Renal Mass Imaging with MRI Clear Cell Likelihood Score: A User's Guide.

Small solid renal masses (SRMs) are frequently detected at imaging. Nearly 20% are benign, making careful evaluation with MRI an important consideration before deciding on management. Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most common renal cell carcinoma subtype with potentially aggressive behavior. Thus, confident identification of ccRCC imaging features is a critical task for the radiologist. Imaging features distinguishing ccRCC from other benign and malignant renal masses are based on major features (T2 signal intensity, corticomedullary phase enhancement, and the presence of microscopic fat) and ancillary features (segmental enhancement inversion, arterial-to-delayed enhancement ratio, and diffusion restriction). The clear cell likelihood score (ccLS) system was recently devised to provide a standardized framework for categorizing SRMs, offering a Likert score of the likelihood of ccRCC ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely). Alternative diagnoses based on imaging appearance are also suggested by the algorithm. Furthermore, the ccLS system aims to stratify which patients may or may not benefit from biopsy. The authors use case examples to guide the reader through the evaluation of major and ancillary MRI features of the ccLS algorithm for assigning a likelihood score to an SRM. The authors also discuss patient selection, imaging parameters, pitfalls, and areas for future development. The goal is for radiologists to be better equipped to guide management and improve shared decision making between the patient and treating physician. © RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material. See the invited commentary by Pedrosa in this issue.

Outcomes Following Repeat Ankle Arthroscopy and Microfracture for Osteochondral Lesions of the Talus.

BACKGROUND: The management of symptomatic osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLTs) previously treated with arthroscopy is controversial. Minimal data exist on the role for repeat arthroscopy. Here, we describe our experience with repeat arthroscopy and microfracture for symptomatic OLTs. METHODS: Our database was queried over an 8-year period to identify patients undergoing repeat arthroscopy and microfracture as treatment for symptomatic OLTs. Phone surveys were conducted to assess residual pain, patient satisfaction, and need for subsequent surgery. We compared patient outcomes based on the size of their OLT (small lesions ≤150 mm2, large >150 mm2) and the presence or absence of subchondral cysts. RESULTS: We identified 14 patients who underwent repeat arthroscopy and microfracture for symptomatic OLTs. Patients reported reasonable satisfaction (7.6 ± 3.5 out of 10) but moderate residual pain (4.7 ± 3.4 out of 10) at midterm follow-up (5.1 ± 2.9 years). In total, 21% (3/14) of patients had undergone subsequent surgery. Patients with small (n = 5) and large OLTs (n = 9) had similar postoperative pain scores (4.2 ± 4.1 vs 4.9 ± 3.2) and postoperative satisfaction levels (6.4 ± 4.9 vs 8.3 ± 2.5). CONCLUSION: At midterm follow-up, repeat arthroscopy for symptomatic OLTs demonstrated reasonable satisfaction but moderate residual pain. Lesion size or presence of subchondral cysts did not affect outcome, but our sample size was likely too small to detect statistically significant differences. These data show that repeat ankle arthroscopy can be performed safely with modest outcomes, and we hope that this report aids in managing patient expectations.Level of Evidence: Level IV Case Series.

Patient-Reported Allergies Do Not Predict Poorer PROMIS Function, Pain, and Depression Scores Following Foot and Ankle Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Identifying preoperative risk factors that may portend poorer operative outcomes remains a topic of current interest. In hip and knee arthroplasty patients, the presence of patient-reported allergies (PRAs) has been associated with worse pain and function after joint replacement. However, these results have not been replicated across studies, including in shoulder arthroplasty cases. The impact of PRAs on foot and ankle outcomes has yet to be studied. The purpose of our study was to evaluate whether PRAs influence patient-reported outcome in foot and ankle surgery. METHODS: To determine if PRAs are linked to poorer operative outcomes, we retrospectively identified 159 patients who underwent elective foot and ankle surgery. PRA data were obtained via chart review, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively via multiple domains, including Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function, pain interference, and depression measures. Consistent with prior methodology, we compared outcome measures (preoperative, postoperative, and the change in outcome scores) between patients without self-reported allergies to patients with at least 1 PRA. RESULTS: There were 159 patients studied; 79 patients had no allergies listed, and 80 patients had at least 1 PRA. Of the 80 patients with at least 1 PRA, there were a total of 170 possible allergies. There were no differences in preoperative, postoperative, or the change in outcome scores for all PROMIS measures (physical function, pain interference, and depression; P > .05) between patients with at least 1 PRA and those patients without any listed PRAs. CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to prove our hypothesis that PRAs were linked to poorer patient-reported outcomes following foot and ankle surgery. Closer review of the published reports linking PRAs to worse total joint arthroplasty outcomes revealed data that, while statistically significant, are likely not clinically relevant. Our negative findings, then, may in fact parallel prior studies on hip, knee, and shoulder arthroplasty patients. The presence of PRAs does not appear to be a risk factor for suboptimal outcomes in foot and ankle surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative series.

