffered an infarct-related cardiogenic shock and were intubated and not under therapeutical hypothermia at the time of blood collection. We used scatter plots to compare different distributions of sodium and potassium values between the methods. Comparability of the analyses was assessed using the Bland-Altmann approach, and intraclass correlations (ICC) as estimates of interrater reliability were calculated. RESULTS: The mean potassium level measured on ABG was 4.33 mmol/L (SD 0.48 mmol/L), and the value obtained using the AA was 4.40 mmol/L (SD 0.55 mmol/L). A Bland-Altman comparison for total potassium measurements revealed that the limits of agreement were small (-0.241 to 0.391 mmol/L). Total ICC displayed a very good correlation of 0.949. For sodium, we found average values of 140 mmol/L (SD 5.20 mmol/L) in the AA and 140 mmol/L (SD 5.80 mmol/L) in the ABG assessment. Contrarily, the Bland-Altman comparison for sodium displayed that the 95% limits of agreement were very wide (-5.99 to 6.59 mmol/L) for total measurements as well as in every pH subgroup. Total ICC only reached a value of 0.830. CONCLUSION: Data from our single-center study indicate that urgent and vital decisions based on potassium measurements can be made by trusting the value obtained on the ABG machine irrespective of pH values.

Intranasal breast milk for premature infants with severe intraventricular hemorrhage-an observation.

For nasal application of neurotrophins and mesenchymal stem cells, successful delivery to the brain and therapeutic effects are known from experimental data in animals. Human breast milk contains neurotrophins and stem cells, but gavage tube feeding in preterm infants bypasses the naso-oropharynx. This is a first exploration on additional nasal breast milk and neuromorphological outcome after severe neonatal brain injury. We present a retrospective summary of 31 very low birth weight preterm infants with intraventricular hemorrhage °3/4 from one third-level neonatal center. All were breast milk fed. Sixteen infants additionally received nasal drops of fresh breast milk daily with informed parental consent for at least 28 days. Cerebral ultrasound courses were reviewed by a pediatric radiologist blinded to the intervention. The main outcome measure was severity of porencephalic defects before discharge. Clinical covariates were comparable in both groups. With nasal breast milk, a trend to a lower incidence for severe porencephalic defects (21% vs. 58%) was detected. Incidences were lower for progressive ventricular dilatation (71% vs. 91%) and surgery for posthemorrhagic hydrocephalus (50% vs. 67%).Conclusion: The hypothesis is generated that early intranasal application of breast milk could have a beneficial effect on neurodevelopment in preterm infants. Controlled investigation is needed. What is Known: • Successful delivery to the brain and therapeutic effects are known for nasal application of neurotrophins and mesenchymal stem cells from experimental data in animal studies. • Human breast milk contains neurotrophins and stem cells, but gavage tube feeding in preterm infants bypasses the naso-oropharynx. What is New: • This is the first report on additional nasal breast milk application in very low birth weight preterm infants with severe brain injury observing a trend for less severe porencephalic defects. • The hypothesis is generated that nasal breast milk might exert neuroprotective effects in preterm infants.

Monitoring of sedation depth in intensive care unit by therapeutic drug monitoring? A prospective observation study of medical intensive care patients.

BACKGROUND: Analgosedation is a cornerstone therapy for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICU). To avoid inadequate sedation and its complications, monitoring of analgosedation is of great importance. The aim of this study was to investigate whether monitoring of analgosedative drug concentrations (midazolam and sufentanil) might be beneficial to optimize analgosedation and whether drug serum concentrations correlate with the results of subjective (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale [RASS]/Ramsay Sedation Scale) and objective (bispectral (BIS) index) monitoring procedures. METHODS: Forty-nine intubated, ventilated, and analgosedated critically ill patients treated in ICU were clinically evaluated concerning the depth of sedation using RASS Score, Ramsay Score, and BIS index twice a day. Serum concentrations of midazolam and sufentanil were determined in blood samples drawn at the same time. Clinical and laboratory data were statistically analyzed for correlations using the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient rho (ρ). RESULTS: Average age of the population was 57.8 ± 16.0 years, 61% of the patients were males. Most frequent causes for ICU treatments were sepsis (22%), pneumonia (22%), or a combination of both (25%). Serum concentrations of midazolam correlated weakly with RASS (ρ = - 0.467) and Ramsay Scores (ρ = 0.476). Serum concentrations of sufentanil correlated weakly with RASS (ρ = - 0.312) and Ramsay Scores (ρ = 0.295). Correlations between BIS index and serum concentrations of midazolam (ρ = - 0.252) and sufentanil (ρ = - 0.166) were low. CONCLUSION: Correlations between drug serum concentrations and clinical or neurophysiological monitoring procedures were weak. This might be due to intersubject variability, polypharmacy with drug-drug interactions, and complex metabolism, which can be altered in critically ill patients. Therapeutic drug monitoring is not beneficial to determine depth of sedation in ICU patients.

