French National Authority for Health assessment of metabolic surgery for type 2 diabetes remission-A meta-analysis in patients with class I to III obesity.

OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the superiority of metabolic surgery (MS) over medical therapy (MT) in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes, leading, to a joint statement in 2016 proposing MS to patients with class I obesity and uncontrolled glycemia. Yet, these RCTs included few patients with class I obesity (body mass index 30-35 kg/m2) and even fewer patients with overweight. Our aim was to provide an updated systematic review (SR) with meta-analysis (MA) of RCTs reporting diabetes remission (DR) after MS in these patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We included in the SR with MA only RCTs with at least 24-month follow-up found in Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, and LiSSA between January 2008 and September 2022 comparing DR post-MT versus post-MS. We calculated relative risk (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects approach to examine differences in DR between patients allocated to MS versus MT. RESULTS: DR was significantly higher in MS versus MT after 36 months' follow-up in patients with obesity (RR = 6.65 [95 %CI 2.24;19.79]; I² = 27 %; 5 trials, 404 patients), but also specifically in patients with class I obesity (RR = 5.27 [1.31;21.23]; I² = 0 %; 4 trials, 80 patients). Furthermore, and in line with previous results, all additional MAs performed in patients with obesity in this work favor MS (specifically Roux-en-Y gastric bypass) over MT at 24, 36 (only) and 60 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although the data available in patients with class I obesity and type 2 diabetes remains limited, MA shows higher rates of DR after MS compared with MT after 36 months' follow-up in these patients. Consequently, the French National Authority for Health French (HAS) recommends MS for these patients.

Study of the impact of tissue density heterogeneities on 3-dimensional abdominal dosimetry: comparison between dose kernel convolution and direct Monte Carlo methods.

UNLABELLED: Dose kernel convolution (DK) methods have been proposed to speed up absorbed dose calculations in molecular radionuclide therapy. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of tissue density heterogeneities (TDH) on dosimetry when using a DK method and to propose a simple density-correction method. METHODS: This study has been conducted on 3 clinical cases: case 1, non-Hodgkin lymphoma treated with (131)I-tositumomab; case 2, a neuroendocrine tumor treatment simulated with (177)Lu-peptides; and case 3, hepatocellular carcinoma treated with (90)Y-microspheres. Absorbed dose calculations were performed using a direct Monte Carlo approach accounting for TDH (3D-RD), and a DK approach (VoxelDose, or VD). For each individual voxel, the VD absorbed dose, D(VD), calculated assuming uniform density, was corrected for density, giving D(VDd). The average 3D-RD absorbed dose values, D(3DRD), were compared with D(VD) and D(VDd), using the relative difference Δ(VD/3DRD). At the voxel level, density-binned Δ(VD/3DRD) and Δ(VDd/3DRD) were plotted against ρ and fitted with a linear regression. RESULTS: The D(VD) calculations showed a good agreement with D(3DRD). Δ(VD/3DRD) was less than 3.5%, except for the tumor of case 1 (5.9%) and the renal cortex of case 2 (5.6%). At the voxel level, the Δ(VD/3DRD) range was 0%-14% for cases 1 and 2, and -3% to 7% for case 3. All 3 cases showed a linear relationship between voxel bin-averaged Δ(VD/3DRD) and density, ρ: case 1 (Δ = -0.56ρ + 0.62, R(2) = 0.93), case 2 (Δ = -0.91ρ + 0.96, R(2) = 0.99), and case 3 (Δ = -0.69ρ + 0.72, R(2) = 0.91). The density correction improved the agreement of the DK method with the Monte Carlo approach (Δ(VDd/3DRD) < 1.1%), but with a lesser extent for the tumor of case 1 (3.1%). At the voxel level, the Δ(VDd/3DRD) range decreased for the 3 clinical cases (case 1, -1% to 4%; case 2, -0.5% to 1.5%, and -1.5% to 2%). No more linear regression existed for cases 2 and 3, contrary to case 1 (Δ = 0.41ρ - 0.38, R(2) = 0.88) although the slope in case 1 was less pronounced. CONCLUSION: This study shows a small influence of TDH in the abdominal region for 3 representative clinical cases. A simple density-correction method was proposed and improved the comparison in the absorbed dose calculations when using our voxel S value implementation.

Comparative value of ECG-gated blood pool SPET and ECG-gated myocardial perfusion SPET in the assessment of global systolic left ventricular function.

Both electrocardiographically (ECG) gated blood pool SPET (GBPS) and ECG-gated myocardial perfusion SPET (GSPET) are currently used for the measurement of global systolic left ventricular (LV) function. In this study, we aimed to compare the value of GSPET and GBPS for this purpose. The population included 65 patients who underwent rest thallium-201 GSPET imaging at 15 min after (201)Tl injection followed by planar (planar(RNA)) and GBPS equilibrium radionuclide angiography immediately after 4-h redistribution myocardial perfusion SPET imaging. Thirty-five patients also underwent LV conventional contrast angiography (X-rays). LV ejection fraction (EF) and LV volume [end-diastolic (EDV) and end-systolic (ESV) volumes] were calculated with GBPS and GSPET and compared with the gold standard methods (planar(RNA) LVEF and X-ray based calculation of LV volume). For both LVEF and LV volume, the inter-observer variability was lower with GBPS than with GSPET. GBPS LVEF was higher than planar(RNA) (P<0.01) and GSPET LVEF (P<0.01). Planar(RNA) LVEF showed a slightly better correlation with GBPS LVEF than with GSPET LVEF: r=0.87 and r=0.83 respectively. GSPET LV volume was lower than that obtained using X-rays and GBPS (P<0.01 for both). LV volume calculated using X-rays showed a slightly better correlation with GBPS LV volume than with GSPET LV volume: r=0.88 and r=0.83 respectively. On stepwise regression analysis, the accuracy of GSPET for the measurement of LVEF and LV volume was correlated with a number of factors, including planar(RNA) LVEF, signal to noise ratio, LV volume calculated using X-rays, summed rest score and acquisition scan distance (i.e. the radius of rotation). The accuracy of GBPS for the measurement of LVEF and LV volume was correlated only with the signal level, the signal to noise ratio and the acquisition scan distance. Both GSPET and GBPS provide reliable estimation of global systolic LV function. The better reliability of GBPS and in particular its lower sensitivity to different variables as compared with GSPET favours its use when precise assessment of global systolic LV function is clinically indicated.