ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma determines treatment and prognostic factors and improves disease-specific survival. To risk-stratify patients for sentinel lymph node biopsy consideration, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Melanoma Institute Australia developed nomograms to predict sentinel lymph node positivity. We aimed to compare the accuracy of these 2 nomograms. METHODS: A multi-institutional study of patients with melanoma receiving sentinel lymph node biopsy between September 2018 and December 2022 was performed. The accuracy of the 2 risk prediction tools in determining a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy was analyzed using receiver operating characteristic curves and area under the curve. RESULTS: In total, 532 patients underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma; 98 (18.4%) had positive sentinel lymph node. Increasing age was inversely related to sentinel lymph node positivity (P < .01); 35.7% of patients ≤30 years had positive sentinel lymph node compared with 9.7% of patients ≥75 years. When we analyzed the entire study population, accuracy of the 2 risk prediction tools was equal (area under the curveMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: 0.693; area under the curveMIA: 0.699). However, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center tool was a better predictor in patients aged ≥75 years (area under the curveMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: 0.801; area under the curveMelanoma Institute Australia: 0.712, P < .01) but Melanoma Institute Australia tool performed better in patients with a higher mitotic index (mitoses/mm2 ≥2; area under the curveMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: 0.659; area under the curveMelanoma Institute Australia: 0.717, P = .027). Both models were poor predictors of sentinel lymph node positivity in young patients (age ≤30 years; area under the curveMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: 0.456; area under the curveMelanoma Institute Australia: 0.589, P = .283). CONCLUSION: The current study suggests that the 2 risk stratification tools differ in their abilities to predict sentinel lymph node positivity in specific populations: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center tool is a better predictor for older patients, whereas Melanoma Institute Australia tool is more accurate in patients with a higher mitotic index. Both nomograms performed poorly in predicting sentinel lymph node positivity in young patients.
ABSTRACT
Background: Head-down tackling has been associated with higher rates of head and neck injuries and less successful tackles compared with head-up tackling in American football. In rugby, head and neck injuries have been associated with tackling, with the tackler's head positioned in front of the ball carrier. Purpose: To assess the success and risks of tackling techniques used in the English Rugby Premiership matches. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Three reviewers analyzed 1000 consecutive solo defensive tackling attempts during the 2022 to 2023 season in 6 English Rugby Premiership matches. Slow-motion replays were used to analyze the success of the tackling attempt in terms of head angulation (head up vs head down), head position relative to the offensive player's waist at point of contact, and tackling method (inside shoulder, arm, head across the bow, and head-to-head). The chi-square test or Fisher exact test was used to analyze categorical data, and the 2-tailed Student t test or the Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze continuous data. Results: The mean interrater reliabilities for analyzing the tackles were good across all groups (κ = 0.715). Head-up and head-down tackling occurred in 848 tackle attempts (84.8%) and 152 tackle attempts (15.2%), respectively. Head-up tackles were successful in 80.7% of the tackle attempts compared with 71.1% of the head-down tackle attempts (P = .0072). Tackles made at or above the waist were successful in 80.7% of the tackle attempts compared with 73.1% of tackles below the waist (P = .0193). The inside-shoulder technique had the highest successful tackle rate at 90.8%, compared with 44.2% with the arm technique (P < .0001) and 72.4% with the head-across-the-bow technique (P < .0001). The inside-shoulder technique resulted in head-up tackling in 84.8% of players compared with 59.8% with the head-across-the-bow technique (P < .0001) and 94.9% with arm tackling (P = .0001). There were 4 recorded injuries to the tackler: 2 neck injuries, 1 shoulder injury, and 1 wrist/hand injury. Conclusion: Head-up tackling, tackles made at or above the level of the offensive player's waist, and inside-shoulder tackling were found to be more efficient in producing successful tackles. The head-down, tackling below the waist, and head-across-the-bow techniques were associated with poor tackling and lower success rates.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Recently, the association between ATRX and a more aggressive sarcoma phenotype has been shown. We performed a retrospective study of sarcomas from an individual institution to evaluate ATRX as a prognosticator in soft tissue sarcoma. Experimental Design. 128 sarcomas were collected from a single institution and stained for ATRX. The prognostic significance of these markers was evaluated in a smaller cohort of primary soft tissue sarcomas (n = 68). Kaplan-Meier curves were created for univariate analysis, and Cox regression was utilized for multivariate analysis. Results: High expression of ATRX was found to be a positive prognostic indicator for overall survival and metastasis-free survival in our group of soft tissue sarcomas both in univariate analysis and multivariate analysis (HR: 0.38 (0.17-0.85), P=0.02 and HR: 0.49 (0.24-0.99), P=0.05, respectively). Conclusions: High expression of ATRX is a positive prognostic indicator of overall survival and metastasis-free survival in patients with STS. This is consistent with studies in osteosarcoma, which indicate possible mechanisms through which loss of ATRX leads to more aggressive phenotypes. Future prospective clinical studies are required to validate the prognostic significance of these findings.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Neck injury is a common and often debilitating injury among athletes participating in American football. Limited data exists regarding neck injuries among elite athletes in the National Football League (NFL). To characterize the epidemiology of non-season ending, season-ending, and career-ending neck injuries in the NFL from 2016 through 2021. METHODS: Athletes who sustained neck injuries were identified using the NFL's injured reserve (IR) list between the 2016 and 2021 seasons. Demographics and return to sport (RTS) data were collected. Available game footages were reviewed to identify the mechanism of injury (MOI). Injury incidence rates were calculated based on per team play basis. RESULTS: During the 6-year study period, 464 players (mean age 26.8 ± 3.2 years) were placed on the injury reserve list due to neck injuries. There were 285 defensive players and 179 offensive players injured (61.4 vs 38.6%, respectively, p < 0.001). Defensive back was the most common position to sustain a neck injury (111 players, 23.9%). 407 players (87.7%) sustained non-season-ending injuries with a mean RTS at 9.2 ± 11.3 days. 36 players (7.8%) sustained season-ending injuries with a mean RTS at 378.6 ± 162.0 days. 21 players (4.5%) sustained career-ending injuries. The overall incidence of neck injuries was 23.5 per 10,000 team plays. The incidence of season-ending injuries and career-ending injuries were 1.82 and 1.06 per 10,000 team plays, respectively. There were 38 injuries with available footages for MOI assessment (23 non-season-ending, 9 season-ending, 6 career-ending). Head-to-head contact was seen in 15 injuries (39.5%), head-down tackling in 11 injuries (28.9%), direct extremity-to-head contact in 7 injuries (18.4%), and head-to-ground contact in 5 injuries (13.2%). There was no significant difference in age, position, or MOI among players sustaining non-season-ending, season-ending, and career-ending injuries. CONCLUSION: There is a high incidence of neck injuries among NFL athletes with predictable MOIs including head-to-head contact, head-down tackling, direct extremity-to-head contact, and head-to-ground contact. Defensive players were more likely to sustain neck injuries compared to offensive players. Defensive back was the most common position to sustain a neck injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.