Familial rare EGFR-mutant lung cancer syndrome: Review of literature and description of R776H family

BACKGROUND

Interest in hereditary lung cancer is increasing, in particular germline mutations in the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) gene. We review the current literature on this topic, discuss risk of developing lung cancer, treatment and screening options and describe a family of 3 sisters with lung cancer and their unaffected mother all with a rare EGFR germline mutation (EGFR p.R776H).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and scanned reference lists of articles. Search terms included "EGFR germline" and "familial lung cancer" or "EGFR familial lung cancer". We also describe our experience of managing a family with rare germline EGFR mutant lung cancer.

RESULTS

Although the numbers are small, the described cases in the literature show several similarities. The patients are younger and usually have no or light smoking history. 50% of the patients were treated with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKIs) with OS over six months.

CONCLUSION

Although rare, germline p.R776H EGFR lung cancer mutations are over-represented in light or never smoking female patients who often also possess an additional somatic EGFR mutation. Treatment with TKIs appears suitable but further research is needed into the appropriate screening regime for unaffected carriers or light/never smokers.

The approach to extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) in children. A narrative review by the paediatric ECPR working group of EuroELSO

Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (ECPR) has potential benefits compared to conventional Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CCPR) in children. Although no randomised trials for paediatric ECPR have been conducted, there is extensive literature on survival, neurological outcome and risk factors for survival. Based on current literature and guidelines, we suggest recommendations for deployment of paediatric ECPR emphasising the requirement for protocols, training, and timely intervention to enhance patient outcomes. Factors related to outcomes of paediatric ECPR include initial underlying rhythm, CCPR duration, quality of CCPR, medications during CCPR, cannulation site, acidosis and renal dysfunction. Based on current evidence and experience, we provide an approach to patient selection, ECMO initiation and management in ECPR regarding blood and sweep flow settings, unloading of the left ventricle, diagnostics whilst on ECMO, temperature targets, neuromonitoring as well as suggested weaning and decannulation strategies.

Briefings in surgical teams: a pilot study of experiences and attitudes

While healthcare should not be compared to other high reliability organisations (HROs), many lessons, attitudes, and transferable practices can be applied and adapted from them to improve patient safety and team morale. Despite briefings improving both patient safety and effective team working, some in healthcare have not valued or actively engaged with them, deeming them to be irrelevant. In this pilot study we explored the experiences of, and attitudes to, briefings using a 10-question Survey Monkey. This was promoted during a human factors session at the 2023 Association of Surgeons in Training Conference (ASiT) and at a large NHS trust. Questions were asked about the number of briefings per day, attitudes, engagement, and respondents' attitudes to them. In total, 109 responses were received. A total of 85% reported at least one briefing on a normal operating day, 65% felt them to be interactive, 67% reported that briefings were led by the most senior surgical team member, and 58% lasted four minutes or more. Eighteen per cent of respondents felt they were of little benefit, and 56% did not routinely de-brief at the end of the day. This study has highlighted variable attitudes to team briefings, with some colleagues still seeing them as a 'tick box' exercise. While culture has changed following the introduction of the WHO checklist, the importance of active engagement and education to improve the delivery and value of effective briefings cannot be overestimated. It is also an opportunity to create a 'safe space' for team members and to confirm zero tolerance for any inappropriate behaviour, including sexual misconduct.

Comparison of effect estimates between preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles of COVID-19 trials

BACKGROUND

Preprints are increasingly used to disseminate research results, providing multiple sources of information for the same study. We assessed the consistency in effect estimates between preprint and subsequent journal article of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

The study utilized data from the COVID-NMA living systematic review of pharmacological treatments for COVID-19 (covid-nma.com) up to July 20, 2022. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological treatments vs. standard of care/placebo for patients with COVID-19 that were originally posted as preprints and subsequently published as journal articles. Trials that did not report the same analysis in both documents were excluded. Data were extracted independently by pairs of researchers with consensus to resolve disagreements. Effect estimates extracted from the first preprint were compared to effect estimates from the journal article.

RESULTS

The search identified 135 RCTs originally posted as a preprint and subsequently published as a journal article. We excluded 26 RCTs that did not meet the eligibility criteria, of which 13 RCTs reported an interim analysis in the preprint and a final analysis in the journal article. Overall, 109 preprint-article RCTs were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) delay between preprint and journal article was 121 (73-187) days, the median sample size was 150 (71-464) participants, 76% of RCTs had been prospectively registered, 60% received industry or mixed funding, 72% were multicentric trials. The overall risk of bias was rated as 'some concern' for 80% of RCTs. We found that 81 preprint-article pairs of RCTs were consistent for all outcomes reported. There were nine RCTs with at least one outcome with a discrepancy in the number of participants with outcome events or the number of participants analyzed, which yielded a minor change in the estimate of the effect. Furthermore, six RCTs had at least one outcome missing in the journal article and 14 RCTs had at least one outcome added in the journal article compared to the preprint. There was a change in the direction of effect in one RCT. No changes in statistical significance or conclusions were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Effect estimates were generally consistent between COVID-19 preprints and subsequent journal articles. The main results and interpretation did not change in any trial. Nevertheless, some outcomes were added and deleted in some journal articles.

