Search

Sara Alfieri,1,* Cinzia Brunelli,2,* Claudia Borreani,1 Giuseppe Capri,3 Martina Angi,4 Giulia V Bianchi,3 Silvia Lo Dico,2 Pierangelo Spada,5 Viviana Fusetti,2,6 Ernesto Zecca,2 Augusto Caraceni2,7 1Clinical Psychology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy; 2Palliative Care, Pain Therapy and Rehabilitation Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy; 3Medical Oncology 1, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy; 4General Oncology Surgery 4, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy; 5Nursing, Technicians and Rehabilitation Management Service (SITRA), Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy; 6Biomedicine and Prevention Department, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy; 7Department of Clinical and Community Sciences, Università degli Studi, Milan, Italy*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Cinzia Brunelli, Palliative Care, Pain Therapy and Rehabilitation Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Venezian 1, Milan, 20133, Italy, Tel +39 0223903179, Email cinzia.brunelli@istitutotumori.mi.itBackground: The multidisciplinary approach is considered “best practice” in oncology. Multidisciplinary Teamwork (MDTW) can be broadly classified into Multidisciplinary Team Meetings (MDTM) and Multidisciplinary Cancer Clinics (MDCC; involving also patients), yet both models are heterogeneously implemented.Purpose: This study aims at describing the different MDTW implemented models in a Comprehensive Cancer Center.Methods: All clinical unit directors of the hospital were contacted to identify any MDTW activities the personnel of the unit were involved in. Structured interviews were carried out to collect MDTWs information, ie, type (MDTM vs MDCC), team composition, aims, disease phase, use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Descriptive analyses and Social Network Analysis (SNA) were performed.Results: Among 38 structured interviews, 25 concerned MDTMs and 13 in MDCCs. Responders were mainly surgeons (35%) and oncologists (29%), 35% of them were team leaders. Teams were mostly composed of physicians only (64% in MDTMs, 69% in MDCCs). Case managers (8% and 31%), palliative care specialists (12% and 23%) and psychologists (20% and 31%) were involved to a lesser extent, mainly when dealing with advanced disease. MDTWs were mainly aimed at integrating the skills of the different specialists (respectively 72% for MDTMs and 64% for MDCCs) and offering the best overall patient care pathway (64%, 61.5%). MDTWs were directed at patients in both diagnostic (72%, 61.5%) and locally advanced/metastatic (32%, 38.4%) disease. PROMs were seldom used (24%, 23%). SNA shows a similar density in the two MDTWs, but in the MDCCs two nodes remain isolated (pathologists and radiologists).Conclusion: Despite a high number of MDTWs for advanced/metastatic disease, there is limited involvement of palliative care specialists, psychologists, and nurses.Keywords: case conferences, multidisciplinary cancer conferences, multidisciplinary visits, oncology, tumor board, tumor conferences

Robert Arnold,1 Mario Angi2 1Alaska Blind Child Discovery, Alaska Children’s Eye and Strabismus, Anchorage, Alaska, 99508, USA; 2Senior Scientist, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Padua, Padua, Padua Province, ItalyCorrespondence: Robert Arnold, Alaska Blind Child Discovery, Alaska Children’s Eye and Strabismus, Office 280, 3500 Latouche Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99508, Tel +1-907 561-1917, Fax +1907 563-5373, Email eyedoc@alaska.netBackground: Novel devices target different facets of amblyopia risk factors (ARFs). Through birefringence, the Rebion blinq assesses binocular foveation. The Adaptica 2WIN is a multiradial infrared photorefractor that also estimates ocular alignment. PDI Check is a forced-choice, dynamic near-vision game for the autostereoscopic Nintendo 3DS.Methods: New and returning patients to a pediatric ophthalmology clinic had concomitant confirmatory exams after all three vision screens had been validated with ROC curves, Bland–Altman plots, and Alaska Blind Child Discovery ellipsoid grades. Exam outcomes were classified by ARF visual acuity, strabismus, binocularity, and refractive errors following the 2021 AAPOS guidelines and Bosque–Hunter rubric for the blinq.Results: A total of 202 ethnically diverse students aged 10± 4 (4– 19) years, 33% treatment-naïve, had a high (58%) prevalence of ARFs. Linear logMAR visual acuity, intereye differences, stereo and three-cone color correlated well between PDI Check and exams. Mean score on the 2WIN matched sphero-cylinder exam with ellipsoid scoring was 2.1± 1.5. For AAPOS 2021 refractive plus strabismus, sensitivity/specificity for PDI Check was 68%/59%, 2WIN 72%/95%, and blinq 87%/32%. For the amblyopia or strabismus rubric, PDI Check was 79%/68%, 2WIN 56%/65%, and blinq 94%/37%.Conclusion: Each device had advantages and disadvantages in screening this cohort of older, high-prevalence students, many of whom had already been treated. Validation methods should cover more than just refraction, as the new 2021 AAPOS guidelines do.Keywords: amblyopia, vision screening, strabismus, validation

Francesco Semeraro,1 Barbara Arcidiacono,2 Giuseppe Nascimbeni,1 Martina Angi,1 Barbara Parolini,2 Ciro Costagliola31Eye Clinic, Department of Neurological Sciences and Vision, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy; 2Department of Ophthalmology, S. Anna Hospital, Brescia, Italy; 3Eye Clinic, Department of Health Sciences, University of Molise, Campobasso, ItalyAbstract: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis-related uveitis is the most common type of uveitis in childhood and one of the main causes of visual impairment in children. The introduction of biological treatment has widened the range of therapeutic options for children with uveitis refractory to standard nonbiologic immunosuppressants. Data from clinical trials suggest that both adalimumab and infliximab have demonstrated effectiveness and safety in open-label studies, although no large, randomized, controlled trials have been reported so far. The role of etanercept in treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis-related uveitis is not yet well defined. In our experience, anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy has been shown to be more effective than steroids and/or methotrexate in treating uveitis. Up to now, tumor necrosis factor blocking compounds have been reserved for the treatment of the most severe cases of refractory uveitis, and larger prospective clinical trials are required in order to better assess the safety of these new compounds.Keywords: adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab

Romano MR, Angi M, Romano V, et alA word was omitted from the conclusion of the Abstract. The correct version is as follows:Conclusion: Overall, the use of Densiron 68 was not associated with significantly higher IOP values as compared with SSO.

The 1993 US Supreme Court decision Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. presented new guidance for the judicial assessment of expert witness evidence and testimony in the determination of admissibility. Despite the rarity of admissibility challenges to forensic anthropology evidence, Daubert is frequently cited in published forensic anthropology research. This study undertook a qualitative thematic analysis of forensic anthropology articles published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences to assess why authors continue to cite Daubert and express concerns over potential exclusion. The results show a significant increase in the number of articles that cite legal admissibility standards over time (p < 0.001). Authors frequently cite these standards to contextualize their results within the Daubert framework or to justify the need for their research. Notably, many articles present Daubert as a constraining force, misinterpreting the guidelines as rigid criteria or that they require methods to be strictly quantitative. However, Daubert was intended to be a flexible tool for judges—not a standard or instruction for scientists. While it was reasonable to reflect on the scientific rigor of methods in the wake of the Daubert decision, a new perspective is warranted in which forensic anthropologists shift their focus from trying to "satisfy" admissibility guidelines to adopting quality assurance measures that minimize error and ensure confidence in analytical results, and developing and using methods that are grounded in good science—which is important regardless of whether or not the results are ever the subject of a trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]