Faculty Bibliography

In recent years, there have been significant advancements in the understanding, risk-stratification, and treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS). Despite improved pharmacologic and device-based therapies for CS, short-term mortality remains as high as 50%. Most recent efforts in research have focused on CS related to acute myocardial infarction, even though heart failure related CS (HF-CS) accounts for >50% of CS cases. There is a paucity of high-quality evidence to support standardized clinical practices in approach to HF-CS. In addition, there is an unmet need to identify disease-specific diagnostic and risk-stratification strategies upon admission, which might ultimately guide the choice of therapies, and thereby improve outcomes and optimize resource allocation. The heterogeneity in defining CS, patient phenotypes, treatment goals and therapies has resulted in difficulty comparing published reports and standardized treatment algorithms. An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) consensus conference was organized to better define, diagnose, and manage HF-CS. There were 54 participants (advanced heart failure and interventional cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care cardiologists, intensivists, pharmacists, and allied health professionals), with vast clinical and published experience in CS, representing 42 centers worldwide. State-of-the-art HF-CS presentations occurred with subsequent breakout sessions planned in an attempt to reach consensus on various issues, including but not limited to models of CS care delivery, patient presentations in HF-CS, and strategies in HF-CS management. This consensus report summarizes the contemporary literature review on HF-CS presented in the first half of the conference (part 1), while the accompanying document (part 2) covers the breakout sessions where the previously agreed upon clinical issues were discussed with an aim to get to a consensus.

Cardiogenic shock continues to portend poor outcomes, conferring short-term mortality rates of 30% to 50% despite recent scientific advances. Age is a nonmodifiable risk factor for mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock and is often considered in the decision-making process for eligibility for various therapies. Older adults have been largely excluded from analyses of therapeutic options in patients with cardiogenic shock. As a result, despite the association of advanced age with worse outcomes, focused strategies in the assessment and management of cardiogenic shock in this high-risk and growing population are lacking. Individual programs oftentimes develop upper age limits for various interventional strategies for their patients, including heart transplantation and durable left ventricular assist devices. However, age as a lone parameter should not be used to guide individual patient management decisions in cardiogenic shock. In the assessment of risk in older adults with cardiogenic shock, a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach is central to developing best practices. In this American Heart Association scientific statement, we aim to summarize our contemporary understanding of the epidemiology, risk assessment, and in-hospital approach to management of cardiogenic shock, with a unique focus on older adults.

Diagnostic work-up and risk stratification in patients with bladder cancer before and after treatment must be refined to optimize management and improve outcomes. MRI has been suggested as a non-invasive technique for bladder cancer staging and assessment of response to systemic therapy. The Vesical Imaging-Reporting And Data System (VI-RADS) was developed to standardize bladder MRI image acquisition, interpretation and reporting and enables accurate prediction of muscle-wall invasion of bladder cancer. MRI is available in many centres but is not yet recommended as a first-line test for bladder cancer owing to a lack of high-quality evidence. Consensus-based evidence on the use of MRI-VI-RADS for bladder cancer care is needed to serve as a benchmark for formulating guidelines and research agendas until further evidence from randomized trials becomes available.

INTRODUCTION:We aimed to compare outcomes of patients with first primary clinical T1a-bN0M0 NSCLC treated with surgery or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). METHODS:We identified patients with first primary clinical T1a-bN0M0 NSCLCs on last pretreatment computed tomography treated by surgery or SBRT in the following two prospective cohorts: International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP) and Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment (IELCART). Lung cancer-specific survival and all-cause survival after diagnosis were compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline demographics and comorbidities and analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS:Of 1115 patients with NSCLC, 1003 had surgery and 112 had SBRT; 525 in I-ELCAP in 1992 to 2021 and 590 in IELCART in 2016 to 2021. Median follow-up was 57.6 months. Ten-year lung cancer-specific survival was not significantly different: 90% (95% confidence interval: 87%-92%) for surgery versus 88% (95% confidence interval: 77%-99%) for SBRT, p = 0.55. Cox regression revealed no significant difference in lung cancer-specific survival for the combined cohorts (p = 0.48) or separately for I-ELCAP (p = 1.00) and IELCART (p = 1.00). Although 10-year all-cause survival was significantly different (75% versus 45%, p < 0.0001), after propensity score matching, all-cause survival using Cox regression was no longer different for the combined cohorts (p = 0.74) or separately for I-ELCAP (p = 1.00) and IELCART (p = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS:This first prospectively collected cohort analysis of long-term survival of small, early NSCLCs revealed that lung cancer-specific survival was high for both treatments and not significantly different (p = 0.48) and that all-cause survival after propensity matching was not significantly different (p = 0.74). This supports SBRT as an alternative treatment option for small, early NSCLCs which is especially important with their increasing frequency owing to low-dose computed tomography screening. Furthermore, treatment decisions are influenced by many different factors and should be personalized on the basis of the unique circumstances of each patient.