No evidence of important difference in summary treatment effects between COVID-19 preprints and peer-reviewed publications: a meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVES

Preprints became a major source of research communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate whether summary treatment effect estimates differ between preprint and peer-reviewed journal trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A meta-epidemiological study. Data were derived from the COVID-NMA living systematic review (covid-nma.com) up to July 20, 2022. We identified all meta-analyses evaluating pharmacological treatments vs. standard of care or placebo for patients with COVID-19 that included at least one preprint and one peer-reviewed journal article. Difference in effect estimates between preprint and peer-reviewed journal trials were estimated by the ratio of odds ratio (ROR); ROR <1 indicated larger effects in preprint trials.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven meta-analyses including 114 trials (44 preprints and 70 peer-reviewed publications) were selected. The median number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) per meta-analysis was 2 (interquartile range [IQR], 2-4; maximum, 11), median sample size of RCTs was 199 (IQR, 99-478). Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in summary effect estimates between preprint and peer-reviewed journal trials (ROR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.71-1.09; I2 = 17.8%; τ2 = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

We did not find an important difference between summary treatment effects of preprints and summary treatment effects of peer-reviewed publications. Systematic reviewers and guideline developers should assess preprint inclusion individually, accounting for risk of bias and completeness of reporting.

Abbreviation use decreases effective clinical communication and can compromise patient safety

Clear communication is paramount for achieving the safest and best patient outcomes, for maximising time efficiency, and lowering clinician workload. Multiple factors contribute to communication efficacy, including knowledge of topics between those communicating, interpersonal familiarity, and available time. Information exchange is growing faster and more frequent due to evolving communication technology, and communication is expanding as a response to increasing workloads. The number of referrals between specialties and the general practitioner (GP) is rising. The use of abbreviations has expanded in clinical communications and is likely to lead to misunderstanding, increased workload, and worse patient outcomes. In this article, we explore the use of abbreviations in the clinical setting.

Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

It has been reported that people with COVID-19 and pre-existing autoantibodies against type I interferons are likely to develop an inflammatory cytokine storm responsible for severe respiratory symptoms. Since interleukin 6 (IL-6) is one of the cytokines released during this inflammatory process, IL-6 blocking agents have been used for treating people with severe COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To update the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to a placebo for people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify studies on 7 June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of researchers independently conducted study selection, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for all critical and important outcomes. In this update we amended our protocol to update the methods used for grading evidence by establishing minimal important differences for the critical outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 22 additional trials, for a total of 32 trials including 12,160 randomized participants all hospitalized for COVID-19 disease. We identified a further 17 registered RCTs evaluating IL-6 blocking agents without results available as of 7 June 2022.  The mean age range varied from 56 to 75 years; 66.2% (8051/12,160) of enrolled participants were men. One-third (11/32) of included trials were placebo-controlled. Twenty-two were published in peer-reviewed journals, three were reported as preprints, two trials had results posted only on registries, and results from five trials were retrieved from another meta-analysis. Eight were funded by pharmaceutical companies.  Twenty-six included studies were multicenter trials; four were multinational and 22 took place in single countries. Recruitment of participants occurred between February 2020 and June 2021, with a mean enrollment duration of 21 weeks (range 1 to 54 weeks). Nineteen trials (60%) had a follow-up of 60 days or more. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The proportion of participants who were intubated at study inclusion also varied from 5% to 95%. Only six trials reported vaccination status; there were no vaccinated participants included in these trials, and 17 trials were conducted before vaccination was rolled out. We assessed a total of six treatments, each compared to placebo or standard care. Twenty trials assessed tocilizumab, nine assessed sarilumab, and two assessed clazakizumab. Only one trial was included for each of the other IL-6 blocking agents (siltuximab, olokizumab, and levilimab). Two trials assessed more than one treatment. Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 At day (D) 28, tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement (tocilizumab: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11; 15 RCTs, 6116 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; sarilumab: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 2425 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For clinical improvement at ≥ D60, the certainty of evidence is very low for both tocilizumab (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 97 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and sarilumab (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 239 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score (WHO-CPS) of level 7 or above remains uncertain at D28 (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 13 RCTs, 2117 participants; low-certainty evidence) and that for sarilumab very uncertain (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.33; 5 RCTs, 886 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab reduces all cause-mortality at D28 compared to standard care/placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; 18 RCTs, 7428 participants; high-certainty evidence). The evidence about the effect of sarilumab on this outcome is very uncertain (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; 9 RCTs, 3305 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for all cause-mortality at ≥ D60 for tocilizumab (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04; 9 RCTs, 2775 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain for sarilumab (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 6 RCTs, 3379 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab probably results in little to no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 9 RCTs, 1811 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence about adverse events for sarilumab is uncertain (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; 4 RCT, 860 participants; low-certainty evidence).  The evidence about serious adverse events is very uncertain for tocilizumab (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 16 RCTs; 2974 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain for sarilumab (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 6 RCTs; 2936 participants; low-certainty evidence). Efficacy and safety of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab and levilimab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 The evidence about the effects of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab, and levilimab comes from only one or two studies for each blocking agent, and is uncertain or very uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalized people with COVID-19, results show a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on all-cause mortality in the short term and probably little or no difference in the risk of adverse events compared to standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, both tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab and the other IL-6 blocking agents on critical outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. Most of the trials included in our review were done before the waves of different variants of concern and before vaccination was rolled out on a large scale. An additional 17 RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents are currently registered with no results yet reported. The number of pending studies and the number of participants planned is low. Consequently, we will not publish further updates of this review.

