| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Vicini, F. A., et al.
(author)
-
A Novel Biosignature Identifies Patients With DCIS With High Risk of Local Recurrence After Breast Conserving Surgery and Radiation Therapy
- 2022
-
In: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. - : Elsevier BV. - 0360-3016.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose: There is an unmet need to identify women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with a low risk of in-breast recurrence (IBR) after breast conserving surgery (BCS), which could omit radiation therapy (RT), and also to identify those with elevated IBR risk remaining after BCS plus RT. We evaluated a novel biosignature for a residual risk subtype (RRt) to help identify patients with elevated IBR risk after BCS plus RT. Methods and Materials: Women with DCIS treated with BCS with or without RT at centers in the US, Australia, and Sweden (n = 926) were evaluated. Patients were classified into 3 biosignature risk groups using the decision score (DS) and the RRt category: (1) Low Risk (DS ≤2.8 without RRt), (2) Elevated Risk (DS >2.8 without RRt), and (3) Residual Risk (DS >2.8 with RRt). Total and invasive IBR rates were assessed by risk group and treatment. Results: In patients at low risk, there was no significant difference in IBR rates with or without RT (total, P = .8; invasive IBR, P = .7), and there were low overall 10-year rates (total, 5.1%; invasive, 2.7%). In patients with elevated risk, IBR rates were decreased with RT (total: hazard ratio [HR], 0.25; P < .001; invasive: HR, 0.28; P = .005); 10-year rates were 20.6% versus 4.9% (total) and 10.9% versus 3.1% (invasive). In patients with residual risk, although IBR rates decreased with RT after BCS (total: HR, 0.21; P < .001; invasive: HR, 0.29; P = .028), IBR rates remained significantly higher after RT compared with patients with elevated risk (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4; P = .018), with 10-year rates of 42.1% versus 14.7% (total) and 18.3% versus 6.5% (invasive). Conclusions: The novel biosignature identified patients with 3 distinct risk profiles: Low Risk patients with a low recurrence risk with or without adjuvant RT, Elevated Risk patients with excellent outcomes after BCS plus RT, and Residual Risk patients with an elevated recurrence risk remaining after BCS plus RT, warranting potential intensified or alternative treatment approaches. © 2022 The Authors
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
- Mittal, S., et al.
(author)
-
The World-wide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention (WRAP-IT) trial: Long-term follow-up
- 2020
-
In: Heart Rhythm. - : Elsevier BV. - 1547-5271. ; 17:7, s. 1115-1122
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: The World-wide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention trial reported a 40% reduction in major cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections within 12 months of the procedure with the use of an antibacterial-eluting envelope (TYRX Absorbable Antibacterial Envelope, Medtronic, Mounds View, MN). Objective: The purpose of this report was to describe the longer-term (>12 months) envelope effects on infection reduction and complications. Methods: All trial patients who underwent CIED replacement, upgrade, revision, or initial cardiac resynchronization therapy – defibrillator implantation received standard-of-care infection prophylaxis and were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive the envelope or not. CIED infection incidence and procedure and system-related complications were characterized through all follow-up (36 months) by using Cox proportional hazards regression modeling. Results: In total, 6800 patients received their intended randomized treatment (3371 envelope; 3429 control; mean follow-up period 21.0 ± 8.3 months). Major CIED-related infections occurred in 32 envelope patients and 51 control patients (Kaplan-Meier [KM] estimate 1.3% vs 1.9%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41–0.99; P = .046). Any CIED-related infection occurred in 57 envelope patients and 84 control patients (KM estimate 2.1% vs 2.8%; HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.49–0.97; P = .030). System- or procedure-related complications occurred in 235 envelope patients and 252 control patients (KM estimate 8.0% vs 8.2%; HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.79–1.13; P < .001 for noninferiority); the most common were lead dislodgment (1.1%), device lead damage (0.5%), and implant site hematoma (0.4%). Implant site pain occurred less frequently in the envelope group (0.1% vs 0.4%; P = .067). There were no (0.0%) reports of allergic reactions to the components of the envelope (mesh, polymer, or antibiotics). Conclusion: The effects of the TYRX envelope on the reduction of the risk of CIED infection are sustained beyond the first year postprocedure, without an increased risk of complications. © 2020 The Authors
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
- Wilkoff, B. L., et al.
(author)
-
Impact of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection A Clinical and Economic Analysis of the WRAP-IT Trial
- 2020
-
In: Circulation-Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 1941-3149 .- 1941-3084. ; 13:5
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Current understanding of the impact of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is based on retrospective analyses from medical records or administrative claims data. The WRAP-IT (Worldwide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention Trial) offers an opportunity to evaluate the clinical and economic impacts of CIED infection from the hospital, payer, and patient perspectives in the US healthcare system. Methods: This was a prespecified, as-treated analysis evaluating outcomes related to major CIED infections: mortality, quality of life, disruption of CIED therapy, healthcare utilization, and costs. Payer costs were assigned using medicare fee for service national payments, while medicare advantage, hospital, and patient costs were derived from similar hospital admissions in administrative datasets. Results: Major CIED infection was associated with increased all-cause mortality (12-month risk-adjusted hazard ratio, 3.41 [95% CI, 1.81-6.41]; P<0.001), an effect that sustained beyond 12 months (hazard ratio through all follow-up, 2.30 [95% CI, 1.29-4.07]; P=0.004). Quality of life was reduced (P=0.004) and did not normalize for 6 months. Disruptions in CIED therapy were experienced in 36% of infections for a median duration of 184 days. Mean costs were $55 547 +/-$45 802 for the hospital, $26 867 +/-$14 893, for medicare fee for service and $57 978 +/-$29 431 for Medicare Advantage (mean hospital margin of -$30 828 +/-$39 757 for medicare fee for service and -$6055 +/-$45 033 for medicare advantage). Mean out-of-pocket costs for patients were $2156 +/-$1999 for medicare fee for service, and $1658 +/-$1250 for medicare advantage. Conclusions: This large, prospective analysis corroborates and extends understanding of the impact of CIED infections as seen in real-world datasets. CIED infections severely impact mortality, quality of life, healthcare utilization, and cost in the US healthcare system.
|
|
