Search

Background: Previous transcatheter valve therapy registry analyses of transcatheter mitral valve in valve (MViV) replacement of degenerated bioprosthesis reported early experience in the United States. Given recent increases in transseptal MViV volumes and introduction of the SAPIEN 3 Ultra valve, it is important to determine contemporary outcomes for patients undergoing transseptal SAPIEN 3/SAPIEN 3 Ultra MViV replacement., Methods: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry was used to extract data for all patients undergoing transseptal SAPIEN 3/SAPIEN 3 Ultra MViV from 2015 to September 2022. Primary efficacy outcome was 1-year all-cause mortality. Secondary end points included 30-day mortality, functional class, quality of life, and mitral valve performance. Primary safety outcomes were device success and in-hospital complications., Results: A total of 4243 patients with a mean±SD STS score of 9.2±7.7 underwent transseptal MViV at 455 sites. The rate of Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium technical (96.6%) success was high, and procedural complications were low. All-cause in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality rates were 3.2%, 4.3%, and 13.4%, respectively. Significant improvements in New York Heart Association class (New York Heart Association I/II, 18% to 87%) and quality of life (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score, 38 to 78) were noted at 1 year ( P <0.0001 for both) after MViV. Upon stratifying by STS scores, it was observed that the low-risk group (STS<4) had a significantly lower in-hospital mortality rate of 0.4%, whereas the intermediate-risk group (STS, 4-8) had an in-hospital mortality rate of 1.9%. From 2015 to 2022, the number of transseptal MViV cases/year increased significantly, whereas procedure times, length of stay, and intensive care unit hours shortened significantly. At the same time, there was a significant trend toward reduced in-hospital ( P =0.0005), 30-day ( P =0.004), and 1-year mortality rates ( P =0.01)., Conclusions: This multicenter, prospective study reports excellent procedural outcomes, acceptable 1-year mortality rates, and a significant improvement in quality of life for patients undergoing transseptal MViV in the contemporary era. Patients in the low-risk and intermediate-risk STS score categories had significantly better outcomes compared with those in the high-risk category. MViV is a reasonable therapy for the majority of patients with degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves, who are anatomical candidates., Competing Interests: Dr Goel has served as a consultant and proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular; and has received research support for clinical trials from Medtronic, Innovalve, Trisol and Teleflex. Dr Makkar has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; has served as national principal investigator for Portico (Abbott) and Acurate (Boston Scientific) US investigation device exemption trials; has received personal proctoring fees from Edwards Lifesciences; and has received travel support from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Boston Scientific. Dr Kodali is a consultant for Admedus, Meril Lifesciences, JenaValve, and Abbott Vascular and has equity in Dura Biotech, MicroInterventional Devices, Thubrikar Aortic Valve Inc, Supira, and Admedus. Dr Barker has received institutional research support from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott. Dr Dhoble has served as a consultant and proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular; and has received research support for clinical trials from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Yadav has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, and Shockwave Medical. Dr Rihal has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Abbas has received research grants and consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Guerrero has received research grant support from Abbott Structural Heart and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Whisenant has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. The other authors report no conflicts.