Purpose To investigate the accuracy and robustness of prostate segmentation using deep learning across various training data sizes, MRI vendors, prostate zones, and testing methods relative to fellowship-trained diagnostic radiologists. Materials and Methods In this systematic review, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were queried for English-language articles using keywords and related terms for prostate MRI segmentation and deep learning algorithms dated to July 31, 2022. A total of 691 articles from the search query were collected and subsequently filtered to 48 on the basis of predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Multiple characteristics were extracted from selected studies, such as deep learning algorithm performance, MRI vendor, and training dataset features. The primary outcome was comparison of mean Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) for prostate segmentation for deep learning algorithms versus diagnostic radiologists. Results Forty-eight studies were included. Most published deep learning algorithms for whole prostate gland segmentation (39 of 42 [93%]) had a DSC at or above expert level (DSC ≥ 0.86). The mean DSC was 0.79 ± 0.06 (SD) for peripheral zone, 0.87 ± 0.05 for transition zone, and 0.90 ± 0.04 for whole prostate gland segmentation. For selected studies that used one major MRI vendor, the mean DSCs of each were as follows: General Electric (three of 48 studies), 0.92 ± 0.03; Philips (four of 48 studies), 0.92 ± 0.02; and Siemens (six of 48 studies), 0.91 ± 0.03. Conclusion Deep learning algorithms for prostate MRI segmentation demonstrated accuracy similar to that of expert radiologists despite varying parameters; therefore, future research should shift toward evaluating segmentation robustness and patient outcomes across diverse clinical settings. Keywords: MRI, Genital/Reproductive, Prostate Segmentation, Deep Learning Systematic review registration link: osf.io/nxaev © RSNA, 2024.

Clinical practice in the contemporary cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) has evolved significantly over the last several decades. With more frequent multisystem organ failure, increasing use of advanced respiratory support, and the advent of new mechanical circulatory support platforms, clinicians in the CICU are increasingly managing patients with complex comorbid disease in addition to their high-acuity cardiovascular illnesses. Here, the authors discuss challenges associated with traditional trial design in the CICU setting and review novel clinical trial designs that may facilitate better evidence generation in the CICU.

The last decade has brought tremendous interest in the problem of cardiogenic shock. However, the mortality rate of this syndrome approaches 50%, and other than prompt myocardial revascularization, there have been no treatments proven to improve the survival of these patients. The bulk of studies have been in patients with acute myocardial infarction, and there is little evidence to guide the clinician in those patients with heart failure cardiogenic shock (HF-CS). An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplant consensus conference was organized to better define, diagnose, and manage HF-CS. There were 54 participants (advanced heart failure and interventional cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care cardiologists, intensivists, pharmacists, and allied health professionals) with vast clinical and published experience in CS, representing 42 centers worldwide. This consensus report summarizes the results of a premeeting survey answered by participants and the breakout sessions where predefined clinical issues were discussed to achieve consensus in the absence of robust data. Key issues discussed include systems for CS management, including the "hub-and-spoke" model vs a tier-based network, minimum levels of data to communicate when considering transfer, disciplines that should be involved in a "shock team," goals for mechanical circulatory support device selection, and optimal flow on such devices. Overall, the document provides expert consensus on some important issues facing practitioners managing HF-CS. It is hoped that this will clarify areas where consensus has been reached and stimulate future research and registries to provide insight regarding other crucial knowledge gaps.

Successful innovation clusters are notoriously difficult to establish, and many attempts fail. How can we go about designing such systems reliably? We describe how ecosystems can be strengthened through grassroots bottom-up efforts that empower user and community innovation, as opposed to economic policies that dictate innovation. Specifically focusing on the healthcare industry, we advocate that community hospitals which constitute 90% of all hospitals in Canada are the ideal setting for such community innovation efforts. We investigated the distribution of innovation output from hospitals over the past 13 years and found a decrease in predominance of major teaching hospitals, supporting the potential role for community hospitals in this space. We categorize different types of innovations and recommend institutional policies that can sustain bottom-up, micro-level efforts. Such policies could improve and enhance the development of micro-innovations and the creation of health innovation clusters.

Reversion mutations that restore wild-type function of the BRCA gene have been described as a key mechanism of resistance to Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy in BRCA-associated cancers. Here, we report a case of a patient with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with a germline BRCA2 mutation who developed acquired resistance to PARP inhibition. Extensive genomic interrogation of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and tissue at baseline, post-progression, and postmortem revealed ten unique BRCA2 reversion mutations across ten sites. While several of the reversion mutations were private to a specific site, nine out of ten tumors contained at least one mutation, suggesting a powerful clonal selection for reversion mutations in the presence of therapeutic pressure by PARP inhibition. Variable cfDNA shed was seen across tumor sites, emphasizing a potential shortcoming of cfDNA monitoring for PARPi resistance. This report provides a genomic portrait of the temporal and spatial heterogeneity of prostate cancer under the selective pressure of a PARP inhibition and exposes limitations in the current strategies for detection of reversion mutations.

In critical care, the specific, structured approach to patient care known as a "time-limited trial" has been promoted in the literature to help patients, surrogate decision makers, and clinicians navigate consequential decisions about life-sustaining therapy in the face of uncertainty. Despite promotion of the time-limited trial approach, a lack of consensus about its definition and essential elements prevents optimal clinical use and rigorous evaluation of its impact. The objectives of this American Thoracic Society Workshop Committee were to establish a consensus definition of a time-limited trial in critical care, identify the essential elements for conducting a time-limited trial, and prioritize directions for future work. We achieved these objectives through a structured search of the literature, a modified Delphi process with 100 interdisciplinary and interprofessional stakeholders, and iterative committee discussions. We conclude that a time-limited trial for patients with critical illness is a collaborative plan among clinicians and a patient and/or their surrogate decision makers to use life-sustaining therapy for a defined duration, after which the patient's response to therapy informs the decision to continue care directed toward recovery, transition to care focused exclusively on comfort, or extend the trial's duration. The plan's 16 essential elements follow four sequential phases: consider, plan, support, and reassess. We acknowledge considerable gaps in evidence about the impact of time-limited trials and highlight a concern that if inadequately implemented, time-limited trials may perpetuate unintended harm. Future work is needed to better implement this defined, specific approach to care in practice through a person-centered equity lens and to evaluate its impact on patients, surrogates, and clinicians.