First experiences of a hospital-based 3D printing facility - an analytical observational study.

PURPOSE: To identify the clinical impact and potential benefits of in-house 3D-printed objects through a questionnaire, focusing on three principal areas: patient education; interdisciplinary cooperation; preoperative planning and perioperative execution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Questionnaires were sent from January 2021 to August 2022. Participants were directed to rate on a scale from 1 to 10. RESULTS: The response rate was 43%. The results of the rated questions are averages. 84% reported using 3D-printed objects in informing the patient about their condition/procedure. Clinician-reported improvement in patient understanding of their procedure/disease was 8.1. The importance of in-house placement was rated 9.2. 96% reported using the 3D model to confer with colleagues. Delay in treatment due to 3D printing lead-time was 1.8. The degree with which preoperative planning was altered was 6.9. The improvement in clinician perceived preoperative confidence was 8.3. The degree with which the scope of the procedure was affected, in regard to invasiveness, was 5.6, wherein a score of 5 is taken to mean unchanged. Reduction in surgical duration was rated 5.7. CONCLUSION: Clinicians report the utilization of 3D printing in surgical specialties improves procedures pre- and intraoperatively, has a potential for increasing patient engagement and insight, and in-house location of a 3D printing center results in improved interdisciplinary cooperation and allows broader access with only minimal delay in treatment due to lead-time.

Soluble programmed death ligand 1 as prognostic biomarker in non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving nivolumab, pembrolizumab or atezolizumab therapy.

Many studies have focused on the prognostic role of soluble programmed death ligand 1 (sPD-L1) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but outcomes are ambiguous and further investigations are needed. We addressed the matter by studying sPD-L1 in baseline samples and in longitudinal samples taken prior to three subsequent cycles of anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 treatments. Eighty patients with NSCLC were enrolled. Median sPD-L1 level at baseline was 52 pg/mL [95% confidence interval (CI) 49-57]. In patients treated with pembrolizumab and nivolumab, the concentration of sPD-L1 remained rather stable throughout treatment. In contrast, sPD-L1 rose by 50-fold following the first cycle of atezolizumab therapy. We found the baseline level of sPD-L1 to be related to overall survival (OS) after two years of follow-up in simple Cox analysis (p = 0.006) and multiple Cox Regression, hazard ratio 1.02 (95% CI 1.00-1.03) (p = 0.033). There was no association between sPD-L1 and tissue PD-L1 expression, overall response rate, or progression free survival. In conclusion, sPD-L1 measured in baseline serum samples may be associated with OS in NSCLC patients receiving anti-PD1/anti-PD-L1 treatment. Importantly, the results signify that further research is warranted to explore the clinical utility of sPD-L1 in patients treated with anti-PD-L1.