Acute kidney injury following percutaneous edge-to-edge vs. minimally invasive surgical mitral valve repair: incidence, predictors and prognostic value.

AIMS: This study sought to determine the incidence and identify predictors of acute kidney injury (AKI) following percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (PMVR) and compare the risk of AKI between PMVR and surgical mitral valve repair (SMVR). METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a single-centre analysis of 378 patients receiving treatment for mitral regurgitation (196 consecutive patients undergoing PMVR and 182 patients undergoing SMVR). The incidence of AKI (any stage according to KDIGO) following PMVR was 17.9%. Intervention duration (OR 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00-1.02) and peripheral vascular disease (OR 7.69, 95% CI: 3.25-18.17) predicted AKI after PMVR. Patients suffering from AKI after PMVR demonstrated poorer survival (median followup 428 days). SMVR patients were significantly younger, had fewer comorbidities and better renal function at baseline. Nevertheless, AKI occurred numerically more often after SMVR than PMVR (25.8% vs. 17.9%, p=0.060), and a multivariable regression model adjusting for differences between both groups confirmed a significantly lower risk for AKI following PMVR (OR 0.22, 95% CI: 0.11-0.44, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These data show a significant incidence of AKI after PMVR that must be taken into account in periprocedural care. Nevertheless, our data suggest that SMVR carries an even higher risk of AKI, which should be considered when a decision has to be made between the two therapies.

Statin Therapy in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates whether preoperative statin therapy improves clinical outcomes in patients referred to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: A total of 1,151 patients undergoing CABG for ACS were prospectively entered into the North-Rhine-Westphalia surgical myocardial infarction registry and subdivided into two groups according to their preoperative statin status (statin naive vs. statin group). A logistic regression model was employed to analyze the impact of a statin therapy and dose for the endpoints in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). RESULTS: Demographics, pre- and intraoperative data of the statin-naive group (n = 208; 18%) and statin-treated group (n = 943, 82%) did not differ. In-hospital mortality (12.6 vs. 6.3%, p = 0.002) and MACE rates (22.1 vs. 9.7%, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in statin naive when compared with statin-treated patients with ACS, respectively. Mevalonic acid revealed that both low- and high-dose statin treatment was associated to a reduction in in-hospital mortality and MACE, without a dose-dependent statin effect. CONCLUSION: Statin therapy in patients with ACS undergoing CABG reduces in a dose-independent manner in-hospital mortality and MACE.

Prevalence of hyponatremia in inpatients with incurable and life-limiting diseases and its association with physical symptoms-a retrospective descriptive study.

PURPOSE: Hyponatremia is a common electrolyte abnormality seen in hospitalized patients. It may cause a variety of symptoms and is associated with longer hospitalizations and higher mortality. However, to date, only little is known about the extent of hyponatremia in patients with incurable diseases and whether it is associated with physical symptoms in this patient group. This study aims to describe the prevalence of hyponatremia, associated symptoms, and symptom intensity in inpatients with hyponatremia receiving specialist palliative care (SPC). METHODS: This is a retrospective study. Demographic and clinical data as well as symptoms, scored symptom intensity, and laboratory values were collected. All inpatients of a large German University Hospital receiving SPC in 2013 with documented sodium values were included. RESULTS: In 2013, 789 inpatients received SPC of which 710 had documented sodium values. The prevalence of hyponatremia was 38.7% (275/710). A mild degree showed 220 (31,0%), 44 (6.2%) had a moderate, and 11 (1.6%) a severe form. Hyponatremia patients experienced significantly more symptoms than normonatremic patients (mean = 7.71 vs 6.63; p < 0.001). Breathlessness, depressiveness, nausea, vomiting, poor appetite, constipation, and weakness were significantly more frequent in patients with hyponatremia. Furthermore, hyponatremia severity was associated with higher symptom intensity (mean = 13.29 vs 11.28; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: More than one third of all SPC patients showed a hyponatremia, and the hyponatremia grade was associated with symptom burden and symptom intensity. A prospective analysis is needed to further examine this association and the possible influence of hyponatremia correction on symptom burden reduction.