Whipple-specific complications result in prolonged length of stay not accounted for in ACS-NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Surgical Risk Calculator was developed to help counsel patients regarding estimated postoperative risk for a variety of surgical complications. This retrospective single institutional study examined the calculator's ability to accurately predict complications and length of hospital stay (LOS) in patients who had undergone a Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) at our institution. METHODS: 165 patients at Washington University School of Medicine who underwent a PD from 8/2011 to 7/2013 were included. Surgical complication risk as determined by the ACS-NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator were compared to actual 30 day complications. PD complications not accounted for by the calculator were compared to those without PD-specific complications. RESULTS: Overall predicted LOS was significantly shorter than actual duration of hospitalization (median 8.5 vs. 8.0 days; p < 0.001). 38% patients (n = 62) with Whipple-specific complication demonstrated a significant increase in LOS (8.0 vs. 12.2 days; p < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: A large proportion of complications experienced after PD are pancreas-specific, accounting for the difference in predicted vs. actual LOS and providing rationale for future development of PD specific risk models.

Targeting tumour-associated macrophages with CCR2 inhibition in combination with FOLFIRINOX in patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a single-centre, open-label, dose-finding, non-randomised, phase 1b trial.

BACKGROUND: In pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, the CCL2-CCR2 chemokine axis is used to recruit tumour-associated macrophages for construction of an immunosuppressive tumour microenvironment. This pathway has prognostic implications in pancreatic cancer, and blockade of CCR2 restores anti-tumour immunity in preclinical models. We aimed to establish the safety, tolerability, and recommended phase 2 oral dose of the CCR2 inhibitor PF-04136309 in combination with FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy (oxaliplatin and irinotecan plus leucovorin and fluorouracil). METHODS: We did this open-label, dose-finding, non-randomised, phase 1b study at one centre in the USA. We enrolled treatment-naive patients aged 18 years or older with borderline resectable or locally advanced biopsy-proven pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, measurable disease as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, and normal end-organ function. Patients were allocated to receive either FOLFIRINOX alone (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), irinotecan 180 mg/m(2), leucovorin 400 mg/m(2), and bolus fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2), followed by 2400 mg/m(2) 46-h continuous infusion), administered every 2 weeks for a total of six treatment cycles, or in combination with oral PF-04136309, administered at a starting dose of 500 mg twice daily in a standard 3 + 3 dose de-escalation design. Both FOLFIRINOX and PF-04136309 were simultaneously initiated with a total treatment duration of 12 weeks. The primary endpoints were the safety, tolerability, and recommended phase 2 dose of PF-04136309 plus FOLFIRINOX, with an expansion phase planned at the recommended dose. We analysed the primary outcome by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01413022. RESULTS: Between April 19, 2012, and Nov 12, 2014, we treated 47 patients with FOLFIRINOX alone (n=8) or with FOLFIRINOX plus PF-04136309 (n=39). One patient had a dose-limiting toxic effect in the dose de-escalation group receiving FOLFIRINOX plus PF-04136309 at 500 mg twice daily (n=6); this dose was established as the recommended phase 2 dose. We pooled patients in the expansion-phase group (n=33) with those in the dose de-escalation group that received PF-04136309 at the recommended phase 2 dose for assessment of treatment-related toxicity. Six (75%) of the eight patients receiving FOLFIRINOX alone were assessed for treatment toxicity, after exclusion of two (25%) patients due to insurance coverage issues. The median duration of follow-up for treatment toxicity was 72·0 days (IQR 49·5-89·0) in the FOLFIRINOX alone group and 77·0 days (70·0-90·5) in the FOLFIRINOX plus PF-04136309 group. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Two (5%) patients in the FOLFIRINOX plus PF-04136309 group stopped treatment earlier than planned due to treatment-related toxic effects. Grade 3 or higher adverse events reported in at least 10% of the patients receiving PF-04136309 included neutropenia (n=27), febrile neutropenia (n=7), lymphopenia (n=4), diarrhoea (n=6), and hypokalaemia (n=7). Grade 3 or higher adverse events reported in at least 10% of patients receiving FOLFIRINOX alone were neutropenia (n=6), febrile neutropenia (n=1), anaemia (n=2), lymphopenia (n=1), diarrhoea (n=2), hypoalbuminaemia (n=1), and hypokalaemia (n=3). Therapy was terminated because of treatment-related toxicity in one (17%) of the six patients receiving FOLFIRINOX alone. 16 (49%) of 33 patients receiving FOLFIRINOX plus PF-04136309 who had undergone repeat imaging achieved an objective tumour response, with local tumour control achieved in 32 (97%) patients. In the FOLFIRINOX alone group, none of the five patients with repeat imaging achieved an objective response, although four (80%) of those patients achieved stable disease. INTERPRETATION: CCR2-targeted therapy with PF-04136309 in combination with FOLFIRINOX is safe and tolerable. FUNDING: Washington University-Pfizer Biomedical Collaborative.