Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Secondary brain injury is a common cause of poor outcome after trauma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and intracerebral hemorrhage, and optimizing treatment requires real-time insight into cerebral metabolism. Cerebral microdialysis (CMD) uniquely provides key related information, yet consensus on its use has not been updated since publication of the consensus statement from the 2014 International Microdialysis Forum. We aimed to assess expert consensus on the use of CMD in critical care and provide contemporary guidance to standardize practice and advance clinical implementation. METHODS:We conducted a 3-round modified Delphi study with international experts in CMD and neurocritical care. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% agreement among non-abstaining respondents, with a minimum of 30 non-abstaining respondents required per statement. Statements not reaching consensus were iteratively revised based on panelist feedback. RESULTS:Forty of 67 invited experts (60%) from 9 countries participated. Sixty of 62 individual items achieved consensus (97%) across 9 domains: indications and patient selection, technical and procedural considerations, detecting deterioration and secondary injury, metabolic interpretation, treatment algorithms, glucose management, sampling frequency, core reporting items, and barriers to clinical implementation. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This consensus statement provides updated, evidence-informed recommendations for the use of CMD in critical care. The panel reaffirmed many core recommendations from the 2014 consensus while making targeted advances: cautious extension of guidance to intracerebral hemorrhage, comprehensive reporting guidance addressing frequently omitted elements (19 items vs. 6 in 2014), and identification of 10 key barriers to routine clinical adoption.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR) demonstrated superior outcomes over medical therapy in patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) in the Edwards EVOQUE Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Replacement: Pivotal Clinical Investigation of Safety and Clinical Efficacy Using a Novel Device II (TRISCEND II) randomized clinical trial, and received regulatory approval in the US in 2024. Contemporary real-world data on its effectiveness and safety remain limited. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate 30-day clinical, echocardiographic, and health status outcomes of TTVR in real-world use. DESIGN, SETTING, AND POPULATION/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent TTVR in the US from February 2024 through March 2025 in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. Patients had symptomatic, severe TR despite optimal medical therapy and TTVR was deemed appropriate by a heart team. Statistical analysis was conducted from September 2025 to February 2026. EXPOSURE/UNASSIGNED:Device-enabled TTVR. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:Thirty-day event rates (all-cause death, stroke, bleeding, new cardiac implantable electronic device [CIED] implantation, heart failure hospitalizations), TR reduction, and changes in health status (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary [KCCQ-OS] score) are reported. Subgroup analyses examined the impact of baseline CIED status on outcomes. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Among 1034 attempted procedures at 82 centers (mean [SD] age, 77.1 [10.6] years; 69.1% female; 73.2% NYHA functional class III/IV), a valve was successfully implanted in 1017 patients (98.4%). Mild or less TR was achieved in 98.4% of patients post procedure and in 97.7% at 30 days. At 30 days, all-cause mortality was 3.1%; stroke, 0.2%; bleeding, 7.9%; new CIED, 15.9% in CIED-naive patients; and heart failure hospitalization, 3.1%. There were significant improvements in NYHA functional class (class I/II, 82.7%; P < .001) and mean KCCQ-OS score (22.4 points; P < .001) from baseline to 30 days. There were no significant differences in 30-day mortality (P = .47), heart failure hospitalization (P > .99), and functional outcomes (P = .55) when patients were stratified by baseline CIED status. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:Early US real-world experience with TTVR confirms safety and effectiveness in patients with severe TR. Thirty-day outcomes are consistent with the TRISCEND II pivotal trial, demonstrating acceptable safety, near-complete TR elimination, and significant health status improvements in an older, comorbid population. Rates of new CIED implantation and bleeding were lower than randomized clinical trial experience.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:Most patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer (HRLPC) do not undergo stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in part because of the limited evidence of long-term outcomes. We report long-term efficacy and toxicity outcomes for men treated with SBRT for HRLPC. METHODS:Individual patient data from ten prospective clinical studies evaluating SBRT for HRLPC across nine institutions were pooled in the Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for High-Risk Localized Carcinoma of the Prostate consortium. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate 5-yr biochemical recurrence (BCR) and distant metastasis (DM), stratified by receipt of intensified treatment (≥12 mo of androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] with extremely dose-escalated [≥8 Gy/fraction] prostate-directed SBRT). The impact of intensified treatment on BCR-free survival and DM-free survival was evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. Late Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade ≥2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity was analyzed using time-to-event models. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS/UNASSIGNED:In 440 patients with a median follow-up time of 60.4 mo, 5-yr BCR and DM rates were 22% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 17-26%] and 9.2% (95% CI = 6.2-12%), respectively. In the 93 patients (21%) who received intensified treatment, 5-yr BCR and DM rates were 7.4% (95% CI = 1.7-13%) and 3.7% (95% CI = 0-7.9%), respectively. Receipt of intensified therapy was associated with a significant reduction in both BCR (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.38 [95% CI = 0.20-0.74], p = 0.005) and DM (HR = 0.43 [95% CI = 0.18-0.99], p = 0.049). For the overall cohort, 5-yr rates of grade ≥2 GU and GI toxicity were 23% (95% CI = 19-27%) and 10% (95% CI = 7-13%), respectively. Limitations include heterogeneous treatment techniques and the nonrandomized nature of the study. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:The safety and efficacy profile of SBRT for HRLPC remains favorable at long-term follow-up, and SBRT should be integrated into shared decision-making for treatment of HRLPC.

BACKGROUND:The objectives of this study were to determine if financial considerations affect reconstructive decision-making, and conversely if reconstructive choice affects downstream financial burden. METHODS:We conducted mixed-methods study with a convergent design. Patients undergoing mastectomy with or without reconstruction were administered the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) questionnaire before and after surgical treatment, where COST ≤20 indicated financial toxicity (FT). Multivariable regression models were used to identify predictors of FT and changes in COST score. Additionally, we conducted semi-structured interviews with patients who screened positive for FT to comprehensively capture experiences with financial burden. RESULTS:There were 1,029 patients with a COST score prior to mastectomy, with a 30.6% rate of FT. Significant predictors of FT included age (OR 0.97), race (Asian OR 2.12, Black OR 2.66, compared to White), marital status (divorced/separated OR 2.70, single OR 2.43, compared to partnered), and neighborhood-level socioeconomic deprivation (OR 1.15) (p<0.02). Receipt of reconstruction was not significantly associated with baseline FT, nor were type and timing among those who underwent reconstruction (N=739). Additionally, receipt, type, and/or timing of reconstruction were not significantly associated with a change in COST score (full cohort N=446, reconstruction cohort N=297). Interviews yielded 3 themes: prioritizing outcomes over financial implications, difficulties navigating and maintaining insurance coverage, and a need for greater transparency and access to financial resources. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Bidirectional relationships between FT and receipt, type, and timing of reconstruction did not reach statistical significance. Additional patient-centric financial navigation and price transparency are warranted to mitigate financial burden.

Urologic oncologic emergencies represent a relatively narrow yet diverse group of critical conditions that require prompt recognition and intervention to prevent potentially life-threatening complications. These oncologic emergencies may arise as direct consequences of a malignancy, including local invasion, or as sequelae of surgical or therapeutic interventions. Common urologic emergencies include malignant obstructive uropathy or ureteral obstruction, which may lead to urosepsis or acute kidney injury; large volume hematuria and hemorrhagic cystitis, which both can result in substantial blood loss; renal hemorrhage, which can lead to hemodynamic instability; fistula formation; and postsurgical urinary leaks. Radiologists play a key role in promptly detecting and evaluating such emergencies and can help differentiate expected post-treatment findings from urgent or potentially life-threatening complications. Imaging not only helps to diagnose these emergencies but can also guide subsequent management strategies and thus is essential for optimizing patient outcomes. This review article aims to highlight the clinical and multi-modality imaging manifestations of urologic oncologic emergencies and their potential management strategies.