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Renal Cell Carcinoma: Oncological and Renal Function Outcomes

AIMS

To evaluate oncological and renal function outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for medically inoperable patients with localised renal cell carcinoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients treated with curative intent SBRT (30-45 Gy in five fractions or 42 Gy in three fractions) were included. Data on local control (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] v1.1), distant metastasis, impact on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and proportional ipsilateral and contralateral renal functions (measured through renal scans) were collected. Univariate and multivariable analyses were conducted to determine association of variables with oncological and renal function outcomes.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients were analysed. The median follow-up was 27.8 months (interquartile range 17.6-41.7). Fifty-seven per cent had tumours ≥ T1b. One-, 2- and 4-year cumulative incidence of local failure was 5.85, 7.77 and 7.77%, respectively. The cumulative incidence of distant metastasis at 2 years was 4.24%. On multivariable analysis, a lower planning target volume (PTV) mean dose (P = 0.019) and a larger PTV (P = 0.005) were significantly associated with the risk of developing local failure. A lower PTV maximum dose (P = 0.039) was significantly associated with the risk of developing distant metastasis. The median change in global eGFR (ml/min) from pre-SBRT levels was -7.0 (interquartile range -14.5 to -1.0) at 1 year and -11.5 (interquartile range -19.5 to -4.0) at 2 years. The proportion of ipsilateral (differential) renal function decreased over time from 47% of overall renal function pre-SBRT to 36% at 2 years, whereas the proportion of contralateral renal function correspondingly improved. On multivariable analysis, a higher volume of uninvolved renal cortex (P < 0.0001) was significantly associated with a smaller decrease in eGFR over time.

CONCLUSION

In this large institutional cohort, oncological outcomes of renal cell carcinoma treated with SBRT were favourable and a longitudinal decline in renal function in the ipsilateral kidney and compensatory increase in the contralateral kidney were observed. Clinical and dosimetric factors were significantly associated with oncological and renal function outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines

BACKGROUND

Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes.  We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).  MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available.  This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.

The effect of ziltivekimab on the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio: analysis from RESCUE

Background

The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), derived from the complete blood count, independently predicts atherosclerotic events and is a potential biomarker for residual inflammatory risk. A previous study showed that interleukin (IL)-1β inhibition reduces the NLR, but whether inhibition with IL-6, a cytokine downstream of IL-1, also lowers the NLR is unknown.

Purpose

To evaluate whether ziltivekimab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the IL-6 ligand, dose-dependently lowers the NLR compared to placebo.

Methods

The phase II RESCUE trial randomized 264 patients with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) and high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) &gt;2mg/L in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to placebo or ziltivekimab 7.5 mg, 15 mg, and 30 mg subcutaneously once every four weeks. As previously reported, the trial met its primary endpoint as demonstrated by hsCRP reductions of 4% in the placebo group as compared to 77%, 88%, and 92% at 12 weeks in the ziltivekimab 7.5, 15, and 30 mg groups, respectively. Using RESCUE trial data, we further evaluated the percent change from baseline in the NLR at 12 weeks and sought evidence of correlation between any observed changes in the NLR with changes in other measured biomarkers.

Results

Ziltivekimab dose-dependently reduced the NLR starting at week one and sustained through week 12 (Table). The median change in the NLR at 12 weeks, the primary pre-specified endpoint, was −13.5% in the 7.5 mg group, −14.3% in the 15 mg group, and −22.4% in the 30 mg group compared to 1.56% in the placebo group. The estimated treatment difference was −14.6% (p=0.004), −15.3% (p=0.004), and −23.6% (p&lt;0.0001) in the ziltivekimab 7.5, 15, and 30 mg groups respectively. These changes were driven largely by reductions in the absolute neutrophil count with minimal change in lymphocyte count. The change in NLR with ziltivekimab correlated modestly with the changes in hsCRP (R=0.26, p=0.0006), fibrinogen (R=0.18, p=0.02), and haptoglobin (R=0.17, p=0.03), but not serum amyloid A, ApoA1, ApoB, ApoB/ApoA ratio, or traditional risk markers.

