Differences in designations of observation care in US freestanding children's hospitals: Are they virtual or real?

OBJECTIVE: To characterize practices related to observation care and to examine the current models of pediatric observation medicine in US children's hospitals. DESIGN: We utilized 2 web‐based surveys to examine observation care in the 42 hospitals participating in the Pediatric Health Information System database. We obtained information regarding the designation of observation status, including the criteria used to admit patients into observation. From hospitals reporting the use of observation status, we requested specific details relating to the structures of observation care and the processes of care for observation patients following emergency department treatment. RESULTS: A total of 37 hospitals responded to Survey 1, and 20 hospitals responded to Survey 2. Designated observation units were present in only 12 of 31 (39%) hospitals that report observation patient data to the Pediatric Health Information System. Observation status was variably defined in terms of duration of treatment and prespecified criteria. Observation periods were limited to <48 hours in 24 of 31 (77%) hospitals. Hospitals reported that various standards were used by different payers to determine observation status reimbursement. Observation care was delivered in a variety of settings. Most hospitals indicated that there were no differences in the clinical care delivered to virtual observation status patients when compared with other inpatients. CONCLUSIONS: Observation is a variably applied patient status, defined differently by individual hospitals. Consistency in the designation of patients under observation status among hospitals and payers may be necessary to compare quality outcomes and costs, as well as optimize models of pediatric observation care. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2012;. © 2011 Society of Hospital Medicine.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/91108/1/949_ftp.pd

Correction: Expanding the clinical phenotype of individuals with a 3-bp in-frame deletion of the NF1 gene (c.2970_2972del): an update of genotype–phenotype correlation

n/

MAPK pathway activation in pilocytic astrocytoma

Pilocytic astrocytoma (PA) is the most common tumor of the pediatric central nervous system (CNS). A body of research over recent years has demonstrated a key role for mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway signaling in the development and behavior of PAs. Several mechanisms lead to activation of this pathway in PA, mostly in a mutually exclusive manner, with constitutive BRAF kinase activation subsequent to gene fusion being the most frequent. The high specificity of this fusion to PA when compared with other CNS tumors has diagnostic utility. In addition, the frequency of alteration of this key pathway provides an opportunity for molecularly targeted therapy in this tumor. Here, we review the current knowledge on mechanisms of MAPK activation in PA and some of the downstream consequences of this activation, which are now starting to be elucidated both in vitro and in vivo, as well as clinical considerations and possible future directions

Revised diagnostic criteria for neurofibromatosis type 1 and Legius syndrome: an international consensus recommendation

Purpose By incorporating major developments in genetics, ophthalmology, dermatology, and neuroimaging, to revise the diagnostic criteria for neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) and to establish diagnostic criteria for Legius syndrome (LGSS). Methods We used a multistep process, beginning with a Delphi method involving global experts and subsequently involving non-NF experts, patients, and foundations/patient advocacy groups. Results We reached consensus on the minimal clinical and genetic criteria for diagnosing and differentiating NF1 and LGSS, which have phenotypic overlap in young patients with pigmentary findings. Criteria for the mosaic forms of these conditions are also recommended. Conclusion The revised criteria for NF1 incorporate new clinical features and genetic testing, whereas the criteria for LGSS were created to differentiate the two conditions. It is likely that continued refinement of these new criteria will be necessary as investigators (1) study the diagnostic properties of the revised criteria, (2) reconsider criteria not included in this process, and (3) identify new clinical and other features of these conditions. For this reason, we propose an initiative to update periodically the diagnostic criteria for NF1 and LGSS

Expanding the clinical phenotype of individuals with a 3-bp in-frame deletion of the NF1 gene (c.2970_2972del): an update of genotype–phenotype correlation

Purpose: Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is characterized by a highly variable clinical presentation, but almost all NF1-affected adults present with cutaneous and/or subcutaneous neurofibromas. Exceptions are individuals heterozygous for the NF1 in-frame deletion, c.2970_2972del (p.Met992del), associated with a mild phenotype without any externally visible tumors. Methods: A total of 135 individuals from 103 unrelated families, all carrying the constitutional NF1 p.Met992del pathogenic variant and clinically assessed using the same standardized phenotypic checklist form, were included in this study. Results: None of the individuals had externally visible plexiform or histopathologically confirmed cutaneous or subcutaneous neurofibromas. We did not identify any complications, such as symptomatic optic pathway gliomas (OPGs) or symptomatic spinal neurofibromas; however, 4.8% of individuals had nonoptic brain tumors, mostly low-grade and asymptomatic, and 38.8% had cognitive impairment/learning disabilities. In an individual with the NF1 constitutional c.2970_2972del and three astrocytomas, we provided proof that all were NF1-associated tumors given loss of heterozygosity at three intragenic NF1 microsatellite markers and c.2970_297

Natural history of optic pathway gliomas in a cohort of unselected patients affected by Neurofibromatosis 1

Optic pathway glioma (OPG) represents the most common central nervous system tumor in children with Neurofibromatosis type-1 (NF1). Although overall survival is usually good, no clear prognostic factors have been identified so far. We assessed the natural history of OPG in a cohort of unselected patients affected by NF1. We retrospectively evaluated 414 consecutive patients affected by NF1 and referred to our NF1 clinic before age 6. Average follow-up was 11.9 years: 52 out of 414 patients had OPG with a total cumulative incidence of 15.4% at age 15 (Kaplan-Meier estimate) and a statistically significant difference according to sex. Brain and orbit MRI was performed in 44.7% of patients: 34.6% for screening purposes and 65.4% because of the presence of neurological, ocular or other symptoms. OPG was diagnosed in 12.5% of cases in the first group, whereas in 36.4% in the latter group (p = 0.001). Clinical management was conservative in most patients, while 8 of them underwent therapy mainly because of visual deterioration. OPG was diagnosed earlier in treated patients, but the difference was not statistically significant. Conversely, all patients who underwent screening MRI had normal visual outcome. In conclusion, OPG location does not correlate with need for treatment; female patients were more frequently affected by OPG but not more frequently treated. OPG diagnosis by screening MRI does not affect the natural history of the tumor