Muir-Torre syndrome and recent updates on screening guidelines: The link between colorectal tumors and sebaceous adenomas in unusual locations.

BACKGROUND: Muir-Torre syndrome (MTS) is a rare genetic disorder that is caused by mismatch repair (MMR) protein mutations. MTS increases the risk of developing skin and gastrointestinal tumors such as sebaceous adenomas (SAs), sebaceous carcinomas, colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, and ovarian cancer. The risk of developing these types of tumors varies depending on the involved mutation and the individual's family history risk. CASE PRESENTATION: A 47-year-old male presented with multiple skin lesions on the scalp, face, flank, and back. The examination revealed well-circumscribed, dome-shaped papules with a yellowish appearance with white oily material in the center. Histopathologic examination showed a well-circumscribed sebaceous neoplasm consistent with a mixture of basaloid cells and lobules of bland-appearing mature adipocytes that communicate directly to the surface epithelium. Focal cystic changes and peritumoral lymphocytic infiltrate were noted. Increased mitotic figures were seen in the basaloid cell component. The overall findings were consistent with the diagnosis of SAs. MMR staining showed preserved expression in MLH1 and PMS2 proteins, while MSH2 and MSH6 staining showed loss of protein expression. A screening colonoscopy showed numerous colon and rectal tumors, prompting concerns about the likelihood of MTS. Surgical intervention was pursued for complete resection. Histology revealed a diagnosis of mucinous adenocarcinoma/adenocarcinoma with mucinous features of the colon. The diagnosis of MTS was supported by molecular testing that revealed MSH2 germline mutation. The increased likelihood of MTS was attributed to the occurrence of SAs in unusual locations of the head and neck regions, unlike typical cases. CONCLUSION: MTS is a rare clinical condition that necessitates prompt thorough evaluation and periodic surveillance. When SA is encountered in atypical locations, it is important to consider additional testing supported by immunohistochemical staining, molecular testing, and regular screening to exclude the likelihood of MTS.

Partial breast irradiation compared with whole breast irradiation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Early-stage breast cancer is among the most common cancer diagnoses. Adjuvant radiotherapy is an essential component of breast-conserving therapy, and several options exist for tailoring its extent and duration. This study assesses the comparative effectiveness of partial-breast irradiation (PBI) compared with whole-breast irradiation (WBI). METHODS: A systematic review was completed to identify relevant randomized clinical trials and comparative observational studies. Independent reviewers working in pairs selected studies and extracted data. Randomized trial results were pooled using a random effects model. Prespecified main outcomes were ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR), cosmesis, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Fourteen randomized clinical trials and 6 comparative observational studies with 17 234 patients evaluated the comparative effectiveness of PBI. PBI was not statistically significantly different from WBI for IBR at 5 years (RR = 1.34, 95% CI = 0.83 to 2.18; high strength of evidence [SOE]) and 10 years (RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.91; high SOE). Evidence for cosmetic outcomes was insufficient. Statistically significantly fewer acute AEs were reported with PBI compared with WBI, with no statistically significant difference in late AEs. Data from subgroups according to patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were insufficient. Intraoperative radiotherapy was associated with higher IBR at 5, 10, and over than 10 years (high SOE) compared with WBI. CONCLUSIONS: Ipsilateral breast recurrence was not statistically significantly different between PBI and WBI. Acute AEs were less frequent with PBI. This evidence supports the effectiveness of PBI among selected patients with early-stage, favorable-risk breast cancer who are similar to those represented in the included studies.

Perioperative Management of Vitamin K Antagonists and Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The management of patients who are receiving chronic oral anticoagulation therapy and require an elective surgery or an invasive procedure is a common clinical scenario. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the best available evidence to support the development of American College of Chest Physicians guidelines on the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term vitamin K agonist (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and require elective surgery or procedures? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A literature search including multiple databases from database inception through July 16, 2020, was performed. Meta-analyses were conducted when appropriate. RESULTS: In patients receiving VKA (warfarin) undergoing elective noncardiac surgery, shorter (< 3 days) VKA interruption is associated with an increased risk of major bleeding. In patients who required VKA interruption, heparin bridging (mostly with low-molecular-weight heparin [LMWH]) was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of major bleed, representing a very low certainty of evidence (COE). Compared with DOAC interruption 1 to 4 days before surgery, continuing DOACs may be associated with higher risk of bleeding demonstrated in some, but not all studies. In patients who needed DOAC interruption, bridging with LMWH may be associated with a statistically significant increased risk of bleeding, representing a low COE. INTERPRETATION: The certainty in the evidence supporting the perioperative management of anticoagulants remains limited. No high-quality evidence exists to support the practice of heparin bridging during the interruption of VKA or DOAC therapy for an elective surgery or procedure, or for the practice of interrupting VKA therapy for minor procedures, including cardiac device implantation, or continuation of a DOAC vs short-term interruption of a DOAC in the perioperative period.

