Direct comparison of reproducibility and reliability in quantitative assessments of burn scar properties

IntroductionDetermining the efficacy of anti-scar technologies can be difficult as qualitative, subjective assessments are often utilized instead of systematic, objective measures. Perceptions regarding the reliability of instruments for quantitative measurements along with their high cost and increased data collection time may discourage their use, leading to use of scar scales which are relatively quick and low-cost. To directly evaluate the reliability of instruments for quantitative measurements of scar properties, instruments and two qualitative scales were compared by assessing a variety of cutaneous scars.MethodsScar height and surface texture were evaluated using a 3D scanner and a mold/cast technique. Scar color was evaluated by using a spectroscopy-based tool, the Mexameter®, and digital photography with image analysis. Scar biomechanics were evaluated using the BTC-2000?, Dermal Torque Meter (DTM®), and ballistometer®. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) were used to qualitatively evaluate the same scar properties. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to determine inter- and intra-user reliability (poor, moderate, good, excellent) with all instruments and the kappa reliability statistic was used to asses inter-user reliability (poor, fair, moderate, good, very good) for VSS and POSAS. Time for measurement collection and after collection analysis was also recorded.ResultsThe Mexameter® was the most reliable method for evaluating erythema and pigmentation compared to digital photography and image processing, POSAS and VSS. Digital photography and analysis was more reliable than POSAS and VSS. Assessment of scar height was significantly more reliable when using a 3D scanner versus VSS and POSAS. The 3D scanner and mold-cast techniques also offered an additional benefit of providing an absolute value of scar height relative to the surrounding tissue. Intra-user reliability for all mechanical tests was moderate to good. Inter-user reliability was greater when using the BTC-2000? and ballistometer® versus the DTM®. All quantitative measurements took less than 90 s for collection, with the exception of the mold/cast technique.ConclusionNon-invasive instruments allow scar properties to be quantitatively assessed with high sensitivity and as a function of time and/or treatment without the need for biopsy collection. Overall, the reliability of scar assessments was significantly improved when quantitative instruments were utilized versus scar scales. Quantitative assessment of color and biomechanics were swift, requiring less than 90 s per measurement while assessments of texture and height required additional analysis time after collection. With proper training of clinical staff and well-defined protocols for measurement collection, reliable, quantitative assessments of scar properties can be collected with little disruption to the clinical workflow.     

The Liver Retransplantation Risk Score: a prognostic model for survival after adult liver retransplantation

High-risk combinations of recipient and graft characteristics are poorly defined for liver retransplantation (reLT) in the current era. We aimed to develop a risk model for survival after reLT using data from the European Liver Transplantation Registry, followed by internal and external validation. From 2006 to 2016, 85 067 liver transplants were recorded, including 5581 reLTs (6.6%). The final model included seven predictors of graft survival: recipient age, model for end-stage liver disease score, indication for reLT, recipient hospitalization, time between primary liver transplantation and reLT, donor age, and cold ischemia time. By assigning points to each variable in proportion to their hazard ratio, a simplified risk score was created ranging 0–10. Low-risk (0–3), medium-risk (4–5), and high-risk (6–10) groups were identified with significantly different 5-year survival rates ranging 56.9% (95% CI 52.8–60.7%), 46.3% (95% CI 41.1–51.4%), and 32.1% (95% CI 23.5–41.0%), respectively (P < 0.001). External validation showed that the expected survival rates were closely aligned with the observed mortality probabilities. The Retransplantation Risk Score identifies high-risk combinations of recipient- and graft-related factors prognostic for long-term graft survival after reLT. This tool may serve as a guidance for clinical decision-making on liver acceptance for reLT.     