Conclusions

IL-6 inhibition with ziltivekimab lowers the NLR. The ongoing ZEUS cardiovascular (CV) outcomes trial will assess whether ziltivekimab can reduce CV event rates among individuals with stage 3 to 4 CKD, known atherosclerotic disease, and elevated hsCRP. If ziltivekimab reduces CV risk, it would provide further evidence for critical inter-relationships between bone marrow function and atherothrombosis.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Novo Nordisk

Comparison of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol equations in patients with dyslipidaemia receiving cholesterol ester transfer protein inhibition

Background

Low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C) lowering is imperative in cardiovascular disease prevention. Effectively translating the evidence for LDL-C lowering to maximize clinical and public health benefits depends on the availability of accurate LDL-C results from clinical laboratories to guide therapy. Furthermore, prior work has raised the possibility that cholesterol esterase transfer protein (CETP) inhibition could interfere with accurate assessment of LDL-C.

Purpose

We aimed to compare accuracy of three clinically implemented LDL-C equations in a clinical trial of CETP inhibition.

Methods

Men and women aged 18–75 years with dyslipidaemia were recruited from 17 sites in the Netherlands and Denmark. Patients were randomly assigned to one of nine groups using various combinations of the CETP inhibitor TA-8995, statin therapy, and placebo. In pooled measurements over 12 weeks, we calculated LDL-C by the Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, and Sampson equations, and compared values with preparative ultracentrifugation (PUC) LDL-C as the reference measure (also known as “beta quantification”). Based on prior literature and dyslipidaemia guidelines, we examined correct classifications across the LDL-C 1.81 mmol/L cutpoint in the subgroup of patients with triglycerides of 1.69–4.51 mmol/L.

Results

The analysis included 242 patients contributing 921 observations. The full distributions of differences between LDL-C estimates and PUC are shown in Figure 1. Overall median LDL-C differences between estimates and PUC were small: Friedewald, 0.00 (25th, 75th: −0.10, 0.08) mmol/L; Martin/Hopkins, 0.02 (−0.08, 0.10) mmol/L; and Sampson, 0.05 (−0.03, 0.15) mmol/L. In the subgroup with estimated LDL-C &lt;1.81 mmol/L and triglycerides 1.69–4.51 mmol/L, the Friedewald equation underestimated LDL-C with a median difference versus PUC of −0.25 (−0.33, −0.10) mmol/L, whereas the Martin/Hopkins equation corrected this issue with a median difference of 0.00 (−0.08, 0.10) mmol/L and the Sampson equation showed tendency towards underestimation with a median difference of −0.06 (−0.13, 0.00) mmol/L. In patients with triglyceride levels of 1.69–4.51 mmol/L, Figure 2 shows the proportion of LDL-C levels classified by the equations as &lt; or ≥1.81 mmol/L that were correctly classified when compared with PUC. All three equations showed &gt;95% accuracy when estimated LDL-C levels were ≥1.81 mmol/L. However, the proportion of LDL-C observations &lt;1.81 mmol/L that were correctly classified compared with PUC was 71.4% by Friedewald versus 100.0% by Martin/Hopkins and 93.1% by Sampson.

Conclusion

In Europeans with dyslipidaemia, our analysis shows improved accuracy in LDL-C when using contemporary LDL-C equations over the Friedewald equation, particularly when using the Martin/Hopkins equation. High levels of accuracy with the Martin/Hopkins equation were seen in individuals treated with CETP inhibition and even in the context of low LDL-C and high triglyceride levels.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Dezima and NewAmsterdam Pharma

Effectiveness of oral versus long-acting antipsychotic treatment early-phase schizophrenia patients: an open-label randomized trial

Introduction

Schizophrenia is a chronic psychiatric illness with periods of remission and relapse. Patients vary in the frequency and severity of relapse, time until relapse and time in remission. Discontinuation of antipsychotic medication is by far the most important reason for relapse. A possible method to optimize medication adherence is to treat patients with long-term, depot medication rather than oral medication.

Objectives

Primary objective is to compare all cause discontinuation rates in patients with schizophrenia randomized to either one of the two depot medications (aripiprazole depot or paliperidone palmitate) with patients randomized to either one of the two oral formulations of the same medication (aripiprazole or paliperidone) over an 19 month follow-up period.

Methods

Pragmatic, randomized, open label, multicenter, multinational comparative trial consisting of a 19 month treatment period. Patients aged 18 years or older, having experienced the first psychosis 1-7 years ago, currently meeting DSM-IV-R criteria for schizophrenia. Patients are randomized 1:1:1:1 to paliperidone palmitate, aripiprazole depot, oral aripiprazole or oral paliperidone. The primary outcome is all cause discontinuation.

Results

In the Intent to Treat sample (n=511), no difference was found in time to ACD between the combined oral and combined depot treatment arms, nor between the four individual treatment arms.

Conclusions

Even though the scientific evidence comparing oral and depot medication has been inconsistent, most studies were conducted in rigorous clinical settings, which may have biased those results. In contract, given the pragmatic, open label design of the current trial, the results may be more representative of common daily practice.

Disclosure

No significant relationships.