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the U.S., with an increasing incidence likely secondary to the obesity epidemic. Surgery is usually the primary treatment for early stage endometrial cancer, followed by adjuvant therapy in selected cases. This includes radiation therapy [RT] with or without chemotherapy, based on stratification of patients into categories dependent on their future recurrence risk. Several prospective trials (PORTEC-1, GOG#99, and PORTEC-2) have shown that the use of adjuvant RT in the intermediate risk (IR) and the high-intermediate risk (HIR) groups decreases locoregional recurrence (LRR) but has no effect on overall survival. The ad hoc analyses from these studies have shown that an even larger LRR risk reduction was seen within the HIR group compared with the IR group. Vaginal brachy therapy is as good as external beam radiotherapy in controlling vaginal relapse where the majority of recurrence occur, and with less toxicity. In the high-risk group, multimodality therapy (chemotherapy and RT) may play a significant role. Although adjuvant RT has been evaluated in many cost-effectiveness studies, high quality data in this area are still lacking.The uptake of the above prospective trial results in the U.S. has not been promising. Factors that are driving current practices and defining quality of- care measures for patients with early-stage disease are what future studies need to address. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Intermediate risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa) is a highly heterogeneous entity and can be distinguished into favorable and unfavorable IR PCa according to biopsy, PSA and cT-stage characteristics. These differences may translate into differences in treatment type., Methods: We tested for differences in PCa tumor characteristics and differences in active treatment rates (radical prostatectomy [RP], external beam radiotherapy [EBRT]) according to Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry (2010-2015) in favorable and unfavorable IR PCa. Data were stratified according to individual SEER registries. Further analyses additionally adjusted for PCa baseline characteristics (PSA, cT stage, biopsy Gleason group grading [GGG], percentage of positive biopsy cores)., Results: Tabulations according to SEER registries showed that, in favorable IR vs. unfavorable IR, the rates of RP and EBRT respectively ranged from 30.0 to 54.3% vs. 30.3-55.5 % and 8.3-44.7 % vs. 11.5-45.5 %. Differences in age and baseline PCa tumor characteristics also existed in both favorable and unfavorable IR across SEER registries. After adjustment for those baseline patient and PCa characteristics (PSA, cT stage, GGG, percentage of positive biopsy cores), RP and EBRT rates exhibited virtually no residual differences across individual SEER registries, in both favorable (36.0-41.0 % and 26.8-28.1 %) and unfavorable IR PCa (39.2-42.0% and 31.1-33.5 %)., Conclusion: Important differences may be identified in treatment rates within the examined 18 SEER registries in favorable and in unfavorable IR PCa. However, the observed differences are virtually entirely explained by differences in baseline PCa characteristics., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The recommendation for chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer patients has been refined by the 21-gene Recurrence Score. However, uncertainty remains whether patients in the Intermediate Risk category benefit from chemotherapy., Methods: We analyzed female patients from the National Cancer Database from 2006 to 2012 who had pT1c-T2N0M0 breast cancer, were ER/PR-positive and HER2-negative, received endocrine therapy, and had a 21-gene Recurrence Score from 11 to 25. We performed univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to see what impacted chemotherapy receipt. We compared overall survival using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to assess what variables impacted overall survival., Results: Of 21,991 patients who met all inclusion and exclusion criteria, 4646 (21.1%) received chemotherapy and 17,345 (78.9%) did not. Chemotherapy was more often received by patients who were younger (adjusted odds ratios (aORs) compared to age < 40 years, 0.48 for 40s, 0.34 for 50s, 0.20 for 60s, 0.10 for 70s, and 0.07 for 80+), had private insurance vs Medicare (aOR = 1.37), were from metro vs urban counties (aOR = 1.15), and were treated in community cancer centers vs academic programs (aOR = 1.26), and those with tumors of higher grade (grade 2 vs 1, aOR = 1.72; grade 3 vs 1, aOR = 3.76), higher tumor stage (pT2 vs pT1c, aOR = 1.62), or presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) (aOR = 1.41). At a median follow-up of 46.4 months, there was no significant difference in overall survival between patients who received chemotherapy vs those who did not (5-year estimated overall survival, 97.4% vs 97.8%, p = 0.89). On multivariable analysis, worse overall survival was associated with Black race, treatment at a community program, Medicaid, high-grade tumors, pT2 vs pT1c, higher Charlson-Deyo score, and no radiotherapy. Utilization trends showed that chemotherapy receipt in these patients has been decreasing from 25.8% in 2010 to 18.4% in 2013 (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: In these patients where the benefit of chemotherapy remains uncertain, current practices see chemotherapy more likely to be used in patients with younger age, higher pathologic T stage, higher grade tumors, and LVI. No apparent difference was seen in overall survival between those who received chemotherapy and those who did not.