Barriers to Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Human T Cell Lymphotropic Virus 1-Associated Adult T Cell Lymphoma-Leukemia in the United States: Experience from a Large Cohort in a Major Tertiary Center.

In the United States adult T cell lymphoma-leukemia (ATLL) carries a dismal prognosis and mainly affects immigrants from human T cell lymphotropic virus 1 endemic areas. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT) can be effective and is recommended as an upfront treatment in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. We studied the barriers to alloHSCT in one of the largest ATLL populations in the United States. Comprehensive chart and donor registry reviews were conducted for 88 ATLL patients treated at Montefiore Medical Center from 2003 to 2018. Among 49 patients with acute and 32 with lymphomatous subtypes, 48 (59.5%) were ineligible for alloHSCT because of early mortality (52%), loss to follow-up (21%), uninsured status (15%), patient declination (10%), and frailty (2%). Among 28 HLA-typed eligible patients (34.6%), matched related donors were identified for 7 (25%). A matched unrelated donor (MUD) search yielded HLA-matched in 2 patients (9.5%), HLA mismatched in 6 (28.5%), and no options in 13 (62%). Haploidentical donors were identified for 6 patients (46%) with no unrelated options. There were no suitable donors for 7 (25%) alloHSCT-eligible patients. The main limitation for alloHSCT after donor identification was death from progressive disease (82%). AlloHSCT was performed in 10 patients (12.3%) and was associated with better relapse-free survival (26 versus 11 months, P = .04) and overall survival (47 versus 10 months, P = .03). Early mortality and progressive disease are the main barriers to alloHSCT, but poor follow-up, uninsured status, and lack of suitable donor, including haploidentical, are also substantial limitations that might disproportionally affect this vulnerable population. AlloHSCT can achieve long-term remissions, and strategies aiming to overcome these barriers are urgently needed to improve outcomes in ATLL.

Is whole-colon investigation by colonoscopy, computerised tomography colonography or barium enema necessary for all patients with colorectal cancer symptoms, and for which patients would flexible sigmoidoscopy suffice? A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: For patients referred to hospital with suspected colorectal cancer (CRC), it is current standard clinical practice to conduct an examination of the whole colon and rectum. However, studies have shown that an examination of the distal colorectum using flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) can be a safe and clinically effective investigation for some patients. These findings require validation in a multicentre study. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the links between patient symptoms at presentation and CRC risk by subsite, and to provide evidence of whether or not FS is an effective alternative to whole-colon investigation (WCI) in patients whose symptoms do not suggest proximal or obstructive disease. DESIGN: A multicentre retrospective study using data collected prospectively from two randomised controlled trials. Additional data were collected from trial diagnostic procedure reports and hospital records. CRC diagnoses within 3 years of referral were sourced from hospital records and national cancer registries via the Health and Social Care Information Centre. SETTING: Participants were recruited to the two randomised controlled trials from 21 NHS hospitals in England between 2004 and 2007. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women aged ≥ 55 years referred to secondary care for the investigation of symptoms suggestive of CRC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Diagnostic yield of CRC at distal (to the splenic flexure) and proximal subsites by symptoms/clinical signs at presentation. RESULTS: The data set for analysis comprised 7380 patients, of whom 59% were women (median age 69 years, interquartile range 62-76 years). Change in bowel habit (CIBH) was the most frequently presenting symptom (73%), followed by rectal bleeding (38%) and abdominal pain (29%); 26% of patients had anaemia. CRC was diagnosed in 551 patients (7.5%): 424 (77%) patients with distal CRC, 122 (22%) patients with cancer proximal to the descending colon and five patients with both proximal and distal CRC. Proximal cancer was diagnosed in 96 out of 2021 (4.8%) patients with anaemia and/or an abdominal mass. The yield of proximal cancer in patients without anaemia or an abdominal mass who presented with rectal bleeding with or without a CIBH or with a CIBH to looser and/or more frequent stools as a single symptom was low (0.5%). These low-risk groups for proximal cancer accounted for 41% (3032/7380) of the cohort; only three proximal cancers were diagnosed in 814 low-risk patients examined by FS (diagnostic yield 0.4%). LIMITATIONS: A limitation to this study is that changes to practice since the trial ended, such as new referral guidelines and improvements in endoscopy quality, potentially weaken the generalisability of our findings. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom profiles can be used to determine whether or not WCI is necessary. Most proximal cancers were diagnosed in patients who presented with anaemia and/or an abdominal mass. In patients without anaemia or an abdominal mass, proximal cancer diagnoses were rare in those with rectal bleeding with or without a CIBH or with a CIBH to looser and/or more frequent stools as a single symptom. FS alone should be a safe and clinically effective investigation in these patients. A cost-effectiveness analysis of symptom-based tailoring of diagnostic investigations for CRC is recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95152621. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Energetic etiologies of acute pancreatitis: A report of five cases.