A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on the Treatment of Hypercalcemia of Malignancy in Adults.

CONTEXT: Hypercalcemia is a common complication of malignancy that is associated with high morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: To support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy in adults. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies that addressed 8 clinical questions prioritized by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Quantitative and qualitative synthesis was performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We reviewed 1949 citations, from which we included 21 studies. The risk of bias for most of the included studies was moderate. A higher proportion of patients who received bisphosphonate achieved resolution of hypercalcemia when compared to placebo. The incidence rate of adverse events was significantly higher in the bisphosphonate group. Comparing denosumab to bisphosphonate, there was no significant difference in the rate of patients who achieved resolution of hypercalcemia. Two-thirds of patients with refractory/recurrent hypercalcemia of malignancy who received denosumab following bisphosphonate therapy achieved resolution of hypercalcemia. Addition of calcitonin to bisphosphonate therapy did not affect the resolution of hypercalcemia, time to normocalcemia, or hypocalcemia. Only indirect evidence was available to address questions on the management of hypercalcemia in tumors associated with high calcitriol levels, refractory/recurrent hypercalcemia of malignancy following the use of bisphosphonates, and the use of calcimimetics in the treatment of hypercalcemia associated with parathyroid carcinoma. The certainty of the evidence to address all 8 clinical questions was low to very low. CONCLUSION: The evidence summarized in this systematic review addresses the benefits and harms of treatments of hypercalcemia of malignancy. Additional information about patients' values and preferences, and other important decisional and contextual factors is needed to facilitate the development of clinical recommendations.

Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: an American college of chest physicians clinical practice guideline

The American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline on the Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy addresses 43 Patients-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) questions related to the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery/procedure. This guideline is separated into four broad categories, encompassing the management of patients who are receiving: (1) a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), mainly warfarin; (2) if receiving a VKA, the use of perioperative heparin bridging, typically with a low-molecular-weight heparin; (3) a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC); and (4) an antiplatelet drug. Strong or conditional practice recommendations are generated based on high, moderate, low, and very low certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for clinical practice guidelines. A multidisciplinary panel generated 44 guideline recommendations for the perioperative management of VKAs, heparin bridging, DOACs, and antiplatelet drugs, of which two are strong recommendations: (1) against the use of heparin bridging in patients with atrial fibrillation; and (2) continuation of VKA therapy in patients having a pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation. There are separate recommendations on the perioperative management of patients who are undergoing minor procedures, comprising dental, dermatologic, ophthalmologic, pacemaker/internal cardiac defibrillator implantation, and GI (endoscopic) procedures. Substantial new evidence has emerged since the 2012 iteration of these guidelines, especially to inform best practices for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a VKA and may require heparin bridging, for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a DOAC, and for patients who are receiving one or more antiplatelet drugs. Despite this new knowledge, uncertainty remains as to best practices for the majority of perioperative management

Perioperative Management of Antiplatelet Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Objective: To summarize the available evidence about the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term antiplatelet therapy and require elective surgery/procedures. Methods: This systematic review supports the development of the American College of Chest Physicians guideline on the perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy. A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane databases was conducted from each database's inception to July 16, 2020. Meta-analyses were conducted when possible. Results: In patients receiving long-term antiplatelet therapy and undergoing elective noncardiac surgery, the available evidence did not show a significant difference in major bleeding between a shorter vs longer antiplatelet interruption, with low certainty of evidence (COE). Compared with patients who received placebo perioperatively, aspirin continuation was associated with increased risk of major bleeding (relative risk [RR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.15-1.50; high COE) and lower risk of major thromboembolism (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.94; moderate COE). During antiplatelet interruption, bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin was associated with increased risk of major bleeding compared with no bridging (RR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.24-2.79; very low COE). Continuation of antiplatelets during minor dental and ophthalmologic procedures was not associated with a statistically significant difference in the risk of major bleeding (very low COE). Conclusion: This systematic review summarizes the current evidence about the perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy and highlights the urgent need for further research, particularly with the increasing prevalence of patients taking 1 or more antiplatelet agents.