IMPORTANCE/OBJECTIVE:Pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) is a first-line treatment for pelvic floor disorders, though it is frequently an uncovered benefit. Data on insurance acceptance among PFPT offices is limited; therefore, its true accessibility is unknown. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Our primary objective was to characterize the effect of insurance coverage on access to PFPT in a national sample. Our secondary objective was to identify factors associated with Medicaid acceptance. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:This cross-sectional analysis utilized a "secret shopper" methodology. Investigators contacted 200 PFPT offices across 8 states, 4 with expanded Medicaid access, using a script to evaluate insurance acceptance, wait times, and cost. The agreement between Medicaid and commercial insurance acceptance was tested using the McNemar test. Logistic regression identified factors associated with Medicaid acceptance. RESULTS:Of 200 PFPT offices, 141 (70%) accepted commercial insurance and 94 (47%) accepted Medicaid (χ2=35.8, P<0.001); 53 accepted neither (26.6%). Factors associated with Medicaid acceptance included location in nonexpansion states (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.0; 95% CI, 1.02-4.00, P=0.045), acceptance of commercial insurance (aOR, 6.72, 95% CI; 2.22-20.38, P<0.001), academic affiliation (aOR, 17.54; 95% CI, 6.93-44.36, P<0.001), and nonurban location (aOR, 3.10, 1.23-7.18, P=0.016). Mean wait time for Medicaid was 4.6 weeks versus 3.1 weeks for non-Medicaid offices (P=0.004). In all, 117 PFPTs (58.5%) reported a cash cost for an initial visit: median cost was $190.62 (SD=73.77), range $70-$450. CONCLUSIONS:Our analysis reveals significant PFPT disparities for Medicaid beneficiaries, underscores barriers to access for Medicaid patients, and highlights opportunities for policy interventions to promote equity.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:The management of infectious and inflammatory lesions of the breast remains controversial. The expert panel focused on management recommendations for 3 of the most common infectious breast conditions, as very few evidence-based guidelines for the management of these conditions exist. OBSERVATIONS/UNASSIGNED:Clinicians should distinguish between infectious and noninfectious lactational mastitis (LM) because the former often requires interventions whereas the latter requires supportive care only. Patients with infectious LM often have thick fluid collections that are not amenable to aspiration and usually require a stab incision with drain placement (but no packing) to resolve the infection. Operative drainage is only required if the patient cannot tolerate an office procedure. If a phlegmon is present, antibiotics should be prescribed for at least 10 days. The diagnosis of granulomatous mastitis (GM) requires pathology confirmation with characteristic findings on core biopsy. Cystic neutrophilic granulomatous mastitis (CNGM) is a specific form of GM associated with a granulomatous reaction to Corynebacterium infection and should be empirically treated with doxycycline. For patients without findings characteristic of CNGM and no other associated bacterium identified, there is no role for empiric antibiotic use. Granulomatous mastitis cases often recur and can take up to 18 months to resolve. Patients who have GM cases with worsening symptoms should be treated with repeated intralesional steroid injections; surgical excision or repeated aspirations should be avoided. Cases refractory to intralesional steroid injection may require oral steroids or even advanced biologic agents such as methotrexate or azathioprine. Periductal mastitis with squamous metaplasia of lactiferous ducts (PDM-SMOLD) is a distinct entity from other periductal mastitis cases that can present with recurrent abscesses and should be treated with antibiotics and aspiration for fluid collections. Operative excision for PDM-SMOLD is required for those patients who present with a fistula or recurrent episodes typically using a radial incision to remove the diseased ducts within and below the nipple. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:Evidence-informed, consensus-, and expert opinion-based guidelines for the management of infectious and inflammatory conditions of the breast were developed. Clinicians can use these guidelines to appropriately manage these conditions for which clinical care often varied in the past.