Interleukin-1 blocking agents for treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Interleukin-1 (IL-1) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), on the premise that their immunomodulatory effect might be beneficial in people with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo on effectiveness and safety outcomes in people with COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L-OVE Platform (search date 5 November 2021). These sources are maintained through regular searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, trial registers and other sources. We also checked the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, Retraction Watch (search date 3 November 2021).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes of clinical improvement (Day 28; ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28; ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28; ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four RCTs of anakinra (three published in peer-reviewed journals, one reported as a preprint) and two RCTs of canakinumab (published in peer-reviewed journals). All trials were multicentre (2 to 133 centres). Two trials stopped early (one due to futility and one as the trigger for inferiority was met). The median/mean age range varied from 58 to 68 years; the proportion of men varied from 58% to 77%. All participants were hospitalised; 67% to 100% were on oxygen at baseline but not intubated; between 0% and 33% were intubated at baseline. We identified a further 16 registered trials with no results available, of which 15 assessed anakinra (four completed, four terminated, five ongoing, three not recruiting) and one (completed) trial assessed canakinumab. Effectiveness of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.20; 3 RCTs, 837 participants; absolute effect: 59 more per 1000 (from 22 fewer to 147 more); moderate-certainty evidence. The evidence is uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.22; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 55 fewer per 1000 (from 107 fewer to 37 more); low-certainty evidence) and ≥ D60 (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.96; 1 RCT, 606 participants; absolute effect: 47 fewer per 1000 (from 72 fewer to 4 fewer) low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer per 1000 (from 68 fewer to 40 more); low-certainty evidence).  The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with clinical improvement at ≥ D60 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 115 participants; absolute effect: 59 fewer per 1000 (from 186 fewer to 102 more); very low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.56; 4 RCTs, 1633 participants; absolute effect: 8 more per 1000 (from 84 fewer to 147 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 14 more per 1000 (from 43 fewer to 78 more); moderate-certainty evidence).  The evidence is uncertain regarding an effect of anakinra on serious adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.56; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 12 fewer per 1000 (from 104 fewer to 138 more); low-certainty evidence). Effectiveness of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 42 more per 1000 (from 33 fewer to 116 more); moderate-certainty evidence).  The evidence of an effect of canakinumab is uncertain on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.20; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 35 fewer per 1000 (from 69 fewer to 25 more); low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR:0.75; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.42); 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 20 fewer per 1000 (from 48 fewer to 33 more); low-certainty evidence).  The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of canakinumab on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.91; 1 RCT, 45 participants; absolute effect: 112 fewer per 1000 (from 210 fewer to 227 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; 1 RCT, 454 participants; absolute effect: 11 more per 1000 (from 74 fewer to 111 more); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence of an effect of canakinumab on serious adverse events is uncertain (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 44 fewer per 1000 (from 94 fewer to 28 more); low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we did not find evidence for an important beneficial effect of IL-1 blocking agents. The evidence is uncertain or very uncertain for several outcomes. Sixteen trials of anakinra and canakinumab with no results are currently registered, of which four are completed, and four terminated. The findings of this review are updated on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).

Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Interleukin 6 (IL-6) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Their immunosuppressive effect might be valuable in patients with COVID-19 characterised by substantial immune system dysfunction by controlling inflammation and promoting disease tolerance.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or with placebo on efficacy and safety outcomes in COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (up to 11 February 2021) and the L-OVE platform, and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify trials up to 26 February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two review authors independently collected data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes such as clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement on the scale used by trialists to evaluate clinical progression or recovery) (day (D) 28 / ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28 / ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28 / ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 RCTs with available data including one platform trial comparing tocilizumab and sarilumab with standard of care. These trials evaluated tocilizumab (nine RCTs including two platform trials; seven were reported as peer-reviewed articles, two as preprints; 6428 randomised participants); and two sarilumab (one platform trial reported as peer reviewed article, one reported as preprint, 880 randomised participants). All trials included were multicentre trials. They were conducted in Brazil, China, France, Italy, UK, USA, and four were multi-country trials. The mean age range of participants ranged from 56 to 65 years; 4572 (66.3%) of trial participants were male. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The reported proportion of participants on oxygen at baseline but not intubated varied from 56% to 100% where reported. Five trials reported the inclusion of intubated patients at baseline. We identified a further 20 registered RCTs of tocilizumab compared to placebo/standard care (five completed without available results, five terminated without available results, eight ongoing, two not recruiting); 11 RCTs of sarilumab (two completed without results, three terminated without available results, six ongoing); six RCTs of clazakisumab (five ongoing, one not recruiting); two RCTs of olokizumab (one completed, one not recruiting); one of siltuximab (ongoing) and one RCT of levilimab (completed without available results). Of note, three were cancelled (2 tocilizumab, 1 clazakisumab). One multiple-arm RCT evaluated both tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard of care, one three-arm RCT evaluated tocilizumab and siltuximab compared to standard of care and consequently they appear in each respective comparison. Tocilizumab versus standard care alone or with placebo a. Effectiveness of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 Tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome of clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; I² = 40.9%; 7 RCTs, 5585 participants; absolute effect: 31 more with clinical improvement per 1000 (from 0 fewer to 67 more); moderate-certainty evidence). However, we cannot exclude that some subgroups of patients could benefit from the treatment. We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level of 7 or above is uncertain at D28 (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.74; I² = 64.4%; 3 RCTs, 712 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). Tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; I² = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 6363 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer deaths per 1000 (from 52 fewer to 9 fewer); high-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests uncertainty around the effect on mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.40; I² = 0.0%; 2 RCTs, 519 participants; low-certainty evidence). b. Safety of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tocilizumab on adverse events (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.72; I² = 86.4%; 7 RCTs, 1534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.06; I² = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 2312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Sarilumab versus standard care alone or with placebo The evidence is uncertain about the effect of sarilumab on all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.36; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty), on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.0; 1 RCT, 420 participants; low certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.77; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty). It is unlikely that sarilumab results in an important increase of adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.25; 1 RCT, 420 participants; moderate certainty). However, an increase cannot be excluded No data were available for other critical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

