What are the Protocols and Resources for Sport-Related Concussion Among Top National Collegiate Athletic Association Football Programs? A Cross-Sectional Survey of A5 Schools.

OBJECTIVE: This study summarizes findings from a cross-sectional survey conducted among National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division 1 football programs, focusing on sport-related concussion (SRC) protocols for the 2018 season. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study. SETTING: 65 football programs within the Autonomy Five (A5) NCAA conferences. PARTICIPANTS: Athletic trainers and team physicians who attended a football safety meeting at the NCAA offices June 17 to 18, 2019, representing their respective institutions. INTERVENTION: Electronic surveys were distributed on June 14, 2019, before the football safety meeting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Results for 16 unique questions involving SRC protocols and resources were summarized and evaluated. RESULTS: The survey garnered responses from 46 of 65 programs (response rate = 71%). For baseline testing, 98% measured baseline postural stability and balance, 87% used baseline neurocognitive testing, while only 61% assessed baseline vestibular and/or ocular function. Regarding concussion prevention, 51% did not recommend additional measures, while 4% and 24% recommended cervical compression collars and omega-3 supplementation, respectively. In postconcussion treatment, 26% initiated aerobic exercise 1 day postconcussion if symptoms were stable, 24% waited at least 48 hours, 4% waited for the athlete to return to baseline, 11% waited until the athlete became asymptomatic, and 35% determined procedures on a case-by-case basis. CONCLUSIONS: Most institutions assessed postural stability/balance and neurocognitive functioning at baseline and introduced light aerobic exercise within 48 h postconcussion. There was variation in baseline assessment methods and concussion prevention recommendations. These survey findings deepen our understanding of diverse SRC protocols in NCAA football programs.

Is long-term survival possible after margin-positive resection of retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS)?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: For various reasons, some patients undergo a gross margin positive resection (R2) leading to a dilemma in care. We hypothesized that there is a subset of patients who have long-term survival (LTS, ≥5 years) after R2 resection for retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS). METHODS: National Cancer Database data from 1998 to 2011 were reviewed to identify patients with RPS who had R2 resections. Logistic and Cox regression models were used to compare LTS with short-term survival. RESULTS: Of 12,028 patients, R2 resection rate was 3.28% (4.9% in 1998; 2.5% in 2011). Median survival for RPS with R2 resection was 21 months versus 69 months for those with R0/R1 resections (P < 0.001). Of 272 patients with available survival, 24% (n = 64) survived ≥5 years with 64% alive at follow-up. LTS was most often seen in younger patients (<65 years) with well-differentiated liposarcoma. Chemotherapy appeared to improve survival in the first 3 postoperative years, but paradoxical effects were seen in LTS (Hazards Ratio [HR] 0.69, 95%CI: 0.50-0.95, P = 0.024) in first 3 years versus (HR 2.15, 95%CI: 1.21-3.81, P = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Long-term survival is possible for a subset of patients after an R2 resection for RPS, especially with favorable histology characteristics. Benefits of chemotherapy in margin positive settings need to be investigated. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:823-827. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A Systematic Review of Conversion to Resectability in Unresectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Chemotherapy Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Metastasectomy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) confers a significant survival benefit. We hypothesized that conversion to resectability (C2R) correlates with superior overall survival (OS) in patients with unresectable mCRC. METHODS: A prospectively registered systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42015024104) of randomized clinical trials published after 2003 was conducted. Exposure of interest was C2R with a primary outcome of OS. Clinical trials were classified based on difference in C2R between study arms (<2%, 2% to 2.9%, ≥3%). Generalized estimating equations were used to measure associations while adjusting for multiple observations from the same trial. RESULTS: Of 2902 studies reviewed, 30 satisfied selection criteria (n=13,618 patients). Median C2R was 7.3% (interquartile range [IQR]: 5% to 12.9%), with maximum C2R in the FOLFOX/FOLFIRI+cetuximab arm (28.6%). The median difference in C2R between 2 arms of the same study was 2.3% (IQR: 1.3% to 3.4%) with a maximum difference of 15.4% seen in FOLFOX/FOLFIRI+cetuximab versus FOLFOX/FOLFIRI. Median OS for the entire patient cohort was 20.7 months (IQR: 18.9 to 22.7 mo), with a between group difference of 1.3 months (IQR: -1.2 to 3.6 mo). The median survival difference between the 2 study arms with <2% C2R difference was 0.8 months versus 1.6 months with ≥3% C2R rates . Increasing C2R had an incremental dose-effect response on OS ( P =0.021), and higher response rates correlated with C2R rates ( P =0.003). CONCLUSIONS: C2R occurs infrequently and variably in clinical trials enrolling patients with unresectable mCRC. Prioritization of chemotherapeutic agents that enhance C2R might improve OS of patients.