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Syringe services programs (SSPs) are evidence-based interventions that reduce bloodborne infections and injection-related harms among people who inject drugs, yet access remains limited and geographically uneven across the US. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To quantify the travel time, distance, and cost required to reach the nearest SSP from population-weighted census tracts nationwide and to examine differences by urbanicity, state, and SSP legality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:This cross-sectional geospatial study linked all known SSP locations as of August 2024 to the population-weighted centroids of census tracts in the 50 US states and the District of Columbia. Analyses were conducted between December 2024 and February 2026. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:Population-weighted mean and median driving time, distance, and cost to access the nearest SSP, stratified by National Center for Health Statistics urban-rural county category and SSP legal status. Costs were estimated using 2024 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) medical mileage deduction rates and 2022 state-specific gasoline prices. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:In 1338 SSPs across 83 780 census tracts, the population-weighted mean 1-way driving time to the nearest SSP was 46.1 minutes (95% CI, 45.7-46.5 minutes) and the median was 23.3 minutes (IQR, 12.2-58.5 minutes). Altogether, 23.1% of the population lived more than 60 minutes from an SSP and 12.6% lived over 120 minutes away. The mean 1-way driving distance was 41.8 miles (95% CI, 41.3-42.2 miles). The mean 1-way driving cost was $8.77 (95% CI, $8.68-$8.86) using the 2024 IRS mileage rate and $6.91 (95% CI, $6.84-$6.98) using state mean gasoline prices in 2022. In states where SSPs were legal, mean driving time was 30.1 minutes (95% CI, 29.8-30.4 minutes) and mean cost by IRS mileage rates was $4.94 (IQR, $4.88-$5.00), compared with 110.7 minutes (95% CI, 109.6-111.8 minutes) and $24.19 (IQR, $23.92-$24.46) in states where SSPs were illegal. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:This cross-sectional study of travel burden to SSPs found substantial geographic and financial barriers to accessing SSPs across the US, particularly in nonmetropolitan areas. Targeting new SSPs to areas with the greatest travel burden could improve utilization and reduce drug-related morbidity.

BACKGROUND:The American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) assembled a multidisciplinary task force to evaluate the current state and future direction of artificial intelligence (AI) in gastroenterology, hepatology, and endoscopy leading to the development of consensus-based recommendations for responsible AI integration in clinical practice. METHODS:A total of 32 subject-matter experts and 12 industry partners, representing diverse practice settings and expertise, conducted subgroup literature reviews across five key areas (endoscopy, practice management clinical applications, training and education, IBD and liver disease, ethics and equity). Draft statements were developed and rated on a 5-point Likert scale using a modified Delphi process. A consensus was set at ≥70% combined agreement. Non-consensus items were revised and re-voted electronically. RESULTS:A total of 43 statements, 40 (93%) reached consensus in round 1 and the remaining 3 achieved consensus after round 2. Evidence supports computer-aided detection (CADe) improving adenoma detection rate and miss rate in controlled studies, with mixed "real-world" impact and insufficient long-term outcomes (e.g., interval colon cancer rate). Recommendations emphasize thorough validation and reduction of bias via heterogeneous datasets. Outside endoscopy, ambient AI scribes, NLP-enabled coding, workflow optimization, and prior authorization support show potential. Training recommendations endorse a structured AI curriculum while preserving independent procedural competence to avoid "deskilling". In IBD and hepatology, AI could help improve diagnostic accuracy, help predict risk for disease progression, and help guide therapy. Equity, governance, and reimbursement statements call for chain-of-custody data protections, specialty-society oversight, and payment models that reward quality and cost reduction. CONCLUSIONS:This consensus outlines how AI can augment rather than replace clinical expertise while promoting safety, transparency, interoperability, and equity. Priorities include pragmatic and prospective trials, multi-institutional data-sharing consortia, bias mitigation, and workforce training to enable trustworthy and clinically impactful AI adoption in GI, liver, and endoscopy care.