Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgery for indeterminate thyroid nodules (THYCOVID): a retrospective, international, multicentre, cross-sectional study

Background Since its outbreak in early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has diverted resources from non-urgent and elective procedures, leading to diagnosis and treatment delays, with an increased number of neoplasms at advanced stages worldwide. The aims of this study were to quantify the reduction in surgical activity for indeterminate thyroid nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic; and to evaluate whether delays in surgery led to an increased occurrence of aggressive tumours.Methods In this retrospective, international, cross-sectional study, centres were invited to participate in June 22, 2022; each centre joining the study was asked to provide data from medical records on all surgical thyroidectomies consecutively performed from Jan 1, 2019, to Dec 31, 2021. Patients with indeterminate thyroid nodules were divided into three groups according to when they underwent surgery: from Jan 1, 2019, to Feb 29, 2020 (global prepandemic phase), from March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021 (pandemic escalation phase), and from June 1 to Dec 31, 2021 (pandemic decrease phase). The main outcomes were, for each phase, the number of surgeries for indeterminate thyroid nodules, and in patients with a postoperative diagnosis of thyroid cancers, the occurrence of tumours larger than 10 mm, extrathyroidal extension, lymph node metastases, vascular invasion, distant metastases, and tumours at high risk of structural disease recurrence. Univariate analysis was used to compare the probability of aggressive thyroid features between the first and third study phases. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05178186.Findings Data from 157 centres (n=49 countries) on 87 467 patients who underwent surgery for benign and malignant thyroid disease were collected, of whom 22 974 patients (18 052 [78 center dot 6%] female patients and 4922 [21 center dot 4%] male patients) received surgery for indeterminate thyroid nodules. We observed a significant reduction in surgery for indeterminate thyroid nodules during the pandemic escalation phase (median monthly surgeries per centre, 1 center dot 4 [IQR 0 center dot 6-3 center dot 4]) compared with the prepandemic phase (2 center dot 0 [0 center dot 9-3 center dot 7]; p<0 center dot 0001) and pandemic decrease phase (2 center dot 3 [1 center dot 0-5 center dot 0]; p<0 center dot 0001). Compared with the prepandemic phase, in the pandemic decrease phase we observed an increased occurrence of thyroid tumours larger than 10 mm (2554 [69 center dot 0%] of 3704 vs 1515 [71 center dot 5%] of 2119; OR 1 center dot 1 [95% CI 1 center dot 0-1 center dot 3]; p=0 center dot 042), lymph node metastases (343 [9 center dot 3%] vs 264 [12 center dot 5%]; OR 1 center dot 4 [1 center dot 2-1 center dot 7]; p=0 center dot 0001), and tumours at high risk of structural disease recurrence (203 [5 center dot 7%] of 3584 vs 155 [7 center dot 7%] of 2006; OR 1 center dot 4 [1 center dot 1-1 center dot 7]; p=0 center dot 0039).Interpretation Our study suggests that the reduction in surgical activity for indeterminate thyroid nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic period could have led to an increased occurrence of aggressive thyroid tumours. However, other compelling hypotheses, including increased selection of patients with aggressive malignancies during this period, should be considered. We suggest that surgery for indeterminate thyroid nodules should no longer be postponed even in future instances of pandemic escalation.Funding None.Copyright (c) 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Texas Business Review, January 1961

The Business Situation in Texas; Big Spring: A Singular West Texas City; Texas Sheep, Lambs, and Wool Again on the Increase; The Joint Account in Jeopardy; November Construction Parallels Last November; November Retail Sales Show Slow Holiday StartBureau of Business Researc

Treatment for gastrointestinal and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: a network meta-analysis [protocol].

BACKGROUND Several available therapies for neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) have demonstrated efficacy in randomised controlled trials. However, translation of these results into improved care faces several challenges, as a direct comparison of the most pertinent therapies is incomplete. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the safety and efficacy of therapies for NETs, to guide clinical decision-making, and to provide estimates of relative efficiency of the different treatment options (including placebo) and rank the treatments according to their efficiency based on a network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS We identified studies through systematic searches of the following bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid); and Embase from January 1947 to December 2020. In addition, we checked trial registries for ongoing or unpublished eligible trials and manually searched for abstracts from scientific and clinical meetings. SELECTION CRITERIA We evaluated randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing two or more therapies in people with NETs (primarily gastrointestinal and pancreatic). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data to a pre-designed data extraction form. Multi-arm studies were included in the network meta-analysis using the R-package netmeta. We separately analysed two different outcomes (disease control and progression-free survival) and two types of NET (gastrointestinal and pancreatic NET) in four network meta-analyses. A frequentist approach was used to compare the efficacy of therapies. MAIN RESULTS We identified 55 studies in 90 records in the qualitative analysis, reporting 39 primary RCTs and 16 subgroup analyses. We included 22 RCTs, with 4299 participants, that reported disease control and/or progression-free survival in the network meta-analysis. Precision-of-treatment estimates and estimated heterogeneity were limited, although the risk of bias was predominantly low. The network meta-analysis of progression-free survival found nine therapies for pancreatic NETs: everolimus (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36 [95% CI, 0.28 to 0.46]), interferon plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.14 to 0.80]), everolimus plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.57]), bevacizumab plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.15 to 0.89]), interferon (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.18 to 0.94]), sunitinib (HR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.67]), everolimus plus bevacizumab plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.28 to 0.83]), surufatinib (HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.76]), and somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.77]); and six therapies for gastrointestinal NETs: 177-Lu-DOTATATE plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.26]), everolimus plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.12 [95%CI, 0.03 to 0.54]), bevacizumab plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.94]), interferon plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.93]), surufatinib (HR, 0.33 [95%CI, 0.12 to 0.88]), and somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.76]), with higher efficacy than placebo. Besides everolimus for pancreatic NETs, the results suggested an overall superiority of combination therapies, including somatostatin analogues. The results indicate that NET therapies have a broad range of risk for adverse events and effects on quality of life, but these were reported inconsistently. Evidence from this network meta-analysis (and underlying RCTs) does not support any particular therapy (or combinations of therapies) with respect to patient-centred outcomes (e.g. overall survival and quality of life). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The findings from this study suggest that a range of efficient therapies with different safety profiles is available for people with NETs