Executive Summary: Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline on the Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy addresses 43 Patients-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) questions related to the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery/procedure. This guideline is separated into four broad categories, encompassing the management of patients who are receiving: (1) a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), mainly warfarin; (2) if receiving a VKA, the use of perioperative heparin bridging, typically with a low-molecular-weight heparin; (3) a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC); and (4) an antiplatelet drug. METHODS: Strong or conditional practice recommendations are generated based on high, moderate, low, and very low certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for clinical practice guidelines. RESULTS: A multidisciplinary panel generated 44 guideline recommendations for the perioperative management of VKAs, heparin bridging, DOACs, and antiplatelet drugs, of which two are strong recommendations: (1) against the use of heparin bridging in patients with atrial fibrillation; and (2) continuation of VKA therapy in patients having a pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation. There are separate recommendations on the perioperative management of patients who are undergoing minor procedures, comprising dental, dermatologic, ophthalmologic, pacemaker/internal cardiac defibrillator implantation, and GI (endoscopic) procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial new evidence has emerged since the 2012 iteration of these guidelines, especially to inform best practices for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a VKA and may require heparin bridging, for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a DOAC, and for patients who are receiving one or more antiplatelet drugs. Despite this new knowledge, uncertainty remains as to best practices for the majority of perioperative management questions.

Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline on the Perioperative Management of Antithrombotic Therapy addresses 43 Patients-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) questions related to the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term oral anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and require an elective surgery/procedure. This guideline is separated into four broad categories, encompassing the management of patients who are receiving: (1) a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), mainly warfarin; (2) if receiving a VKA, the use of perioperative heparin bridging, typically with a low-molecular-weight heparin; (3) a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC); and (4) an antiplatelet drug. METHODS: Strong or conditional practice recommendations are generated based on high, moderate, low, and very low certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for clinical practice guidelines. RESULTS: A multidisciplinary panel generated 44 guideline recommendations for the perioperative management of VKAs, heparin bridging, DOACs, and antiplatelet drugs, of which two are strong recommendations: (1) against the use of heparin bridging in patients with atrial fibrillation; and (2) continuation of VKA therapy in patients having a pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation. There are separate recommendations on the perioperative management of patients who are undergoing minor procedures, comprising dental, dermatologic, ophthalmologic, pacemaker/internal cardiac defibrillator implantation, and GI (endoscopic) procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial new evidence has emerged since the 2012 iteration of these guidelines, especially to inform best practices for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a VKA and may require heparin bridging, for the perioperative management of patients who are receiving a DOAC, and for patients who are receiving one or more antiplatelet drugs. Despite this new knowledge, uncertainty remains as to best practices for the majority of perioperative management questions.

A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Hyperglycemia in Adults Hospitalized for Noncritical Illness or Undergoing Elective Surgical Procedures.

CONTEXT: Individuals with diabetes or newly recognized hyperglycemia account for over 30% of noncritically ill hospitalized patients. Management of hyperglycemia in these patients is challenging. OBJECTIVE: To support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for management of hyperglycemia in adults hospitalized for noncritical illness or undergoing elective surgical procedures. METHODS: We searched several databases for studies addressing 10 questions provided by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 94 studies reporting on 135 553 patients. Compared with capillary blood glucose, continuous glucose monitoring increased the number of patients identified with hypoglycemia and decreased mean daily blood glucose (BG) (very low certainty). Data on continuation of insulin pump therapy in hospitalized adults were sparse. In hospitalized patients receiving glucocorticoids, combination neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH) and basal-bolus insulin was associated with lower mean BG compared to basal-bolus insulin alone (very low certainty). Data on NPH insulin vs basal-bolus insulin in hospitalized adults receiving enteral nutrition were inconclusive. Inpatient diabetes education was associated with lower HbA1c at 3 and 6 months after discharge (moderate certainty) and reduced hospital readmissions (very low certainty). Preoperative HbA1c level < 7% was associated with shorter length of stay, lower postoperative BG and a lower number of neurological complications and infections, but a higher number of reoperations (very low certainty). Treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes and mild hyperglycemia was associated with lower frequency of hypoglycemic events than insulin therapy (low certainty). Caloric oral fluids before surgery in adults with diabetes undergoing surgical procedures did not affect outcomes (very low certainty). Counting carbohydrates for prandial insulin dosing did not affect outcomes (very low certainty). Compared with scheduled insulin (basal-bolus or basal insulin + correctional insulin), correctional insulin was associated with higher mean daily BG and fewer hypoglycemic events (low certainty). CONCLUSION: The certainty of evidence supporting many hyperglycemia management decisions is low, emphasizing importance of shared decision-making and consideration of other decisional factors.