There are several common causes of acute pancreatitis, principally excessive alcohol intake and gallstones, and there are many rare causes. However, cases of pancreatitis still occur in the absence of any recognizable factors, and these cases of idiopathic pancreatitis suggest the presence of unrecognized etiologies. Five cases of acute pancreatitis in four patients came to attention due to a strong temporal association with exposure to nerve stimulators and energy drinks. Given that these cases of pancreatitis were otherwise unexplained, and given that these exposures were not clearly known to be associated with pancreatitis, we performed a search for precedent cases and for mechanistic bases. No clear precedent cases were found in PubMed and only scant, weak precedent cases were found in public-health databases. However, there was a coherent body of intriguing literature in support of a mechanistic basis for these exposures playing a role in the etiology of pancreatitis.

Identification of Extracolonic Pathologies by Computed Tomographic Colonography in Colorectal Cancer Symptomatic Patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer may originate outside the colorectum. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is used to examine the colorectum and abdominopelvic organs simultaneously. We performed a prospective randomized controlled trial to quantify the frequency, nature, and consequences of extracolonic findings. METHODS: We studied 5384 patients from 21 UK National Health Service hospitals referred by their family doctor for the investigation of colorectal cancer symptoms from March 2004 through December 2007. The patients were assigned randomly to groups that received the requested test (barium enema or colonoscopy, n = 3574) or CTC (n = 1810). We determined the frequency and nature of extracolonic findings, subsequent investigations, ultimate diagnosis, and extracolonic cancer diagnoses 1 and 3 years after testing patients without colorectal cancer. RESULTS: Extracolonic pathologies were detected in 959 patients by CTC (58.7%), in 42 patients by barium enema analysis (1.9%), and in no patients by colonoscopy. Extracolonic findings were investigated in 142 patients (14.2%) and a diagnosis was made for 126 patients (88.1%). Symptoms were explained by extracolonic findings in 4 patients analyzed by barium enema (0.2%) and in 33 patients analyzed by CTC (2.8%). CTC identified 72 extracolonic neoplasms, however, barium enema analysis found only 3 (colonoscopy found none). Overall, CTC diagnosed extracolonic neoplasms in 72 of 1634 patients (4.4%); 26 of these were malignant (1.6%). There were significantly more extracolonic malignancies detected than expected 1 year after examination, but these did not differ between patients evaluated by CTC (22.2/1000 person-years), barium enema (26.5/1000 person-years; P = .43), or colonoscopy (32.0/1000 person-years; P = .88). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the patients with symptoms of colorectal cancer are found to have extracolonic pathologies by CTC analysis. However, the proportion of patients found to have extracolonic malignancies after 1 year of CTC examination is not significantly greater than after barium enema or colonoscopy examinations. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials no: 95152621.isrctn.com.

Design of a multicentre randomized trial to evaluate CT colonography versus colonoscopy or barium enema for diagnosis of colonic cancer in older symptomatic patients: the SIGGAR study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The standard whole-colon tests used to investigate patients with symptoms of colorectal cancer are barium enema and colonoscopy. Colonoscopy is the reference test but is technically difficult, resource intensive, and associated with adverse events, especially in the elderly. Barium enema is safer but has reduced sensitivity for cancer. CT colonography ("virtual colonoscopy") is a newer alternative that may combine high sensitivity for cancer with safety and patient acceptability. The SIGGAR trial aims to determine the diagnostic efficacy, acceptability, and economic costs associated with this new technology. METHODS: The SIGGAR trial is a multi-centre randomised comparison of CT colonography versus standard investigation (barium enema or colonoscopy), the latter determined by individual clinician preference. Diagnostic efficacy for colorectal cancer and colonic polyps measuring 1 cm or larger will be determined, as will the physical and psychological morbidity associated with each diagnostic test, the latter via questionnaires developed from qualitative interviews. The economic costs of making or excluding a diagnosis will be determined for each diagnostic test and information from the trial and other data from the literature will be used to populate models framed to summarise the health effects and costs of alternative approaches to detection of significant colonic neoplasia in patients of different ages, prior risks and preferences. This analysis will focus particularly on the frequency, clinical relevance, costs, and psychological and physical morbidity associated with detection of extracolonic lesions by CT colonography. RESULTS: Recruitment commenced in March 2004 and at the time of writing (July 2007) 5025 patients have been randomised. A lower than expected prevalence of end-points in the barium enema sub-trial has caused an increase in sample size. In addition to the study protocol, we describe our approach to recruitment, notably the benefits of extensive piloting, the use of a sham-randomisation procedure, which was employed to determine whether centres interested in participating were likely to be effective in practice, and the provision of funding for dedicated sessions for a research nurse at each centre to devote specifically to this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95152621.