Subsequent chemotherapy with paclitaxel plus cetuximab-based chemotherapy following immune checkpoint inhibitor in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are essential in treating recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). However, the overall response rate (ORR) is limited to 10-20%, and subsequent chemotherapy is critical to maximizing the subjects’ prognosis.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 59 patients with R/M SCCHN treated with paclitaxel+cetuximab (PE)-based chemotherapy (PCE, paclitaxel+carboplatin+cetuximab; or PTX+Cmab, paclitaxel+cetuximab) following disease progression after either pembrolizumab or nivolumab monotherapy.ResultsOf 59 patients, 15 were treated with pembrolizumab, with an ORR of 13.3%, and the remaining 44 with nivolumab, with an ORR of 11.4%. All patients in the pembrolizumab cohort had platinum-sensitive disease. Following ICI treatment, 19 patients were treated with PCE and the remaining 40 with PTX+Cmab. PE-based chemotherapy induced favorable and prompt tumor shrinkage even in cases where ICI was not effective, with a median change in the summed dimensions of target lesions of -43.4%, resulting in an ORR of 62.7%. Median time to response was 1.8 months. The patients in the pembrolizumab cohort appeared to have a numerically higher response rate than those receiving nivolumab (80.0% vs. 56.8%). For the 59 patients, progression-free survival and overall survival, calculated from the initiation of PE-based chemotherapy, were 4.6 months and 17.1 months, respectively. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 40.7%, and no treatment-related death was observed.ConclusionPE-based chemotherapy following ICI is encouraging for its robust antitumor efficacy in R/M SCCHN

Impact of low-grade albuminuria on left ventricular diastolic dysfunction

Background: Albuminuria is an established risk factor for mortality and cardiovascular events in high-risk populations. However, few studies have evaluated the relationship between normoalbuminuria and left ventricular (LV) diastolic function. The present study evaluated the impact of the low-grade albuminuria on LV diastolic function in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 202 chronic CAD patients with normal urinary albumin levels. Subjects were divided into 3 tertiles according to sex-specific urinary albumin-to-creatinine concentration ratio (UACR) cut-off points. Subjects in the upper tertile were classified as having low-grade albuminuria. To evaluate the LV function, all subjects underwent echocardiography. LV diastolic dysfunction was defined as E/e′ > 15 or 8 < E/e′ < 15, with an E/A < 0.5, a deceleration time > 280 ms, and a LV mass index > 122 g/m2 for women or >149 g/m2 for men. Results: Among the 202 patients, 76 patients (37.6%) had LV diastolic dysfunction. The prevalence of LV diastolic dysfunction in the upper tertile was significantly greater than that in the middle and lower tertiles (49.3%, 32.3% and 29.2%, respectively; p for trend = 0.029). Adjusting for confounding factors, the presence of low-grade albuminuria independently associated with LV diastolic dysfunction (odds ratio 2.22, 95% confidence interval: 1.05–4.71, p = 0.037). Conclusions: A high UACR level that is still below the current microalbuminuria threshold is significantly associated with an increased prevalence of LV diastolic dysfunction in CAD patients. Our data suggest that low-grade albuminuria in high-risk populations may provide greater cardiovascular risk stratification

Comparison of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) Score and Modified JOA (mJOA) Score for the Assessment of Cervical Myelopathy: A Multicenter Observational Study

<div><p>Objectives</p><p>The Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score is widely used to assess the severity of clinical symptoms in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy, particularly in East Asian countries. In contrast, modified versions of the JOA score are currently accepted as the standard tool for assessment in Western countries. The objective of the present study is to compare these scales and clarify their differences and interchangeability and verify their validity by comparing them to other outcome measures.</p><p>Materials and Methods</p><p>Five institutions participated in this prospective multicenter observational study. The JOA and modified JOA (mJOA) proposed by Benzel were recorded preoperatively and at three months postoperatively in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy who underwent decompression surgery. Patient reported outcome (PRO) measures, including Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ), the Short Form-12 (SF-12) and the Neck Disability Index (NDI), were also recorded. The preoperative JOA score and mJOA score were compared to each other and the PRO values. A Bland-Altman analysis was performed to investigate their limits of agreement.</p><p>Results</p><p>A total of ninety-two patients were included. The correlation coefficient (Spearman’s rho) between the JOA and mJOA was 0.87. In contrast, the correlations between JOA/mJOA and the other PRO values were moderate (|rho| = 0.03 – 0.51). The correlation coefficient of the recovery rate between the JOA and mJOA was 0.75. The Bland-Altman analyses showed that limits of agreement were 3.6 to -1.2 for the total score, and 55.1% to -68.8% for the recovery rates.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>In the present study, the JOA score and the mJOA score showed good correlation with each other in terms of their total scores and recovery rates. Previous studies using the JOA can be interpreted based on the mJOA; however it is not ideal to use them interchangeably. The validity of both scores was demonstrated by comparing these values to the PRO values.</p></div

Scatterplot of the total scores for the JOA and mJOA scores (n = 92).

<p>Scatterplot of the total scores for the JOA and mJOA scores (n = 92).</p

Correlations between the preoperative total scores among the JOA, modified JOA, JOACMEQ QOL score, SF-12 PCS, MCS and NDI (n = 92).

<p>* Statistical significance</p><p>Correlations between the preoperative total scores among the JOA, modified JOA, JOACMEQ QOL score, SF-12 PCS, MCS and NDI (n = 92).</p

Microendoscope-Assisted Versus Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

Background and objectives: Minimally invasive surgery has become popular for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Microendoscope-assisted PLIF (ME-PLIF) utilizes a microendoscope within a tubular retractor for PLIF procedures; however, there are no published reports that compare Microendoscope-assisted to open PLIF. Here we compare the surgical and clinical outcomes of ME-PLIF with those of open PLIF. Materials and Methods: A total of 155 consecutive patients who underwent single-level PLIF were registered prospectively. Of the 149 patients with a complete set of preoperative data, 72 patients underwent ME-PLIF (ME-group), and 77 underwent open PLIF (open-group). Clinical and radiographic findings collected one year after surgery were compared. Results: Of the 149 patients, 57 patients in ME-group and 58 patients in the open-group were available. The ME-PLIF procedure required a significantly shorter operating time and involved less intraoperative blood loss. Three patients in both groups reported dural tears as intraoperative complications. Three patients in ME-group experienced postoperative complications, compared to two patients in the open-group. The fusion rate in ME-group at one year was lower than that in the open group (p = 0.06). The proportion of patients who were satisfied was significantly higher in the ME-group (p = 0.02). Conclusions: ME-PLIF was associated with equivalent post-surgical outcomes and significantly higher rates of patient satisfaction than the traditional open PLIF procedure. However, the fusion rate after ME-PLIF tended to be lower than that after the traditional open method

Scatterplot of the recovery rates for the JOA and mJOA scores.

<p>This figure includes only cases with a recovery rate from -1.0 to +1.0. Only two outliers were omitted (n = 63).</p

A Bland–Altman plot comparing the JOA and mJOA scores.

<p>The bias is shown as a solid line, and the upper and lower limits of agreement are shown as broken lines.</p

A summary of the differences between the JOA score and modified JOA score.

<p>JOA: Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, MU: motor function in the upper extremities, ML: motor function in the lower extremities, SU: sensory function in the upper extremities, ST: sensory function in the trunk, SL: sensory function in the lower extremities, BL: bladder function, N/A: not applicable</p><p>A summary of the differences between the JOA score and modified JOA score.</p