Effectiveness of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Various Tumor Types Treated by Low, Per-Weight, and Conventional Doses at a Tertiary Care Center in Mumbai.

PURPOSE: The cost of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) limits their accessibility to a small number of patients with cancer in low- and middle-income countries. Early-phase clinical trials have shown target inhibition and high activity at doses lower than those registered and evaluated in clinical trials. Here, we report everyday experience of using ICIs in 100 Indian patients, many of whom received lower doses of ICIs. METHODS: Consecutive patients who received at least one dose of an ICI irrespective of tumor type at a tertiary care hospital in Mumbai, India, that was able to access ICIs for its patients were enrolled. The objectives were to study the doses used over a 3-year time period, and the effectiveness of therapy, assessed primarily by the overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival were secondary end points. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were treated with conventional doses of ICIs, 29 patients received lower doses per body weight, and 46 patients received low-dose treatment. The median number of cycles received was 5 (range, 1-28). Seventy-eight patients received ICIs in a palliative setting. The median follow-up time was 10.2, 9.8, and 3.9 months for those receiving fixed approved dosing, per body weight dosing, and low-dose treatment, respectively. There was a trend with time to prescribe lower doses. Response evaluation was available for 92 patients. Twenty-one (five-adjuvant and 16-palliative) patients received ICIs only. The ORR did not differ statistically among different dosing groups, but comparisons are confounded by inclusion of different ICIs, different tumor sites, and concurrent treatments. The median OS was 6.8 (range, 4.6-9.0) months. CONCLUSION: Adoption of per-body weight and lower dosing of ICIs appears to give acceptable outcomes. Lower dosing can improve access and timely delivery of ICIs in low- and middle-income countries.

Salvage of a severely mangled limb following traumatic injury.

Management of a severely damaged extremity poses a dilemma-whether to perform a primary amputation or attempt limb salvage. A multitude of factors-such as the extent of neurovascular injury, limb ischaemia time, severity of bone and soft tissue loss, physiological reserve of the patient and availability of surgical expertise and resources-influence this decision. The Mangled Extremity Severity Score (MESS) was developed as a predictor of the need for limb amputation, and a MESS of 7 or more is considered a predictor of primary amputation. Here we describe a case where a man in his 20s sustained traumatic avulsion of his right ankle with severe neurovascular damage and multiple tendon injuries onboard a ship at high sea. Despite a MESS of 10, limb ischaemia time of more than 10 hours and injuries to all three extremity vessels (anterior tibial, posterior tibial and peroneal arteries), limb salvage was successfully carried out at a level-II trauma centre.

A prospective randomized controlled study to compare the efficacy and safety of barbed sutures versus standard fixation techniques using tackers in laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair.

Background: Laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia mesh repair (LVIHR) has become the standard of care due to shorter recovery time, low rate of complication and recurrence. The most common fixation technique for mesh is by tackers but results in patients having more pain in the early postoperative period. One modality to reduce pain has been to use intracorporeal conventional sutures but with the disadvantage of inherent difficulty in handling, suturing and knotting which is obviated by barbed sutures. Methods: The study was conducted over a period of two years. Sixty patients with primary ventral and incisional hernia were randomized to either fixation of mesh with barbed sutures or to tackers with transfacial sutures. Primary end points were used to evaluate and compare mesh fixation time, early postoperative pain and complications, whereas secondary end points were used to compare the incidence of chronic pain and recurrence. Results: Of the 60 patients, 51% had primary ventral hernia, and the rest had incisional hernia. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score for the barbed suture group at all intervals postoperatively was significantly lower than that for tackers. The mean time taken for fixation in the tacker group was significantly lower. Only one patient under the tacker group developed recurrence. Conclusion: Barbed suture group had significantly less pain and is economical with the same rates of recurrence as compared with tackers. Hence, low pain scores, cost effectiveness and relatively easier intracorporeal suturing make barbed sutures a viable alternative for intracorporeal mesh fixation in LVIHR.

Neurosurgical Outcomes, Protocols, and Resource Management During Lockdown: Early Institutional Experience from One of the World's Largest COVID 19 Hotspots.

BACKGROUND: As the COVID-19 pandemic surpasses 1 year, it is prudent to reflect on the challenges faced and the management strategies employed to tackle this overwhelming health care crisis. We undertook this study to validate our institutional protocols, which were formulated to cater to the change in volume and pattern of neurosurgical cases during the raging pandemic. METHODS: All admitted patients scheduled to undergo major neurosurgical intervention during the lockdown period (15 March 2020 to 15 September 2020) were included in the study. The data involving surgery outcomes, disease pattern, anesthesia techniques, patient demographics, as well as COVID-19 status, were analyzed and compared with similar retrospective data of neurosurgical patients operated during the same time period in the previous year (15 March 2019 to 15 September 2019). RESULTS: Barring significant increase in surgery for stroke (P = 0.008) and hydrocephalus (P <0.001), the overall case load of neurosurgery during the study period in 2020 was 42.75% of that in 2019 (P < 0.001), attributable to a significant reduction in elective spine surgeries (P < 0.001). However, no significant difference was observed in the overall incidence of emergency and essential surgeries undertaken during the 2 time periods (P = 0.482). There was an increased incidence in the use of monitored anesthesia care techniques during emergency and essential neurosurgical procedures by the anesthesia team in 2020 (P < 0.001). COVID-19 patients had overall poor outcomes (P = 0.003), with significant increase in mortality among those subjected to general anesthesia vis-a-vis monitored anesthesia care (P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a significant decrease in neurosurgical workload during the COVID-19 lockdown period in 2020, the volume of emergency and essential surgeries did not change much compared with the previous year. Surgery in COVID-19 patients is best avoided, unless critical, as the outcome in these patients is not favorable. The employment of monitored anesthesia care techniques like awake craniotomy and regional anesthesia facilitate a better outcome in the ongoing COVID-19 era.