Stereotactic body radiotherapy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: clinical outcomes from a National Patient Registry

Objectives: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a definitive local treatment option for patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are not surgical candidates and patients who refuse surgery. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of SBRT on T1–T2 NSCLC from a national registry, reflecting practices and outcomes in a real-world setting. Methods: The RSSearch® Patient Registry was screened for T1–T2N0M0 NSCLC patients treated from May 2004 to May 2013 with SBRT. Descriptive analyses were used for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Overall survival (OS) and local control (LC) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: In total, 723 patients with 517 T1 and 224 T2 lesions were treated with SBRT. Median follow-up was 12 months (1–87 months) with a median age of 76 years. Median SBRT dose was 54 Gy (range 10–80 Gy) delivered in a median of 3 fractions (range 1–5), and median biological equivalent dose (BED10) was 151.2 Gy (range 20–240 Gy). Median OS was 30 and 26 months for T1 and T2 tumors, respectively (p = 0.019). LC was associated with higher BED10 for T2 tumors, but not in T1 tumors at a median follow-up of 17 months. Seventeen-month LC for T2 tumors treated with BED10 105 Gy

Residual or recurrent mitral regurgitation predicts mortality following transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repairCentral MessagePerspective

Objective: Although regurgitant mitral valves can be repaired through surgical or transcatheter approaches, contemporary comparative outcomes are limited with the impact of residual and recurrent mitral regurgitation (MR) on clinical outcomes being poorly defined. We hypothesized that moderate (2+) or greater residual or recurrent (RR) MR—regardless of type of repair—predicts worse clinical outcomes. Methods: Our institutional experience of 660 consecutive patients undergoing mitral valve repair (2015-2021) consisting of 393 surgical mitral valve repair (SMVr) and 267 transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (TEER) was studied. The echocardiographic impact of RRMR (2+) following both SMVr and TEER on death and reintervention was evaluated. Results: Patients averaged 67.8 ± 14.2 years (SMVr = 63.8 ± 13.3 vs 73.6 ± 13.6, P < .0001) and 62.1% were male. Baseline clinical and demographic data were vastly different between the 2 groups. Residual or recurrent 2+ or greater MR developed in 25% (n = 68) of patients who received TEER compared with 6% (n = 25) of SMVr (P < .0001). Reintervention (9.3% vs 2.4%, P = .002) and death (37.9% vs 10.4%, P < .0001) rates at 3-years were greater among the TEER group versus SMVr group. Given the heterogeneity in baseline characteristics and difference in survival, each cohort was analyzed separately, stratified by RRMR, using multivariable modeling to identify predictors of repeat reintervention and death. There were too few events of RRMR in the SMVr cohort for evaluation. For the TEER subgroups, we observed greater long-term mortality, but not reintervention among those with RRMR., Hypertension was the strongest predictor of death and obesity was for reintervention. Conclusions: Patients undergoing SMVr and TEER are vastly different with respect to baseline patient characteristics and clinical outcomes, with patients who undergo TEER being much greater risk with poorer prognosis. Moderate or greater RRMR predicted worse long-term survival but not reintervention among patients who received TEER. Given the difference in survival among patients with RRMR following TEER, care must be taken to ensure that patients entering clinical trials and receiving TEER should have a high probability of achieving mild or less MR as seen in contemporary surgical results

EULAR recommendations for patient education for people with inflammatory arthritis

© 2015, BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved. Objectives: The task force aimed to: (1) develop evidence-based recommendations for patient education (PE) for people with inflammatory arthritis, (2) identify the need for further research on PE and (3) determine health professionals' educational needs in order to provide evidence-based PE. Methods: A multidisciplinary task force, representing 10 European countries, formulated a definition for PE and 10 research questions that guided a systematic literature review (SLR). The results from the SLR were discussed and used as a basis for developing the recommendations, a research agenda and an educational agenda. The recommendations were categorised according to level and strength of evidence graded from A (highest) to D (lowest). Task force members rated their agreement with each recommendation from 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement). Results: Based on the SLR and expert opinions, eight recommendations were developed, four with strength A evidence. The recommendations addressed when and by whom PE should be offered, modes and methods of delivery, theoretical framework, outcomes and evaluation. A high level of agreement was achieved for all recommendations (mean range 9.4-9.8). The task force proposed a research agenda and an educational agenda. Conclusions: The eight evidence-based and expert opinion-based recommendations for PE for people with inflammatory arthritis are intended to provide a core framework for the delivery of PE and training for health professionals in delivering PE across Europe

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used