Executive summary from American Radium Society’s appropriate use criteria on neurocognition after stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases

BackgroundThe American Radium Society (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria brain malignancies panel systematically reviewed (PRISMA [Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses]) published literature on neurocognitive outcomes after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for patients with multiple brain metastases (BM) to generate consensus guidelines.MethodsThe panel developed 4 key questions (KQs) to guide systematic review. From 11 614 original articles, 12 were selected. The panel developed model cases addressing KQs and potentially controversial scenarios not addressed in the systematic review (which might inform future ARS projects). Based upon quality of evidence, the panel confidentially voted on treatment options using a 9-point scale of appropriateness.ResultsThe panel agreed that SRS alone is usually appropriate for those with good performance status and 2–10 asymptomatic BM, and usually not appropriate for >20 BM. For 11–15 and 16–20 BM there was (between 2 case variants) agreement that SRS alone may be appropriate or disagreement on the appropriateness of SRS alone. There was no scenario (among 6 case variants) in which conventional whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) was considered usually appropriate by most panelists. There were several areas of disagreement, including: hippocampal sparing WBRT for 2–4 asymptomatic BM; WBRT for resected BM amenable to SRS; fractionated versus single-fraction SRS for resected BM, larger targets, and/or brainstem metastases; optimal treatment (WBRT, hippocampal sparing WBRT, SRS alone to all or select lesions) for patients with progressive extracranial disease, poor performance status, and no systemic options.ConclusionsFor patients with 2–10 BM, SRS alone is an appropriate treatment option for well-selected patients with good performance status. Future study is needed for those scenarios in which there was disagreement among panelists.     

Outcomes of Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Compared With Chemotherapy Consolidation Alone for Non–High-Risk Acute Myeloid Leukemia in First Complete Remission in a Minority-Rich Inner-City Cohort With Limited Access to Allografts

IntroductionIn the United States, autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (autoHCT) has fallen out of favor over chemotherapy consolidation for non–high-risk acute myeloid leukemia (AML) when allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) is unfeasible, which is common in racial minorities because of donor registry under-representation and socioeconomic challenges. We compared autoHCT consolidation outcomes with chemotherapy alone in a minority-rich cohort in the Bronx.Patients and MethodsWe identified adults with favorable or intermediate cytogenetic risk AML in first complete remission after induction at Montefiore Medical Center from 1999 to 2015, and analyzed 81 patients who received consolidation with ≥2 cycles of chemotherapy, of whom 28 received autoHCT.ResultsThe cohort predominantly consisted of ethnic/racial minorities (69%). Age, sex, race, presenting white cell count, and cytogenetic risk were similar between groups. The autoHCT group had longer relapse-free (RFS; 43 vs. 11 months; P = .003) and overall (OS) survival (not reached vs. 36 months; P = .043). Adjusted multivariable analysis showed significant benefit of autoHCT over chemotherapy alone for RFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.75; P < .001) and OS (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40-0.95; P = .027).ConclusionIn this inner-city non–high-risk AML cohort, autoHCT provided OS and RFS benefit compared with chemotherapy alone. AutoHCT might constitute a valuable option for ethnic/racial minorities affected by significant barriers to alloHCT, whereas integration of measurable residual disease can help select patients more likely to benefit.     

Mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach for colorectal cancer screening: Summary of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–sponsored Summit

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening remains suboptimal. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) offers promise for increasing screening rates, but optimal strategies for implementation have not been well synthesized. In June 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a meeting of subject matter experts and stakeholders to answer key questions regarding mailed FIT implementation in the United States. Points of agreement included: 1) primers, such as texts, telephone calls, and printed mailings before mailed FIT, appear to contribute to effectiveness; 2) invitation letters should be brief and easy to read, and the signatory should be tailored based on setting; 3) instructions for FIT completion should be simple and address challenges that may lead to failed laboratory processing, such as notation of collection date; 4) reminders delivered to initial noncompleters should be used to increase the FIT return rate; 5) data infrastructure should identify eligible patients and track each step in the outreach process, from primer delivery through abnormal FIT follow-up; 6) protocols and procedures such as navigation should be in place to promote colonoscopy after abnormal FIT; 7) a high-quality, 1-sample FIT should be used; 8) sustainability requires a program champion and organizational support for the work, including sufficient funding and external policies (such as quality reporting requirements) to drive commitment to program investment; and 9) the cost effectiveness of mailed FIT has been established. Participants concluded that mailed FIT is an effective and efficient strategy with great potential for increasing colorectal cancer screening in diverse health care settings if more widely implemented.     

A global consensus statement on ashy dermatosis,erythema dyschromicum perstans,lichen planus pigmentosus,idiopathic eruptive macular pigmentation,and Riehl's melanosis

Ashy dermatosis (AD), lichen planus pigmentosus (LPP), erythema dyschromicum perstans (EDP), and idiopathic eruptive macular pigmentation are several acquired macular hyperpigmentation disorders of uncertain etiology described in literature. Most of the published studies on these disorders are not exactly comparable, as there are no clear definitions and different regions in the world describe similar conditions under different names. A consensus on the terminology of various morphologies of acquired macular pigmentation of uncertain etiology was a long-felt need. Several meetings of pigmentary disorders experts were held to address this problem. A consensus was reached after several meetings and collation of e-mailed questionnaire responses and e-mail communications among the authors of publications on the above conditions. This was achieved by a global consensus forum on AD, LPP, and EDP, established after the 22nd International Pigment Cell Conference held in Singapore in 2014. Thirty-nine experts representing 18 countries participated in the deliberations. The main focus of the deliberations was terminology of the conditions; as such, we present here the consensus statement of the forum and briefly review the available literature on the subject. We have not attempted to discuss treatment modalities in detail.