Proteína C reactiva y escala SOFA: una simple escala como factor predictivo temprano de la necesidad de cuidados críticos en los pacientes con neumonía causada por COVID-19 en España

ObjectiveTo identify potential markers at admission predicting the need for critical care in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.Material and methodsAn approved, observational, retrospective study was conducted between March 15 to April 15, 2020. 150 adult patients aged less than 75 with Charlson comorbidity index ≤ 6 diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia were included. Seventy-five patients were randomly selected from those admitted to the critical care units (critical care group [CG]) and seventy-five hospitalized patients who did not require critical care (non-critical care group [nCG]) represent the control group. One additional cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were used to validate the score.Measurements and main resultsMultivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital critical care associated with increased C-reactive protein (CRP) (odds ratio 1.052 [1.009-1.101]; P = .0043) and higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (1.968 [1.389-2.590]; P < .0001), both at the time of hospital admission. The AUC-ROC for the combined model was 0.83 (0.76-0.90) (vs AUC-ROC SOFA P < .05). The AUC-ROC for the validation cohort was 0.89 (0.82-0.95) (P > 0.05 vs AUC-ROC development).ConclusionPatients COVID-19 presenting at admission SOFA score ≥ 2 combined with CRP ≥ 9,1 mg/mL could be at high risk to require critical care.     

Axillary management based on American college of surgeons oncology group Z0011 criteria makes it possible to omit intraoperative diagnosis of sentinel lymph nodes in early breast cancer patients

The ACOSOG Z0011 trial has resulted in the omission of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in early breast cancer patients with one or two metastatic sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs). There has been increasing interest in the necessity of intraoperative assessment of SLNs in patients treated based on the Z0011 criteria. We evaluated the utility of intraoperative assessment in these eligible patients. A total of 1396 patients were treated following the Z0011 criteria from April 2012 to December 2019. We examined the proportion and clinicopathological features of patients who underwent ALND due to three or more metastatic SLNs and the sensitivity of intraoperative assessment. Only 16 (1.1%) patients had three or more metastatic SLNs diagnosed by intraoperative assessment, and they immediately underwent ALND. Of the clinicopathological factors, high clinical tumor stage (p = 0.002) and high Ki-67 labeling index value (p = 0.056) were more likely to be associated with the presence of three or more metastatic SLNs. The major independent risk factor for three or more metastatic SLNs was high clinical tumor stage (OR 3.94 [95% CI 1.42–11.0]; p = 0.009). Intraoperative assessment had low sensitivity (70.5%) and a high false-negative rate (29.5%) in detecting SLN metastases. The main finding of our study was the small proportion of patients who required ALND due to three or more metastatic SLNs according to the Z0011 criteria. The Z0011 strategy enables intraoperative assessment of SLNs to be omitted in early breast cancer patients.     

Substituting imputation of HLA antigens for high-resolution HLA typing: Evaluation of a multiethnic population and implications for clinical decision making in transplantation

Molecular mismatch analysis for assessment of histocompatibility in transplantation requires high-resolution HLA typing. Algorithms to “guesstimate” high-resolution from low-resolution typing exist, but their accuracy remains unknown. We converted high-resolution, sequence-based, HLA typing of 310 subjects from an ethnically heterogeneous population to low-resolution equivalents and tested the ability of the NMDP HaploStats and HLA Matchmaker programs to impute/reproduce the measured high-resolution HLA type, using the more common “winner-takes-all” approach. Only 35.6% of the HaploStats imputed HLA-A, -B, -C, -DRB1, and -DQB1 haplotypes had no mistakes, and the accuracy was significantly lower for non-Caucasians (29.1%) compared to Caucasians (45.2%) (odds ratio [OR], 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-0.8; P = .004). HLA Matchmaker was not able to provide high-resolution haplotypes for 45.2% of Caucasian subjects and 63.5% of non-Caucasian subjects (P = .002). Of those with an imputed result, only 10.3% of Caucasians and 4.8% of non-Caucasians had accurate 10-allele high-resolution output. Eplet analysis revealed additional, inaccurate eplets in 37% of individuals, with 22.5% showing at least 2 additional, inaccurate eplets; incorrect eplets were more common among non-Caucasians (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9; P = .018). Given this high error rate, caution should be taken before using imputation tools for clinical or research purposes, especially for non-Caucasian individuals.