Immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis diagnosis and treatment algorithm 2021

Immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis (AL) commonly presents with nephrotic range proteinuria, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, nondiabetic peripheral neuropathy, unexplained hepatomegaly or diarrhea, and should be considered in patients presenting with these symptoms. More importantly, patients being monitored for smoldering multiple myeloma and a monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) are at risk for developing AL amyloidosis. MGUS and myeloma patients that have atypical features, including unexplained weight loss; lower extremity edema, early satiety, and dyspnea on exertion should be considered at risk for light chain amyloidosis. Overlooking the diagnosis of light chain amyloidosis leading to therapy delay is common, and it represents an error of diagnostic consideration. Herein we provide a review of established and investigational treatments for patients with AL amyloidosis and provide algorithms for workup and management of these patients.Subject terms: Myeloma, Chemotherapy     

Outcomes of patients with non-small cell lung cancer and poor performance status treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in the real-world setting

International Journal of Clinical Oncology - Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard treatments for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with poor performance status...     

Fibroblast growth factor receptors in cancer: genetic alterations,diagnostics, therapeutic targets and mechanisms of resistance

Fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFRs) are aberrantly activated through single-nucleotide variants, gene fusions and copy number amplifications in 5–10% of all human cancers, although this frequency increases to 10–30% in urothelial carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. We begin this review by highlighting the diversity of FGFR genomic alterations identified in human cancers and the current challenges associated with the development of clinical-grade molecular diagnostic tests to accurately detect these alterations in the tissue and blood of patients. The past decade has seen significant advancements in the development of FGFR-targeted therapies, which include selective, non-selective and covalent small-molecule inhibitors, as well as monoclonal antibodies against the receptors. We describe the expanding landscape of anti-FGFR therapies that are being assessed in early phase and randomised controlled clinical trials, such as erdafitinib and pemigatinib, which are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of FGFR3-mutated urothelial carcinoma and FGFR2-fusion cholangiocarcinoma, respectively. However, despite initial sensitivity to FGFR inhibition, acquired drug resistance leading to cancer progression develops in most patients. This phenomenon underscores the need to clearly delineate tumour-intrinsic and tumour-extrinsic mechanisms of resistance to facilitate the development of second-generation FGFR inhibitors and novel treatment strategies beyond progression on targeted therapy.Subject terms: Cancer, Cancer     

Effectiveness,Patient Satisfaction,and Cost Reduction of Virtual Joint Replacement Clinic Follow-Up of Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundTotal hip and knee arthroplasties are increasingly performed operations, and routine follow-up places huge demands on orthopedic services. This study investigates the effectiveness, patients’ satisfaction, and cost reduction of Virtual Joint Replacement Clinic (VJRC) follow-up of total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty patients in a university hospital. VJRC is especially valuable when in-person appointments are not advised or feasible such as during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA total of 1749 patients who were invited for VJRC follow-up for knee or hip arthroplasty from January 2017 to December 2018 were included in this retrospective study. Patients were referred to VJRC after their 6-week postoperative review. Routine VJRC postoperative review was undertaken at 1 and 7 years and then 3-yearly thereafter. We evaluated the VJRC patient response rate, acceptability, and outcome. Patient satisfaction was measured in a subgroup of patients using a satisfaction survey. VJRC costs were calculated compared to face-to-face follow-up.ResultsThe VJRC had a 92.05% overall response rate. Only 7.22% required further in-person appointments with only 3% being reviewed by an orthopedic consultant. VJRC resulted in an estimated saving of £42,644 per year at our institution. The patients’ satisfaction survey showed that 89.29% of the patients were either satisfied or very satisfied with VJRC follow-up.ConclusionVJRC follow-up for hip and knee arthroplasty patients is an effective alternative to in-person clinic assessment which is accepted by patients, has high patient satisfaction, and can reduce the cost to both health services and patients.