On average, tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo and probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement measured by trialist-defined scales) at D28. The impact of tocilizumab on other outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. With the data available, we were not able to explore heterogeneity. Individual patient data meta-analyses are needed to be able to identify which patients are more likely to benefit from this treatment. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab is uncertain and evidence for other anti-IL6 agents is unavailable. Thirty-nine RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents with no results are currently registered, of which nine are completed and seven trials were terminated with no results available. The findings of this review will be updated as new data are made available on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).

Experimental test of the geometric model of image formation in bright-field microscopy

In the geometric optics approximation, an image formed by an objective lens replicates the distribution of intensity at the front focal plane of the objective. Although this fact represents a fundamental optical principle, its application to analysis of bright-field microscopic images was developed only recently and has not been tested experimentally. In this paper, we applied simple ray tracing to compute an image of a glass cylinder at various positions of the objective and to compare it to the experiment. We obtained a close match between theory and observation, except for a slight underestimation of the intensity in the middle part of the cylinder. The likely reason for this minor difference was constructive interference due to lens-like properties of a cylinder, which could not be accounted for by geometric approximation. We expect that such artefacts would be negligible in imaging of live cells, and the geometric approach would successfully complement the existing quantitative phase methods.

Prostate-specific Antigen Bounce After Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Four Prospective Trials

AIMS

We conducted a pooled analysis of four prospective stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) trials of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer to evaluate the incidence of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) bounce and its correlation with the time-dose-fraction schedule. The correlation between bounce with PSA response at 4 years (nadir PSA < 0.4 ng/ml) and biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS) was also explored.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included four treatment groups: 35 Gy/five fractions once per week (QW) (TG-1; n = 84); 40 Gy/five fractions QW (TG-2; n = 100); 40 Gy/five fractions every other day (TG-3; n = 73); and 26 Gy/two fractions QW (TG-4; n = 30). PSA bounce was defined as a rise in PSA by 0.2 ng/ml (nadir + 0.2) or 2 ng/ml (nadir + 2.0) above nadir followed by a decrease back to nadir. Patients with fewer than three follow-up PSA tests were excluded from the pooled analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 287 patients were included, with a median follow-up of 5.0 years. The pooled 5-year cumulative incidence of bounce by nadir + 2.0 was 8%. The 2-year cumulative incidences of PSA bounce by nadir + 0.2 were 28.9, 21, 19.6 and 16.7% (P = 0.12) and by nadir + 2.0 were 7.2, 8, 2.7 and 6.7% (P = 0.32) for TG-1 to TG-4, respectively. Multivariable analysis revealed that for nadir + 2.0, pre-treatment PSA (odds ratio 0.49; 95% confidence interval 0.26-0.97) correlated with PSA bounce. Although PSA bounce by nadir + 0.2 (odds ratio 0.10; 95% confidence interval 0.04-0.24) and nadir + 2.0 (odds ratio 0.29; 95% confidence interval 0.09-0.93) was associated with a lower probability of PSA response at 4 years, there was no association between bounce by nadir + 0.2 (hazard ratio 0.36; 95% confidence interval 0.08-1.74) or nadir + 2 (hazard ratio 1.77; 95% confidence interval 0.28-11.07) with BFFS.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of PSA bounce was independent of time-dose-fraction schedule for prostate SBRT. One in 13 patients experienced a bounce high enough to be misinterpreted as biochemical failure, and clinicians should avoid early salvage interventions in these patients. There was no association between PSA bounce and BFFS.

Leading article: What has an Airbus A380 Captain got to do with OMFS? Lessons from aviation to improve patient safety

The understanding of why air accidents occur and all the factors involved with them has been a strong and constantly evolving driver for improving flight safety. While they are diverse professions, there are many similarities between flying commercial aircraft and surgery, particularly in relation to minimising risk and managing potentially fatal or catastrophic complications. Safety developments in the operating theatre seem to have lagged behind other High Risk Organisations (HROs). A 2018 Quality Care Commission report stated that never events are wholly preventable and expressed the need to learn from other industries. In this article we discuss various transferable lessons and procedures advocated from aviation that could be applied to OMFS in an attempt to improve team culture and safety for our patients.

