Effect of bladder volume on measured intravesical pressure: a prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION: Correct bedside measurement of intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) is important. The bladder method is considered as the gold standard for indirect IAP measurement, but the instillation volumes reported in the literature vary substantially. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of instillation volume on intra-bladder pressure (IBP) as an estimation for IAP in critically ill patients. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study in 13 sedated and mechanically ventilated patients, we used a revised closed system repeated measurement technique for measurement of IBP. After the system was flushed, IBP was measured with 25 ml increments up to 300 ml. The absolute bias for each volume was calculated as IBP at a given volume minus IBP at zero volume. RESULTS: In total, 30 measurement sets were performed (mean 2.3 per patient). The median IBP at 25 ml was already significantly higher than IBP at zero volume (7.5 versus 6 mmHg). There was no correlation between IBP at zero volume and absolute IBP bias at any bladder volume. Median absolute IBP bias was 1.5 mmHg at 50 ml; 2.5 mmHg at 100 ml; 5.5 mmHg at 150 ml; and up to 11 mmHg at 300 ml. CONCLUSION: Larger instillation volumes than the usually recommended 50 ml to estimate IAP by bladder pressure may cause clinically relevant overestimation of IAP. Small volumes to a maximum of 25 ml, enough to create a fluid column and to remove air, may be sufficient

PET-CT Suggestive of Lymphoma but Spirochetes in Lymph Node Biopsy: Careful for Prozone Phenomenon in Syphilis

Image in Clinical Medicin

Adjunctive Volasertib in Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia not Eligible for Standard Induction Therapy: A Randomized, Phase 3 Trial

Terapia de inducción estándar; Volasertib adyuvante; Leucemia mieloide agudaStandard Induction Therapy; Adjunctive Volasertib; Acute Myeloid LeukemiaTeràpia d'inducció estàndard; Volasertib adjuvant; Leucèmia mieloide agudaIn this phase 3 trial, older patients with acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to receive the polo-like kinase inhibitor, volasertib (V; 350 mg intravenous on days 1 and 15 in 4-wk cycles), combined with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC; 20 mg subcutaneous, twice daily, days 1–10; n = 444), or LDAC plus placebo (P; n = 222). Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); key secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Primary ORR analysis at recruitment completion included patients randomized ≥5 months beforehand; ORR was 25.2% for V+LDAC and 16.8% for P+LDAC (n = 371; odds ratio 1.66 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95–2.89]; P = 0.071). At final analysis (≥574 OS events), median OS was 5.6 months for V+LDAC and 6.5 months for P+LDAC (n = 666; hazard ratio 0.97 [95% CI, 0.8–1.2]; P = 0.757). The most common adverse events (AEs) were infections/infestations (grouped term; V+LDAC, 81.3%; P+LDAC, 63.5%) and febrile neutropenia (V+LDAC, 60.4%; P+LDAC, 29.3%). Fatal AEs occurred in 31.2% with V+LDAC versus 18.0% with P+LDAC, most commonly infections/infestations (V+LDAC, 17.1%; P+LDAC, 6.3%). Lack of OS benefit with V+LDAC versus P+LDAC may reflect increased early mortality with V+LDAC from myelosuppression and infections.This study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim

Clinical implications of measurable residual disease in AML : review of current evidence

Despite the fact that 80% of adult acute myeloid leukaemia patients reach complete morphological remission after induction chemotherapy, many of them relapse. Many studies have shown that detection of minimal residual disease (defined as 'any detectable evidence of persistent leukaemic cells during complete morphological remission') has an added value in prediction of relapse and survival, and is more than just a surrogate marker for already known risk factors in AML. As such, the behaviour of the disease during treatment might become equally or even more important to decide whether or not an upgrade of treatment (such as an allogeneic stem cell transplantation) is necessary to improve outcome. However, there are still many open issues as to what the ideal time point is to measure MRD, which threshold is clinically significant, what sample (peripheral blood or bone marrow) should be used and how we can standardize tests so that results from different labs become comparable. This review gives an overview of currently available evidence regarding technical issues, prognostic impact and MRD-directed treatment in AML

Crizotinib in Advanced, Chemoresistant Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Lymphoma Patients

Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive lymphomas respond to chemotherapy, but relapses, which bear a poor prognosis, occur. Crizotinib inhibits ALK in vitro and in vivo and was administered as monotherapy to 11 ALK+ lymphoma patients who were resistant/refractory to cytotoxic therapy. The overall response rate was 10 of 11 (90.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 58.7% to 99.8%). Disease status at the latest follow-up is as follows: four patients are in complete response (CR) (months >21, >30, >35, >40) under continuous crizotinib administration; 4 patients had progression of disease (months 1, 2, 2, 2); 1 patient obtained CR on crizotinib, received an allogeneic bone marrow transplant, and is in CR; 2 patients (treated before and/or after allogeneic bone marrow transplant) obtained and are still in CR but they have stopped crizotinib. Overall and progression-free survival rates at 2 years are 72.7% (95% CI = 39.1% to 94.0%) and 63.7% (95% CI = 30.8% to 89.1%), respectively. ALK mutations conferring resistance to crizotinib in vitro could be identified in relapsed patients. Crizotinib exerted a potent antitumor activity with durable responses in advanced, heavily pretreated ALK+ lymphoma patients, with a benign safety profil