A systematic review supporting the Society for Vascular Surgery Guidelines on the management of carotid artery disease.

BACKGROUND: To support the development of guidelines on the management of carotid disease, a writing committee from the Society for Vascular Surgery has commissioned this systematic review. METHODS: We searched multiple data bases for studies addressing five questions: medical management vs carotid revascularization (CEA) in asymptomatic patients, CEA vs carotid artery stenting (CAS) in symptomatic low surgical risk patients, the optimal timing of revascularization after acute stroke, screening high-risk patients for carotid disease, and the optimal sequence of interventions in patients with combined coronary and carotid disease. Studies were selected and appraised by pairs of independent reviewers. Meta-analyses were performed when feasible. RESULTS: Medical management compared with carotid interventions in asymptomatic patients was associated with better early outcome during the first 30 days. However, CEA was associated with significantly lower long-term rate of stroke/death at 5 years. In symptomatic low-risk surgical patients, CEA was associated with a lower risk of stroke, but a significant increase in myocardial infarction compared with CAS during the first 30 days. When the long-term outcome of transfemoral CAS vs CEA in symptomatic patients were examined using preplanned pooled analysis of individual patient data from four randomized trials, the risk of death or stroke within 120 days of the index procedure was 5.5% for CEA and 8.7% for CAS, which lends support that, over the long term, CEA has a superior outcome compared with transfemoral CAS. When managing acute stroke, the comparison of CEA during the first 48 hours to that between day 2 and day 14 did not reveal a statistically significant difference on outcomes during the first 30 days. Registry data show good results with CEA performed in the first week, but not within the first 48 hours. A single risk factor, aside from peripheral artery disease, was associated with low carotid screening yield. Multiple risk factors greatly increase the yield of screening. Evidence on the timing of interventions in patients with combined carotid and coronary disease was sparse and imprecise. Patients without carotid symptoms, who had the carotid intervention first, compared with a combined carotid intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting, had better outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This updated evidence summary supports the Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guidelines for commonly raised clinical scenarios. CEA was superior to medical therapy in the long-term prevention of stroke/death over medical therapy. CEA was also superior to transfemoral CAS in minimizing long-term stroke/death for symptomatic low risk surgical patients. CEA should optimally be performed between 2 and 14 days from the onset of acute stroke. Having multiple risk factors increases the value of carotid screening.

The Effectiveness and Safety of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Chronic Wounds: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and adverse events of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in individuals with lower-extremity diabetic ulcers, lower-extremity venous ulcers, and pressure ulcers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We searched multiple databases from database inception to June 11, 2020, for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared PRP to any other wound care without PRP in adults with lower-extremity diabetic ulcers, lower-extremity venous ulcers, and pressure ulcers. RESULTS: We included 20 randomized controlled trials and five observational studies. Compared with management without PRP, PRP therapy significantly increased complete wound closure in lower-extremity diabetic ulcers (relative risk, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.32, moderate strength of evidence [SOE]), shortened time to complete wound closure, and reduced wound area and depth (low SOE). No significant changes were found in terms of wound infection, amputation, wound recurrence, or hospitalization. In patients with lower-extremity venous ulcers or pressure ulcers, the SOE was insufficient to estimate an effect on critical outcomes, such as complete wound closure or time to complete wound closure. There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events. CONCLUSION: Autologous PRP may increase complete wound closure, shorten healing time, and reduce wound size in individuals with lower-extremity diabetic ulcers. The evidence is insufficient to estimate an effect on wound healing in individuals with lower-extremity venous ulcers or pressure ulcers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42020172817.