Non-Guideline-concordant Treatment of Testicular Cancer Is Associated With Reduced Relapse-free Survival.

INTRODUCTION: The management of testicular cancer (TC) requires a complex multimodal therapeutic approach. Despite the availability of regularly updated guidelines, non-guideline-concordant treatment of TC still occurs. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the compliance patterns in diagnosis and therapy and their potential effects on patient outcomes with respect to the guidelines of the European Association of Urology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 131 patients diagnosed with TC who had been referred to our department from September 2015 to October 2016. Patient characteristics were compared with European Association of Urology guideline recommendations. RESULTS: Of the 131 primary treated patients, 23 (18%) had received a non-guideline-concordant treatment. The most common error was undertreatment (n = 12; 52%), mainly due to missing chemotherapy cycles. Overtreatment occurred in 30% of patients (n = 7); however, inappropriate treatment (n = 2; 9%) and misdiagnosis (n = 2; 9%) were rarely observed. In salvage therapy, non-guideline concordant treatment was observed less frequently compared to patients receiving primary therapy (12% vs. 18%). Of the 131 patients, 35 developed a relapse, 23 of whom were treated correctly and 6 of whom were undertreated. Undertreatment of patients resulted in significantly reduced relapse-free survival compared with guideline-concordant management in primary treated patients (P = .005). CONCLUSION: Despite the standardization of treatment by interdisciplinary guidelines, its integration into daily practice remains limited. Undertreatment of TC patients is associated with significantly reduced relapse-free survival and should thus be avoided.

Helping Hospitals Improve Patient Centeredness: Assessing the Impact of Feedback Following a Best Practices Workshop.

Regularly reported patient surveys are an important dimension of hospital quality management. This study investigates whether providing hospital staff with interim feedback on patient survey results following a best practices workshop can help hospitals improve patient centeredness. Standardized surveys with consecutive patient samples were administered in accredited breast cancer center (BCC) hospitals in one German state (18 million inhabitants), over a 6-month period, in 2012. Two studies were conducted by applying a combination of regression point displacement (RPD) and interrupted time series (ITS) designs. In Study 1, 2 of the 27 hospitals that had previously participated in a best practices workshop to discuss patient-centeredness issues were randomly chosen and were provided interim feedback of patient survey results and workshop minutes. In Study 2, 4 randomly chosen hospitals of 32 that had not participated in the workshop also received interim feedback but no workshop minutes. Control hospitals in both studies neither received feedback nor workshop minutes. The impact of interim feedback was evaluated by applying graphical assessments and multiple regression analyses. Both graphical assessments (locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOESS) lines, RPD plots) suggested an effect of interim feedback. Multiple regression results did not unambiguously support these findings. The suggested design approach may prove particularly useful to assess effects in pilot studies, when resources are not available to conduct a randomized study or when its conduct is contingent on initial, positive evidence.