Treatment for gastrointestinal and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Several available therapies for neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) have demonstrated efficacy in randomised controlled trials. However, translation of these results into improved care faces several challenges, as a direct comparison of the most pertinent therapies is incomplete. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the safety and efficacy of therapies for NETs, to guide clinical decision-making, and to provide estimates of relative efficiency of the different treatment options (including placebo) and rank the treatments according to their efficiency based on a network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS We identified studies through systematic searches of the following bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid); and Embase from January 1947 to December 2020. In addition, we checked trial registries for ongoing or unpublished eligible trials and manually searched for abstracts from scientific and clinical meetings. SELECTION CRITERIA We evaluated randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing two or more therapies in people with NETs (primarily gastrointestinal and pancreatic). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data to a pre-designed data extraction form. Multi-arm studies were included in the network meta-analysis using the R-package netmeta. We separately analysed two different outcomes (disease control and progression-free survival) and two types of NET (gastrointestinal and pancreatic NET) in four network meta-analyses. A frequentist approach was used to compare the efficacy of therapies. MAIN RESULTS We identified 55 studies in 90 records in the qualitative analysis, reporting 39 primary RCTs and 16 subgroup analyses. We included 22 RCTs, with 4299 participants, that reported disease control and/or progression-free survival in the network meta-analysis. Precision-of-treatment estimates and estimated heterogeneity were limited, although the risk of bias was predominantly low. The network meta-analysis of progression-free survival found nine therapies for pancreatic NETs: everolimus (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36 [95% CI, 0.28 to 0.46]), interferon plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.14 to 0.80]), everolimus plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.57]), bevacizumab plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.15 to 0.89]), interferon (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.18 to 0.94]), sunitinib (HR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.67]), everolimus plus bevacizumab plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.28 to 0.83]), surufatinib (HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.76]), and somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.77]); and six therapies for gastrointestinal NETs: 177-Lu-DOTATATE plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.26]), everolimus plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.12 [95%CI, 0.03 to 0.54]), bevacizumab plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.94]), interferon plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.93]), surufatinib (HR, 0.33 [95%CI, 0.12 to 0.88]), and somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.76]), with higher efficacy than placebo. Besides everolimus for pancreatic NETs, the results suggested an overall superiority of combination therapies, including somatostatin analogues. The results indicate that NET therapies have a broad range of risk for adverse events and effects on quality of life, but these were reported inconsistently. Evidence from this network meta-analysis (and underlying RCTs) does not support any particular therapy (or combinations of therapies) with respect to patient-centred outcomes (e.g. overall survival and quality of life). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The findings from this study suggest that a range of efficient therapies with different safety profiles is available for people with NETs

Multicenter study of pars plana vitrectomy for optic disc pit maculopathy: MACPIT study.

PurposeTo evaluate surgical intervention with pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for correction of optic disc pit maculopathy (ODP-M).Patients and methodsRetrospective chart review from 13 centres of 51 eyes of 50 patients with ODP-M who underwent PPV between 2002-2014. Anatomic and final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) outcomes were evaluated for all cases with different adjuvant techniques.ResultsThere were 23 males and 27 females with median age 25.5 (6-68) years. Preoperative median foveal thickness was 694.5 (331-1384) μm and improved to 252.5 (153-1405) μm. Median BCVA improved from 20/200 (20/20000 to 20/40) to 20/40 (20/2000 to 20/20) with 20/40 or better in 31 eyes. Complete retinal reattachment was achieved in 44 eyes (86.3%) at 7.1 (5.9) months. The good surgical outcomes were achieved in different adjuvant groups. Median follow-up was 24 (6 to 120) months.ConclusionsThese results confirm the long-term effectiveness of PPV for ODP-M. Prospective studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of any adjuvant technique in improving the success of PPV for ODP-M

Encontrando Ayuda Cuando Usted Esta en Problemas con la Ley: Un Manual Para Personas Con Enfermedades Mentales y Sus Familias

Hogg Foundation for Mental Healt