Abstract P3-08-03: Dissecting the heterogeneity of metaplastic breast cancer: A morphological, immunohistochemical and genomic analysis of a large cohort

Although rare, Metaplastic Breast Carcinomas (MBC) account for significant global breast cancer mortality. This subgroup is extremely heterogeneous and by definition exhibits metaplastic change to squamous and/or mesenchymal elements, including but not limited to spindle, squamous, chondroid, osseous and rhabdomyoid elements. The WHO working group recognizes that the current classification is inadequate and in the interim, has suggested a purely descriptive classification. The mixed epithelial-mesenchymal morphology has led to speculation that MBC represent 'stem cell tumours'; in support of this, MBC have been shown to have a CD44+/CD24-/low phenotype. Clinically, patients present with tumours that are larger (higher stage), have increased likelihood of distant metastases at presentation and overall, have a reduced 5-year survival rate compared to Invasive Carcinoma-NST. Hence, this is a unique subtype with poor outcome but without a robust classification or understanding of the biology to aid clinical management. We present a detailed morphological, immunohistochemical and genomic analysis of a large series of MBC (n=347), as amassed through the Asia-Pacific MBC consortium. We consider our morphological dissection using the WHO subtyping guidelines and show that an increasing number of phenotypes in a mixed MBC (classified as WHO_1) significantly associates with a poor prognosis. Immunohistochemical analysis showed that a pure spindle (WHO_5) is significantly less likely to express vimentin, CK5/6, CK14, and CK19 than a mixed WHO_1 with spindle features. Similarly, a WHO_1 with chondroid features is less likely to express EGFR than WHO_1 with chondroid features and rhabdoid or osseous differentiation. Across the cohort, positivity for the AE1/3 antibody and a lack of EGFR expression both significantly associate with a better outcome. We report no significant association between patient age at diagnosis and breast cancer specific survival, nor between age and specific WHO MBC subtypes. We report a significant association between WHO_1 types and increasing tumour grade, and also between tumour size and grade, with tumour size being a highly significant prognostic indicator in this cohort. Our exome sequencing confirms a significant enrichment for TP53 and PTEN mutations in MBC, and intriguingly for concurrent mutations of TP53, PTEN and PIK3CA. A novel enrichment for NF1 mutations is also presented. In summary, we provide a thorough assessment of a large cohort of MBC, including morphology, survival, IHC and exome sequencing, and present our analysis contextualized by the WHO guidelines, extending the existing knowledge base of this rare tumour type.

Citation Format: McCart Reed AE, Kalaw E, Nones K, Bettington M, Lim M, Bennett J, Johnstone K, Kutasovic JR, Kazakoff S, Xu QC, Saunus JM, Reid LE, Black D, Niland C, Ferguson K, Gresshoff I, Raghavendra A, Liu JC, Kalinowski L, Reid AS, Davidson M, Pearson JV, Yamaguchi R, Harris G, Tse G, Papadimos D, Pathmanathan R, Pathmanathan N, Tan PH, Fox S, O'Toole S, Waddell N, Simpson PT, Lakhani SR. Dissecting the heterogeneity of metaplastic breast cancer: A morphological, immunohistochemical and genomic analysis of a large cohort [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-08-03.

The potential distribution of the Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia): an updated distribution model including irrigation improves model fit for predicting potential spread

Diuraphis noxia (Kurdjumov), Russian wheat aphid, is one of the world's most invasive and economically important agricultural pests of wheat and barley. In May 2016, it was found for the first time in Australia, with further sampling confirming it was widespread throughout south-eastern regions. Russian wheat aphid is not yet present in New Zealand. The impacts of this pest if it establishes in New Zealand, could result in serious control problems in wheat- and barley-growing regions. To evaluate whether D. noxia could establish populations in New Zealand we used the climate modelling software CLIMEX to locate where potential viable populations might occur. We re-parameterised the existing CLIMEX model by Hughes and Maywald (1990) by improving the model fit using currently known distribution records of D. noxia, and we also considered the role of irrigation into the potential spread of this invasive insect. The updated model now fits the current known distribution better than the previous Hughes and Maywald CLIMEX model, particularly in temperate and Mediterranean areas in Australia and Europe; and in more semi-arid areas in north-western China and Middle Eastern countries. Our model also highlights new climatically suitable areas for the establishment of D. noxia, not previously reported, including parts of France, the UK and New Zealand. Our results suggest that, when suitable host plants are present, Russian wheat aphid could establish in these regions. The new CLIMEX projections in the present study are useful tools to inform risk assessments and target surveillance and monitoring efforts for identifying susceptible areas to invasion by Russian wheat aphid.