First-line therapy for non-transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma: direct and adjusted indirect comparison of treatment regimens on the existing market in Germany.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare approved first-line therapies for patients with multiple myeloma. METHODS: A systematic literature search for phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing first-line chemotherapies approved in Germany and recommended by guidelines at the time of study design was conducted. Random-effects meta-analysis (MA) was used for direct and the Bucher method for adjusted indirect treatment comparison. RESULTS: One RCT comparing melphalan and prednisone plus bortezomib (VMP) vs. melphalan and prednisone (MP) and six RCTs comparing MP plus thalidomide (MPT) vs. MP were analysed. For MPT vs. MP, an individual patient data (IPD) MA was used for sensitivity analyses. VMP and MPT were superior to MP regarding efficacy endpoints (VMP vs. MP, overall survival (OS): hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.57-0.86; progression-free survival (PFS): HR 0.56, 0.39-0.79; complete response (CR), risk-ratio (RR) for non-response: 0.70, 0.65-0.75; MPT vs. MP, OS: HR 0.83, 0.66-1.03; PFS: HR 0.67, 0.56-0.81; CR, RR for non-response 0.92, 0.88-0.95); but had a higher risk of developing any grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) (VMP vs. MP: RR 1.13, 1.06-1.20; MPT vs. MP: RR 2.06, 1.43-2.98). The indirect comparison of VMP vs. MPT via MP showed a statistically not significant advantage for VMP regarding survival outcomes (OS: HR 0.85, 0.63-1.14; PFS: HR 0.83, 0.56-1.23) and a significant advantage regarding CR (RR for non-response 0.76, 0.70-0.83) and AEs (RR 0.55, 0.38-0.80). Treatment comparisons using results of IPD MA yielded similar effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: VMP and MPT seem more effective than MP, VMP was superior to MPT regarding response criteria and AEs. Our results may best be confirmed by a head-to-head trial of VMP vs. MPT.

Radiotherapy effects on early breast cancer survival in observational and randomized studies: a systematic analysis of advantages, disadvantages and differences between the two study types.

AIM: Treatment-outcome associations often differ substantially between observational studies (OSs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We investigate causes, focusing on radiotherapy (RT) effects in early breast cancer treatment, to better understand each study type's merits. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We systematically analyzed three potential causes, by comparing data from a large OS with results from two previously published meta-analyses of RCTs: differences in patient populations combined with heterogeneous treatment effects, non-random treatment decisions in OSs, and differences in therapy administration. RESULTS: RT-survival associations were considerably stronger in our OS than in the RCTs, e.g., a hazard rate for overall survival after breast-conserving therapy of 0.57 in the OS vs 0.90 in the RCTs. The first proposed reason has limited relevance: patient populations differed considerably, but effect heterogeneity between patient groups was limited. The second reason does explain part of the difference: in the OS treatment decisions (being nonrandomized) and prospects differed with patient characteristics. Notably, patients with early recurrences or mortality are generally excluded from RCTs. Their inclusion in OSs leads to stronger treatment-outcome associations. CONCLUSION: RCTs and OSs each have their own merits. While RCTs have their undisputed benefits, results from OSs that indicate that RT effects in early breast cancer are even stronger than those reported in RCTs should not be ignored.

Focus on the surgical approach to transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Complications, outcome, and preoperative risk adjustment.

OBJECTIVE: Perioperative complications in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation remain a major issue affecting outcome. Because preoperative risk adjustment remains challenging and a valid scoring system is missing, we sought to determine the incidence of peri- and postprocedural complications of transapical (TA) or transaortic (TAO) access to define the influence of specific complications on early safety, 30-day mortality, and 1-year survival. Furthermore, we aimed to develop a risk-stratification model to allow an estimation of the perioperative risk and the 1-year survival rate, based on the individual preoperative condition of each patient. METHODS: We performed an outcome analysis of 230 consecutive patients who underwent aortic valve implantation via transapical or transaortic access between 2008 and 2012, with regard to Valve Academic Research Consortium II criteria, including univariate and multivariable regression analysis, to develop a risk-stratification model. RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was 12.7%. Estimated 1-year survival was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.631-0.757), and 3-year survival was 0.554 (95% CI, 0.474-0.634). Univariate logistic regression analysis revealed a significant influence on 30-day mortality in case of life-threatening bleeding (16.1-fold), abdominal complications (8.5-fold), and acute kidney injury (3.2-fold). Pacemaker implantation (odds ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.42-5.81; P = .512) was not a significant predictor. Concerning use of intraprocedural hemodynamic bridging therapy via cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), Cox regression analysis revealed no significant survival difference after 1 year. A preoperative risk-stratification model for 1-year survival revealed that a logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score >20%, preoperative existing coronary artery disease, and prior myocardial infarction appeared to be significant predictors for diminished survival. CONCLUSIONS: Concerning intraprocedural complications, CPB support for hemodynamic stabilization is a safe treatment option. Therefore, the heart team approach with CPB standby represents a life-saving option. Attention should also be drawn to specialized and individual postoperative care, because nonprocedure-specific complications clearly affect postoperative short- and long-term outcome. In addition, the risk-stratification model might facilitate preoperative decision making.