Adjunctive Volasertib in Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia not Eligible for Standard Induction Therapy : A Randomized, Phase 3 Trial

In this phase 3 trial, older patients with acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to receive the polo-like kinase inhibitor, volasertib (V; 350 mg intravenous on days 1 and 15 in 4-wk cycles), combined with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC; 20 mg subcutaneous, twice daily, days 1-10; n = 444), or LDAC plus placebo (P; n = 222). Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); key secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Primary ORR analysis at recruitment completion included patients randomized >= 5 months beforehand; ORR was 25.2% for V+LDAC and 16.8% for P+LDAC (n = 371; odds ratio 1.66 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95-2.89]; P = 0.071). At final analysis (>= 574 OS events), median OS was 5.6 months for V+LDAC and 6.5 months for P+LDAC (n = 666; hazard ratio 0.97 [95% CI, 0.8-1.2]; P = 0.757). The most common adverse events (AEs) were infections/infestations (grouped term; V+LDAC, 81.3%; P+LDAC, 63.5%) and febrile neutropenia (V+LDAC, 60.4%; P+LDAC, 29.3%). Fatal AEs occurred in 31.2% with V+LDAC versus 18.0% with P+LDAC, most commonly infections/infestations (V+LDAC, 17.1%; P+LDAC, 6.3%). Lack of OS benefit with V+LDAC versus P+LDAC may reflect increased early mortality with V+LDAC from myelosuppression and infections.Peer reviewe

Idasanutlin plus cytarabine in relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia: results of the MIRROS trial

The phase III MIRROS trial (NCT02545283) evaluated the efficacy and safety of the small-molecule MDM2 antagonist idasanutlin plus cytarabine in patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (R/R AML). Adults (N=447) with R/R AML whose disease relapsed or was refractory after ≤2 prior induction regimens as initial treatment or following salvage chemotherapy regimen, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2 were enrolled regardless of TP53 mutation status and randomly assigned 2:1 to idasanutlin 300 mg or placebo orally twice daily plus cytarabine 1 g/m2 intravenously on days 1 to 5 of 28-day cycles. At primary analysis (cutoff, November 2019), 436 patients were enrolled, including 355 in the TP53 wild-type intention-to-treat (TP53WT-ITT) population. The primary endpoint, overall survival in the TP53WT-ITT population, was not met (median, 8.3 vs 9.1 months with idasanutlin-cytarabine vs placebo-cytarabine; stratified hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.81-1.45; p = .58). The complete remission (CR) rate, a key secondary endpoint, was 20.3% vs 17.1% (odds ratio [OR], 1.23; 95% CI, 0.70-2.18). The overall response rate (ORR) was 38.8% vs 22.0% (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.36-3.72). Common any-grade adverse events (≥10% incidence in any arm) were diarrhea (87.0% vs 32.9%), febrile neutropenia (52.8% vs 49.3%), and nausea (52.5% vs 31.5%). In summary, despite improved ORR, adding idasanutlin to cytarabine did not improve overall survival or CR rates in patients with R/R AML

Adjunctive volasertib in patients with acute myeloid leukemia not eligible for standard induction therapy: a randomized, phase 3 trial

In this phase 3 trial, older patients with acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to receive the polo-like kinase inhibitor, volasertib (V; 350 mg intravenous on days 1 and 15 in 4-wk cycles), combined with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC; 20 mg subcutaneous, twice daily, days 1–10; n = 444), or LDAC plus placebo (P; n = 222). Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); key secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Primary ORR analysis at recruitment completion included patients randomized ≥5 months beforehand; ORR was 25.2% for V+LDAC and 16.8% for P+LDAC (n = 371; odds ratio 1.66 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95–2.89]; P = 0.071). At final analysis (≥574 OS events), median OS was 5.6 months for V+LDAC and 6.5 months for P+LDAC (n = 666; hazard ratio 0.97 [95% CI, 0.8–1.2]; P = 0.757). The most common adverse events (AEs) were infections/infestations (grouped term; V+LDAC, 81.3%; P+LDAC, 63.5%) and febrile neutropenia (V+LDAC, 60.4%; P+LDAC, 29.3%). Fatal AEs occurred in 31.2% with V+LDAC versus 18.0% with P+LDAC, most commonly infections/infestations (V+LDAC, 17.1%; P+LDAC, 6.3%). Lack of OS benefit with V+LDAC versus P+LDAC may reflect increased early mortality with V+LDAC from myelosuppression and infections