Prognostic tools for hypertrophic scar formation based on fundamental differences in systemic immunity

Unpredictable hypertrophic scarring (HS) occurs after approximately 35% of all surgical procedures and causes significant physical and psychological complaints. Parallel to the need to understanding the mechanisms underlying HS formation, a prognostic tool is needed. The objective was to determine whether (systemic) immunological differences exist between patients who develop HS and those who develop normotrophic scars (NS) and to assess whether those differences can be used to identify patients prone to developing HS. A prospective cohort study with NS and HS groups in which (a) cytokine release by peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and (b) the irritation threshold (IT) after an irritant (sodium lauryl sulphate) patch test was evaluated. Univariate regression analysis of PBMC cytokine secretion showed that low MCP‐1, IL‐8, IL‐18 and IL‐23 levels have a strong correlation with HS (P < .010‐0.004; AUC = 0.790‐0.883). Notably, combinations of two or three cytokines (TNF‐a, MCP‐1 and IL‐23; AUC: 0.942, Nagelkerke R²: 0.727) showed an improved AUC indicating a better correlation with HS than single cytokine analysis. These combination models produce good prognostic results over a broad probability range (sensitivity: 93.8%, specificity 86.7%, accuracy 90,25% between probability 0.3 and 0.7). Furthermore, the HS group had a lower IT than the NS group and an accuracy of 68%. In conclusion, very fundamental immunological differences exist between individuals who develop HS and those who do not, whereas the cytokine assay forms the basis of a predictive prognostic test for HS formation, the less invasive, easily performed irritant skin patch test is more accessible for daily practice.     

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer—2020 Update. Part 1: Screening,Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent

ObjectiveTo present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa).Evidence acquisitionThe panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2016 and 2020. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence.Evidence synthesisA risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. Risk-adapted screening should be offered to men at increased risk from the age of 45 yr and to breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers, who have been confirmed to be at risk of early and aggressive disease (mainly BRAC2), from around 40 yr of age. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is performed, a combination of targeted and systematic biopsies must be offered. There is currently no place for the routine use of tissue-based biomarkers. Whilst prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography is the most sensitive staging procedure, the lack of outcome benefit remains a major limitation. Active surveillance (AS) should always be discussed with low-risk patients, as well as with selected intermediate-risk patients with favourable International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the AS journey and the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A strong recommendation to consider moderate hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term hormonal treatment.ConclusionsThe evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for their use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management.Patient summaryUpdated prostate cancer guidelines are presented, addressing screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. These guidelines rely on the available scientific evidence, and new insights will need to be considered and included on a regular basis. In some cases, the supporting evidence for new treatment options is not yet strong enough to provide a recommendation, which is why continuous updating is important. Patients must be fully informed of all relevant options and, together with their treating physicians, decide on the most optimal management for them.     

Evaluation of vilazodone for the treatment of depressive and anxiety disorders

Introduction: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and General Anxiety Disorder (GAD) significantly contribute to the global burden of disease. Vilazodone, a combined serotonin reuptake inhibitor and 5-HT1A partial agonist, is an approved therapy for the treatment of MDD and which has been further investigated for GAD.

Areas covered: This article covers the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of vilazodone and provides an evaluation of the clinical usefulness of vilazodone for the treatment of MDD and anxiety disorders. A literature search was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library.

Expert opinion: Studies have shown that vilazodone is significantly superior to placebo. However, vilazodone cannot as yet be recommended as a first-line treatment option for MDD as it is unclear whether the drug’s dual mechanism of action provides greater efficacy than prevailing treatment options. Moreover, more phase IV studies are needed to establish its efficacy and long-term safety in larger and more diverse populations. Although vilazodone may have an additional advantage for the treatment of anxiety symptoms in MDD, here also additional studies are required to confirm its efficacy over and above SSRI alternatives and other antidepressant treatments. Therefore, presently, vilazodone should be considered as a second- or third-line treatment option for MDD and GAD.     

The authors reply

This is a reply to the commentary of Ossorio and Zhou.     

The impact of stenosis and translation on spinal cord injuries in traumatic cervical facet dislocations

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Although facet dislocations account for only 6% of cervical trauma, the consequences are often devastating. Cervical facet dislocations are associated with a disproportionate amount of spinal cord injuries; however, neurologic examination of patients is often difficult, as patients commonly present with reduced levels of consciousness. There are limited studies that have investigated the impact of spinal canal diameter and translation on neurologic injury following facet dislocations.

A fatal case of bortezomib‐induced lung toxicity in a young adult heart transplant recipient

Bortezomib is approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma but increasingly used in heart transplant (HTx) recipients with antibody‐mediated rejection (AMR). Severe pulmonary toxicity is a rare complication in multiple myeloma patients treated with bortezomib, but has not been described in a solid organ transplant recipient. A 20‐year‐old man 7 years post‐HTx presented with acute rejection with hemodynamic compromise. Endomyocardial biopsy showed mixed rejection (ISHLT grade 2R‐3R acute cellular rejection (ACR) and pAMR 1 (I+) with diffuse C4d staining). Two new high MFI circulating MHC class‐II donor‐specific antibodies (DSA) were detected. Treatment included corticosteroids, antithymocyte globulin, plasmapheresis, IVIG, rituximab, and bortezomib (1.3 mg/m²). Due to rebound in DSA, a second course of bortezomib was started. Thrombocytopenia and peripheral neuropathy prompted a 50% dose reduction during the 2nd course. Shortly after the 3rd reduced dose, the patient developed hypoxemic respiratory failure. Bronchoscopy revealed pulmonary hemorrhage with negative infectious studies. Chest CT showed bilateral parenchymal disease with bronchiectasis and alveolar bleeding. Despite treatment with high‐dose steroids, severe ARDS ensued with multisystem organ failure. The patient expired 23 days after the final dose of bortezomib. Post‐mortem lung histology revealed diffuse alveolar damage, pulmonary fibrosis, and hemorrhage. Cardiac histology showed resolving/residual ACR 1R and pAMR 1 (I+). While rare, bortezomib‐induced lung toxicity (BILT) can occur in HTx recipients and can carry a high risk of mortality. Drug reaction and immediate drug withdrawal should be considered in patients who develop respiratory symptoms, though optimal management of BILT is unclear.