Acute Treatments for Episodic Migraine in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Migraine is common and can be associated with significant morbidity, and several treatment options exist for acute therapy. Objective: To evaluate the benefits and harms associated with acute treatments for episodic migraine in adults. Data Sources: Multiple databases from database inception to February 24, 2021. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews that assessed effectiveness or harms of acute therapy for migraine attacks. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. Meta-analysis was performed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman variance correction or by using a fixed-effect model based on the Mantel-Haenszel method if the number of studies was small. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes included pain freedom, pain relief, sustained pain freedom, sustained pain relief, and adverse events. The strength of evidence (SOE) was graded with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Findings: Evidence on triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was summarized from 15 systematic reviews. For other interventions, 115 randomized clinical trials with 28 803 patients were included. Compared with placebo, triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used individually were significantly associated with reduced pain at 2 hours and 1 day (moderate to high SOE) and increased risk of mild and transient adverse events. Compared with placebo, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (low to high SOE), lasmiditan (5-HT1F receptor agonist; high SOE), dihydroergotamine (moderate to high SOE), ergotamine plus caffeine (moderate SOE), acetaminophen (moderate SOE), antiemetics (low SOE), butorphanol (low SOE), and tramadol in combination with acetaminophen (low SOE) were significantly associated with pain reduction and increase in mild adverse events. The findings for opioids were based on low or insufficient SOE. Several nonpharmacologic treatments were significantly associated with improved pain, including remote electrical neuromodulation (moderate SOE), transcranial magnetic stimulation (low SOE), external trigeminal nerve stimulation (low SOE), and noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (moderate SOE). No significant difference in adverse events was found between nonpharmacologic treatments and sham. Conclusions and Relevance: There are several acute treatments for migraine, with varying strength of supporting evidence. Use of triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, dihydroergotamine, calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists, lasmiditan, and some nonpharmacologic treatments was associated with improved pain and function. The evidence for many other interventions, including opioids, was limited.

A Systematic Review Supporting the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Guidelines on the Prevention and Treatment of Adverse Events of Injectable Fillers.

BACKGROUND: As the use of injectable skin fillers increase in popularity, an increase in the reported adverse events is expected. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review supports the development of American Society for Dermatologic Surgery practice guideline on the management of adverse events of skin fillers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Several databases for studies on risk factors or treatments of injection-related visual compromise (IRVC), skin necrosis, inflammatory events, and nodules were searched. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. RESULTS: The review included 182 studies. However, IRVC was very rare (1-2/1,000,000 patients) but had poor prognosis with improvement in 19% of cases. Skin necrosis was more common (approximately 5/1,000) with better prognosis (up to 77% of cases showing improvement). Treatments of IRVC and skin necrosis primarily depend on hyaluronidase injections. Risk of skin necrosis, inflammatory events, and nodules may be lower with certain fillers, brands, injection techniques, and volume. Treatment of inflammatory events and nodules with antibiotics, corticosteroids, 5-FU, and hyaluronidase was associated with high response rate (75%-80%). Most of the studies were small and noncomparative, making the evidence certainty very low. CONCLUSION: Practitioners must have adequate knowledge of anatomy, elicit history of skin filler use, and establish preemptive protocols that prepare the clinical practice to manage complications.

Anticoagulation in COVID-19: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Rapid Guidance From Mayo Clinic.

A higher risk of thrombosis has been described as a prominent feature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This systematic review synthesizes current data on thrombosis risk, prognostic implications, and anticoagulation effects in COVID-19. We included 37 studies from 4070 unique citations. Meta-analysis was performed when feasible. Coagulopathy and thrombotic events were frequent among patients with COVID-19 and further increased in those with more severe forms of the disease. We also present guidance on the prevention and management of thrombosis from a multidisciplinary panel of specialists from Mayo Clinic. The current certainty of evidence is generally very low and continues to evolve.