A Breast Screening Shawl to Help Aboriginal Women Feel More Comfortable and Culturally Safe

Background: It is recommended that Australian women aged 50-74 have a breast screen every two years. Aboriginal women have lower breast screening participation than the general population, and face barriers at a system, service and individual level including: • Cultural: lack of cultural awareness/safety at screening services • Fear: historical apprehension about health services due to the after effects of colonization and intergenerational trauma • Shame: feeling embarrassment/shame at being undressed in front of a stranger • Past experience: having a past unpleasant breast screen, or hearing about someone else' • Knowledge: lack of knowledge about screening • Logistics: not knowing service provider locations or limited access to transport During a 2016 project between BreastScreen Victoria (BSV) and Women's Health West, Aboriginal women discussed the need for a shawl to cover them during screening. This idea is based on a successful New Zealand model. Based on this, the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service (VAHS), Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organization (VACCHO) and BSV formed a partnership to trial a breast screening shawl with Aboriginal women. A key principle underpinning the project is that success will reflect the degree to which this is an Aboriginal-led initiative, driven by the needs of Aboriginal women, and steered by community-based Aboriginal health organizations. Project aims: • Assess whether a cultural, strength based screening process increases engagement of Aboriginal women • Determine whether a screening shawl enhances comfort and culturally safety • Encourage breast screening services to develop culturally safe screening practices • Develop a flexible model that can be easily adapted by other Aboriginal health services to reproduce the shawl, in recognition of the diversity of Aboriginal communities Methods: This project adopted the following strategies: • A project steering group was established • The shawl will be trialled via a group booking at one BSV clinic • Before the group booking, BSV clinic staff will attend culturally safety training • On the trial day, women will attend an information session at VAHS about breast screening and receive their shawl, travel to the BSV clinic together for screening, and return to VAHS to discuss their experiences Results: The trial will be fully evaluated in 2018 to determine whether project aims were achieved. Conclusion: Key learnings to date are: • Breast screening interventions for Aboriginal women must be community-led to ensure they are culturally appropriate, safe and acceptable • Aboriginal women face a number of barriers to breast screening at a system, service and individual level • Health services play a critical role in adopting culturally safe screening practices • Developing a flexible model that can be easily adapted by other Aboriginal health services is critical in ensuring the sustainability and acceptability of the shawl.

Suicide risk assessment among psychiatric inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of high-risk categories

BACKGROUND

The clinical care of psychiatric patients is often guided by perceptions of suicide risk. The aim of this study was to examine the methods and results of studies reporting high-risk models for inpatient suicide.

METHODS

We conducted a registered meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines. We searched for relevant peer-reviewed cohort and controlled studies indexed in Medline, EMBASE and PsychINFO.

RESULTS

The pooled odds ratio (OR) among 18 studies reporting high-risk models for inpatient suicide was 7.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.2-12.2]. Between-study heterogeneity in ORs was very high (range 0-94.8, first quartile 3.4, median 8.8, third quartile 26.1, prediction interval 0.80-63.1, I2 = 88.1%). The meta-analytically derived sensitivity was 53.1% (95% CI 38.2-67.5%, I2 = 95.9%) and specificity was 84.2% (95% CI 71.6-91.9%, I2 = 99.9%) with an associated meta-analytic area under the curve of 0.83. The positive predictive value of risk categorization among six cohort studies was 0.43% (95% CI 0.014-1.3%, I2 = 95.9%). A history of suicidal behavior and depressive symptoms or affective disorder was included in the majority of high-risk models.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the strength of the pooled association between high-risk categorization and suicide, the very high degree of observed heterogeneity indicates uncertainty about our ability to meaningfully distinguish inpatients according to suicide risk. The limited sensitivity and low positive predictive value of risk categorization suggest that suicide risk models are not a suitable basis for clinical decisions in inpatient settings.

A method for the improved detection of aerosolized influenza viruses and the male-specific (F+) RNA coliphage MS2

•

Developed a method for viral bioaerosol sampling using anion exchange resin.

•

MS2 and influenza viruses (A/B) detection improved by 8.26×, 6.77× and 3.33×.

•

The anion exchange resin method can adapt to existing bioaerosol samplers.

The detection of aerosolized viruses can serve as an important surveillance and control tool in agriculture, human health, and environmental settings. Here, we adapted an anion exchange resin-based method, initially developed to concentrate negatively charged viruses from water, to liquid impingement-based bioaerosol sampling. In this method, aerosolized viruses are collected in a 20 ml liquid sample contained within widely used impingers, BioSamplers (SKC Inc., Eighty Four, PA), and further concentrated via adsorption to an anion exchange resin that is suspended within this liquid. Viral nucleic acids are then extracted from the resin to facilitate molecular analyses through a reduction in the effective sample volume. For this study, various quantities of two negatively charged viruses, type A and type B influenza viruses (FluMist Quadrivalent vaccine) and the male-specific (F+) RNA coliphage MS2 (MS2), were nebulized into a custom-built bioaerosolization chamber, and sampled using BioSamplers with and without anion exchange resin. Compared to direct testing of the BioSampler liquid, detection was improved by 6.77× and 3.33× for type A and type B influenza viruses, respectively, by using the anion exchange resin. For MS2, the anion exchange resin method allowed for an average improvement in detection of 8.26×.