Identification of HEPACAM2 as a novel and specific marker of small cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is the most aggressive neuroendocrine lung cancer, with a dismal 5-year survival rate. No reliable biomarkers or imaging are available for early SCLC detection. In a search for a specific marker of SCLC, this study identified that hepatocyte cell adhesion molecule 2 (HEPACAM2), a member of the immunoglobulin-like superfamily, is highly and specifically expressed in SCLC. METHODS: This study investigated HEPACAM2 expression in patients with SCLC via RNA sequencing and evaluated its relationship to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Immunofluorescence microscopy was used to assess the cellular location of HEPACAM2 and to conduct in vitro and in vivo studies to understand its expression and functional significance. These findings were integrated with databases of patients with SCLC. RESULTS: HEPACAM2 is highly expressed and specific to SCLC. HEPACAM2 levels are inversely correlated with PFS and OS in patients with SCLC and are expressed at all stages. Moreover, HEPACAM2 messenger RNA and its peptides can be detected in the secretomes in cell lines. Positively correlated with ASCL1 expression in SCLC tumors, HEPACAM2 is localized primarily to the plasma membrane and linked to extracellular matrix signaling and cellular migration. A loss of HEPACAM2 in SCLC cells attenuated ASCL1 and MYC expression. Consistent with clinical data, in vitro and in vivo studies suggested that HEPACAM2 promotes cancer cell growth. CONCLUSIONS: With its remarkable specificity, high expression, presence in early disease, and extracellular secretion, HEPACAM2 could be a potential diagnostic cell surface biomarker for early SCLC detection. These findings warrant further investigation into its role in the pathobiology of SCLC.

Radiation reduction in a modern catheterization laboratory: A single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Measures were undertaken at the Cleveland Clinic to reduce radiation exposure to patients and personnel working in the catheterization laboratories. We report our experience with these improved systems over a 7-year period in patients undergoing diagnostic catheterization (DC) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). METHODS: Patients were categorized into preinitiative (2009-2012) and postinitiative (2013-2019) groups in the DC and PCI cohorts. Propensity score matching was done between the pre- and postinitiative groups for both cohorts based on age, sex, body surface area, total fluoroscopy time, and total acquisition time. The effectiveness of radiation reduction measures was assessed by comparing the total air kerma (Ka,r ), and fluoroscopy- and acquisition-mode air kerma in patients in the two groups. RESULTS: In the DC cohort, there was a significant reduction in Ka,r in the postinitiative group in comparison to the preinitiative group (median, 396 vs. 857 mGy; p < 0.001). In the PCI cohort, Ka,r in the postinitiative group was 1265 mGy, which was significantly lower than the corresponding values in the preinitiative group (1994 mGy; p < 0.001). We also observed a significant reduction in fluoroscopy- and acquisition-based air kerma rates, and air kerma area product in the postinitiative group in comparison to the preinitiative group in both matched and unmatched DC and PCI cohorts after the institution of radiation reduction measures. CONCLUSION: There was a significant and sustained reduction in radiation exposure to patients in the catheterization laboratory with the implementation of advanced protocols. Similar algorithms can be applied in other laboratories to achieve a similar reduction in radiation exposure.

Predictors of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Moderate Aortic Stenosis: Implications for Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Although the prognosis and management of severe aortic stenosis has been extensively studied, the risk stratification and outcomes of patients with moderate aortic stenosis remain elusive. METHODS: This study included 674 patients from the Cleveland Clinic Health System with moderate aortic stenosis (aortic valve area, 1-1.5 cm2; mean gradient, 20-40 mm Hg; and peak velocity <4 m/s) and an NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) level within 3 months of index diagnosis. The primary outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events (defined as the composite outcome of progression to severe aortic stenosis requiring aortic valve replacement, heart failure hospitalization, or death) was extracted from the electronic medical record. RESULTS: The mean age was 75.3±12 years, and 57% were men. During a median follow-up of 316 days, the composite end point occurred in 305 patients. There were 132 (19.6%) deaths, 144 (21.4%) heart failure hospitalizations, and 114 (16.9%) patients underwent aortic valve replacement. Elevated NT-proBNP (1.41 [95% CI, 1.01-1.95]; P=0.048), diabetes (1.46 [95% CI, 1.08-1.96]; P=0.01), elevated averaged mitral valve E/e' ratio (hazard ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.18-2.10]; P<0.01), and presence atrial fibrillation at the time of index echocardiogram (hazard ratio, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.15-2.91]; P=0.01) were each independently associated with an increased hazard for the composite outcome and when taken collectively, each of these factors incrementally increased risk. CONCLUSIONS: These results further elucidate the relatively poor short-medium term outcomes and risk stratification of patients with moderate aortic stenosis, supporting randomized trials assessing the efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in this population.

Utilization and outcomes of aortic valve replacements (from the United States readmissions database).

Study objective: Assess the utilization of aortic valve replacements (AVR). Design: Retrospective analysis of the Nationwide Readmissions Database (2016-2018). Setting: Nationwide. Participants: Heart failure patients with concomitant aortic stenosis (CHF + AS cohort) or aortic stenosis with aortic regurgitation (CHF + AS+AR cohort). Interventions: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), no-AVR. Main outcome measures: Utilization of treatment interventions. Results: In the CHF + AS cohort, TAVI, SAVR and no-AVR were done in 9.3 %, 10.8 % and 79.9 % of patients respectively. Similarly, majority of CHF + AS+AR patients were managed with no-AVR (53.2 %). Of patients managed with no-AVR in the first six months of each year, only 7.9 % of CHF + AS and 11.8 % of CHF + AS+AR patients underwent AVR in the subsequent six months of the year. No-AVR patients had worse short-term outcomes in comparison to AVR recipients. Conclusion: More studies are needed to understand the timing, indications and utilization of AVR in this population.