A Framework for Evidence Synthesis Programs to Respond to a Pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic requires making rapid decisions based on sparse and rapidly changing evidence. Evidence synthesis programs conduct systematic reviews for guideline developers, health systems clinicians, and decision-makers that usually take an average 6 to 8 months to complete. We present a framework for evidence synthesis programs to respond to pandemics that has proven feasible and practical during the COVID-19 response in a large multistate health system employing more than 78,000 people. The framework includes four components: an approach for conducting rapid reviews, a repository of rapid reviews, a registry for all original studies about COVID-19, and twice-weekly prioritized update of new evidence sent to key stakeholders. As COVID-19 will not be our last pandemic, we share the details of this framework to allow replication in other institutions and re-implementation in future pandemics.

Mayo alliance prognostic system for mastocytosis: clinical and hybrid clinical-molecular models.

Systemic mastocytosis (SM) is a clinically heterogeneous disease with prognosis chiefly assigned based on World Health Organization (WHO) morphologic subclassification. We assessed the feasibility of developing contemporary risk models for SM based on clinical and integrated clinical-genetics information. Diagnosis of SM was per WHO criteria, and karyotype and next-generation sequencing data were available in a subset of the total 580 patients (median age, 55 years; range, 18-88 years) seen at the Mayo Clinic between 1968 and 2015. Morphologic subcategories were indolent/smoldering in 291 (50%) and "advanced" in 289 (50%): SM with an associated hematological neoplasm in 199, aggressive SM in 85, and mast cell leukemia in 5. Multivariable analysis of clinical variables identified age >60 years, advanced SM, thrombocytopenia <150 × 109/L, anemia below sex-adjusted normal, and increased alkaline phosphatase (ALP) as independent risk factors for survival; respective hazard ratios (HRs) 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were 2.5 (1.9-3.4), 2.7 (1.8-4.0), 2.5 (1.9-3.4), 2.2 (1.6-3.1), and 2.1 (1.5-3.0). In addition, ASXL1 (HR, 4.5; 95% CI, 2.6-7.6), RUNX1 (HR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.3-10.8), and NRAS (HR, 5.0, 95% CI, 1.5-13.2) mutations were independently associated with inferior survival. Combined clinical, cytogenetic, and molecular risk factor analysis confirmed the independent prognostic contribution of adverse mutations (2.6, 1.6-4.4), advanced SM (4.0, 1.8-10.0), thrombocytopenia (2.8, 1.7-4.5), increased ALP (2.1, 1.2-4.0), and age >60 years (2.2, 1.3-3.6). These data were subsequently used to develop clinical and hybrid clinical-molecular risk models. The current study advances 2 complementary risk models for SM and highlights the independent prognostic contribution of mutations.

Cytogenetic abnormalities in systemic mastocytosis: WHO subcategory-specific incidence and prognostic impact among 348 informative cases.

The World Health Organization (WHO) system lists five morphological categories of systemic mastocytosis (SM): indolent (ISM), smoldering, SM with an associated hematological neoplasm (SM-AHN), aggressive (ASM) and mast cell leukemia (MCL). Recent studies have highlighted the prognostic importance of mutations in SM, including ASXL1, RUNX1, and SRSF2. In contrast, information on incidence of cytogenetic abnormalities in SM and their prognostic relevance, especially in the context of mutations, is limited. In the current study, we retrospectively reviewed the cytogenetic findings in 348 consecutive cases of SM (median age 59 years; 53% males); 41% constituted ISM, 45% SM-AHN, 14% ASM and two cases of MCL. Karyotype was abnormal in 53 (15%) cases with incidences of 6% for ISM, 26% for SM-AHN and 8% for ASM (P < .001); among SM-AHN cases, abnormal karyotype incidences were 0% for SM-AHN-lymphoid and 28% for SM-AHN-myeloid (P < .001). Clinical correlative studies disclosed significant associations between abnormal karyotype and male sex (P = .002), age > 60 years (P = .04), thrombocytopenia (P < .001) and anemia (P < .001), but not with the presence of adverse mutations (P = .19). In univariate analysis, abnormal karyotype was associated with inferior survival (HR 3.0, 95% CI 2.0-4.3), specifically confirmed for ASM (HR 4.9, 95% CI 1.1-16.1) and SM-AHN (HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.7). Sample size adequacy allowed additional multivariable analysis in SM-AHN-myeloid, which disclosed independent prognostic contribution from adverse mutations (P = .003), anemia (P = .003) and thrombocytopenia (P = .001), but not from abnormal karyotype (P = .31). Our observations suggest that mutations are prognostically more relevant than karyotype in SM.