Biopsy confirmation of metastatic sites in breast cancer patients:clinical impact and future perspectives

Determination of hormone receptor (estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status in the primary tumor is clinically relevant to define breast cancer subtypes, clinical outcome,and the choice of therapy. Retrospective and prospective studies suggest that there is substantial discordance in receptor status between primary and recurrent breast cancer. Despite this evidence and current recommendations,the acquisition of tissue from metastatic deposits is not routine practice. As a consequence, therapeutic decisions for treatment in the metastatic setting are based on the features of the primary tumor. Reasons for this attitude include the invasiveness of the procedure and the unreliable outcome of biopsy, in particular for biopsies of lesions at complex visceral sites. Improvements in interventional radiology techniques mean that most metastatic sites are now accessible by minimally invasive methods, including surgery. In our opinion, since biopsies are diagnostic and changes in biological features between the primary and secondary tumors can occur, the routine biopsy of metastatic disease needs to be performed. In this review, we discuss the rationale for biopsy of suspected breast cancer metastases, review issues and caveats surrounding discordance of biomarker status between primary and metastatic tumors, and provide insights for deciding when to perform biopsy of suspected metastases and which one (s) to biopsy. We also speculate on the future translational implications for biopsy of suspected metastatic lesions in the context of clinical trials and the establishment of bio-banks of biopsy material taken from metastatic sites. We believe that such bio-banks will be important for exploring mechanisms of metastasis. In the future,advances in targeted therapy will depend on the availability of metastatic tissue

Morbidity and mortality after anaesthesia in early life: results of the European prospective multicentre observational study, neonate and children audit of anaesthesia practice in Europe (NECTARINE)

BACKGROUND: Neonates and infants requiring anaesthesia are at risk of physiological instability and complications, but triggers for peri-anaesthetic interventions and associations with subsequent outcome are unknown. METHODS: This prospective, observational study recruited patients up to 60 weeks' postmenstrual age undergoing anaesthesia for surgical or diagnostic procedures from 165 centres in 31 European countries between March 2016 and January 2017. The primary aim was to identify thresholds of pre-determined physiological variables that triggered a medical intervention. The secondary aims were to evaluate morbidities, mortality at 30 and 90 days, or both, and associations with critical events. RESULTS: Infants (n=5609) born at mean (standard deviation [sd]) 36.2 (4.4) weeks postmenstrual age (35.7% preterm) underwent 6542 procedures within 63 (48) days of birth. Critical event(s) requiring intervention occurred in 35.2% of cases, mainly hypotension (>30% decrease in blood pressure) or reduced oxygenation (SpO2 <85%). Postmenstrual age influenced the incidence and thresholds for intervention. Risk of critical events was increased by prior neonatal medical conditions, congenital anomalies, or both (relative risk [RR]=1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04–1.28) and in those requiring preoperative intensive support (RR=1.27; 95% CI, 1.15–1.41). Additional complications occurred in 16.3% of patients by 30 days, and overall 90-day mortality was 3.2% (95% CI, 2.7–3.7%). Co-occurrence of intraoperative hypotension, hypoxaemia, and anaemia was associated with increased risk of morbidity (RR=3.56; 95% CI, 1.64–7.71) and mortality (RR=19.80; 95% CI, 5.87–66.7). CONCLUSIONS: Variability in physiological thresholds that triggered an intervention, and the impact of poor tissue oxygenation on patient's outcome, highlight the need for more standardised perioperative management guidelines for neonates and infants

Difficult tracheal intubation in neonates and infants. NEonate and Children audiT of Anaesthesia pRactice IN Europe (NECTARINE): a prospective European multicentre observational study

BACKGROUND: Neonates and infants are susceptible to hypoxaemia in the perioperative period. The aim of this study was to analyse interventions related to anaesthesia tracheal intubations in this European cohort and identify their clinical consequences. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of tracheal intubations of the European multicentre observational trial (NEonate and Children audiT of Anaesthesia pRactice IN Europe [NECTARINE]) in neonates and small infants with difficult tracheal intubation. The primary endpoint was the incidence of difficult intubation and the related complications. The secondary endpoints were the risk factors for severe hypoxaemia attributed to difficult airway management, and 30 and 90 day outcomes. RESULTS: Tracheal intubation was planned in 4683 procedures. Difficult tracheal intubation, defined as two failed attempts of direct laryngoscopy, occurred in 266 children (271 procedures) with an incidence (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 5.8% (95% CI, 5.1–6.5). Bradycardia occurred in 8% of the cases with difficult intubation, whereas a significant decrease in oxygen saturation (SpO2<90% for 60 s) was reported in 40%. No associated risk factors could be identified among co-morbidities, surgical, or anaesthesia management. Using propensity scoring to adjust for confounders, difficult anaesthesia tracheal intubation did not lead to an increase in 30 and 90 day morbidity or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study demonstrate a high incidence of difficult tracheal intubation in children less than 60 weeks post-conceptual age commonly resulting in severe hypoxaemia. Reassuringly, the morbidity and mortality at 30 and 90 days was not increased by the occurrence of a difficult intubation event

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

ICAR: endoscopic skull‐base surgery

n/

Neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age after general anaesthesia and awake-regional anaesthesia in infancy (GAS): an international multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Preclinical data suggest that general anaesthetics affect brain development. There is mixed evidence from cohort studies that young children exposed to anaesthesia can have an increased risk of poor neurodevelopmental outcome. We aimed to establish whether general anaesthesia in infancy has any effect on neurodevelopmental outcome. Here we report the secondary outcome of neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age in the General Anaesthesia compared to Spinal anaesthesia (GAS) trial. METHODS: In this international assessor-masked randomised controlled equivalence trial, we recruited infants younger than 60 weeks postmenstrual age, born at greater than 26 weeks' gestation, and who had inguinal herniorrhaphy, from 28 hospitals in Australia, Italy, the USA, the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. Infants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either awake-regional anaesthesia or sevoflurane-based general anaesthesia. Web-based randomisation was done in blocks of two or four and stratified by site and gestational age at birth. Infants were excluded if they had existing risk factors for neurological injury. The primary outcome of the trial will be the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence Third Edition (WPPSI-III) Full Scale Intelligence Quotient score at age 5 years. The secondary outcome, reported here, is the composite cognitive score of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development III, assessed at 2 years. The analysis was as per protocol adjusted for gestational age at birth. A difference in means of five points (1/3 SD) was predefined as the clinical equivalence margin. This trial is registered with ANZCTR, number ACTRN12606000441516 and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00756600. FINDINGS: Between Feb 9, 2007, and Jan 31, 2013, 363 infants were randomly assigned to receive awake-regional anaesthesia and 359 to general anaesthesia. Outcome data were available for 238 children in the awake-regional group and 294 in the general anaesthesia group. In the as-per-protocol analysis, the cognitive composite score (mean [SD]) was 98.6 (14.2) in the awake-regional group and 98.2 (14.7) in the general anaesthesia group. There was equivalence in mean between groups (awake-regional minus general anaesthesia 0.169, 95% CI -2.30 to 2.64). The median duration of anaesthesia in the general anaesthesia group was 54 min. INTERPRETATION: For this secondary outcome, we found no evidence that just less than 1 h of sevoflurane anaesthesia in infancy increases the risk of adverse neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age compared with awake-regional anaesthesia. FUNDING: Australia National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Health Technologies Assessment-National Institute for Health Research UK, National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration, Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, Pfizer Canada, Italian Ministry of Heath, Fonds NutsOhra, and UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN)