Aspiration Thrombectomy in Patients Undergoing Primary Angioplasty for ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Updated Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: The Trial of Routine Aspiration Thrombectomy with PCI versus PCI alone in patients with STEMI (TOTAL trial) refuted the salutary effect of routine aspiration thrombectomy (AT) in PPCI for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). OBJECTIVES: We performed an updated meta-analysis to assess clinical outcomes with AT prior to PPCI compared with conventional PPCI alone including the additional trial data. METHODS AND RESULTS: Clinical trials (n = 20) that randomized patients (n = 21,281) with STEMI between Routine AT (n = 10,619) and PPCI (n = 10,662) were pooled. There was no difference in all-cause mortality between the 2 groups (RR: 0.89, 95%CI: 0.78-1.01, P = 0.08). Stratifying by follow up at 1-month (RR: 0.87, 95%CI: 0.69-1.10, P = 0.25), up to 6 months (RR: 0.91, 95%CI: 0.74-1.13, P = 0.39 and beyond 6 months (RR: 0.88, 95%CI: 0.74-1.05, P = 0.16) yielded similar results. There was a statistically significant increase risk of stoke rate in the AT arm (RR: 1.51, 95%CI: 1.01-2.25, P = 0.04). The 2 groups were similar with regards to target vessel revascularization (0.94, 95%CI: 0.83-1.06, P = 0.28) recurrent MI (RR: 0.96, 95%CI: 0.80-1.16, P = 0.68, MACE events (RR: 0.91 95%CI: 0.81-1.02, P = 0.11), early (0.59, 95%CI: 0.23-1.50, P = 0.27) and late (RR: 0.91, 95%CI: 0.69-1.18, P = 0.47) stent thrombosis and net clinical benefit (RR 0.99, 95%CI: 0.91-1.07, P = 0.76). CONCLUSION: Routine AT prior to PPCI in STEMI is associated with higher risk of stroke. There is no statistical difference in clinical outcome parameters of mortality, major adverse cardiac events, target vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis, and net clinical benefit between AT and PCI alone

ExPert ConsEnsus on the management of Advanced clear-cell RenaL celL carcinoma: INDIAn Perspective (PEARL-INDIA)

Abstract In advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (aRCC), systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment, with no or little role for surgery in these patients. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune-oncological (IOs) therapies, either alone or in combination, are recommended in these patients depending on patient and tumour factors. The sequencing of therapies is critical in RCC because the choice of subsequent line therapy is heavily dependent on the response and duration of the previous treatment. There are additional barriers to RCC treatment in India. Immunotherapy is the cornerstone of treatment in ccRCC, but it is prohibitively expensive and not always reimbursed, effectively putting it out of reach for the vast majority of eligible patients in India. Furthermore, in advanced RCC (particularly the clear cell variety), Indian oncologists consider the disease burden of the patients, which is particularly dependent on the quantum of the disease load, clinical symptoms, and performance status of the patient, before deciding on treatment. There are no India-specific guidelines for clear cell RCC (ccRCC) treatment or the positioning and sequencing of molecules in the management of advanced ccRCC that take these country-specific issues into account. The current consensus article provides expert recommendations and treatment algorithms based on existing clinical evidence, which will be useful to specialists managing advanced ccRCC

Patterns of epidermal growth factor receptor testing across 111 tertiary care centers in India: Result of a questionnaire-based survey

Background: We conducted a survey of 111 medical oncologists across India to understand the current pattern of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation testing at their respective centers. Methods: Medical oncologists from 111 institutes across India were interviewed face to face using a structured questionnaire. They were divided into two groups – Group 1 with in-house EGFR testing and Group 2 who send samples to central/commercial laboratories outside their institutions. Answers of the two groups were analyzed to see the prevailing patterns of EGFR testing and differences between the two groups if any. Results: Ninety-five percent (105/111) of medical oncologists recommended testing for EGFR mutations in patients with adenocarcinoma histology and 40% (44/111) recommended EGFR testing in squamous cell histology. The average time duration to get EGFR test results was 10 days in Group 1 centers versus 18 days in Group 2 centers. Ninety-six percent (106/111) of the medical oncologists from Group 1 centers requested for factoring additional sample for biomarker testing compared to 69% (77/111) of the oncologists from Group 2 centers. Sixty-nine percent (77/111) of medical oncologists in Group 1 centers would prefer to wait for the test results before initiating treatment compared to 46% (51/111) in Group 2. EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors were used in only approximately 60% of patients with diagnosed EGFR mutation in the first line. For patients in whom chemotherapy was initiated while waiting for test results, 50% (56/111) of medical oncologists would prefer to complete 4–6 cycles before switching to targeted therapy. At the time of progression, rebiopsy was possible in approximately 25% of the patients. Conclusions: Turnaround time for molecular testing should improve so that eligible patients can benefit from targeted therapies in the first line. There is a need to increase the awareness among pulmonologists, oncologists, and interventional radiologists regarding the importance of adequate samples required for molecular tests

Abstracts of National Conference on Research and Developments in Material Processing, Modelling and Characterization 2020

This book presents the abstracts of the papers presented to the Online National Conference on Research and Developments in Material Processing, Modelling and Characterization 2020 (RDMPMC-2020) held on 26th and 27th August 2020 organized by the Department of Metallurgical and Materials Science in Association with the Department of Production and Industrial Engineering, National Institute of Technology Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, India. Conference Title: National Conference on Research and Developments in Material Processing, Modelling and Characterization 2020Conference Acronym: RDMPMC-2020Conference Date: 26–27 August 2020Conference Location: Online (Virtual Mode)Conference Organizer: Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, National Institute of Technology JamshedpurCo-organizer: Department of Production and Industrial Engineering, National Institute of Technology Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, IndiaConference Sponsor: TEQIP-