Factors Associated With and Characteristics of Patients Receiving Proton Therapy at the End of Life.

Purpose: To identify the characteristics, indications, and toxicities among patients receiving proton beam therapy (PBT) in the final year of life at an academic medical center. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review of patients who received PBT within the final 12 months of life was performed. Electronic medical records were reviewed for patient and treatment details from 2010 to 2019. Patients were followed from the start of PBT until death or last follow-up. Acute (3 months) toxicities were graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0. Imaging response was assessed using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. The χ2 test was used to evaluate factors associated with palliative treatment. Simple logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with toxicity. Results: Bet299 patients were treated at the end of life (EOL) out of 5802 total patients treated with PBT (5.2%). Median age was 68 years (19-94 years), 58% male. The most common cancer was nonsmall cell lung cancer (27%). Patients were treated for symptom palliation alone (11%), durable control (57%), curative intent (16%), local recurrence (14%), or oligometastatic disease (2%). Forty-five percent received reirradiation. Median treatment time was 32 days (1-189 days). Acute toxicity was noted in 85% of the patients (31% G1, 53% G2, 15% G3). Thirteen patients (4%) experienced chronic toxicity. Breast and hematologic malignancy were associated with palliative intent χ2 (1, N = 14) = 17, P = .013; (χ2 (1, N = 14) = 18, P = .009). Conclusion: The number of patients treated with PBT at the EOL was low compared to all comers. Many of these patients received treatment with definitive doses and concurrent systemic therapy. Some patients spent a large portion of their remaining days on treatment. A prognostic indicator may better optimize patient selection for PBT at the EOL.

Mitigation of Sarcopenia after Peritoneovenous Shunt Placement in Patients with Refractory Ascites.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of peritoneonvenous shunt placement on metrics of sarcopenia in patients with refractory ascites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An institutional review board-approved single-institution retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent peritoneovenous shunt (Denver Shunt; BD, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey) placement (N = 29) and a comparator cohort of patients with cirrhosis who underwent serial paracentesis (N = 42) from 2009 to 2019 with baseline and follow-up cross-sectional imaging of at least 3 months was performed. Axial muscle area measurements (psoas, paraspinal, and total abdominal wall) were performed using free-hand region-of-interest technique. Patient records were reviewed for demographic characteristics, referring indication, laboratory studies, and performance status. Statistical analyses were performed with Student t test, Welch unequal variances, Fisher exact test, and Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: The most common indications for peritoneovenous shunt placement were metastatic disease or cirrhosis. In the shunt cohort, there were no significant differences in the aggregate psoas muscle area (13.4 vs 14.0 cm2; P = .223) or paraspinal muscle area (43.0 vs 42.2 cm2; P = .471). In the paracentesis cohort, there were significant decreases in aggregate psoas (18.1 vs 15.7 cm2; P < .0001) and erector spinae (43.4 vs 39.9 cm2; P < .0001) muscle area. In addition, there was a significant decrease in serum albumin level (3.2 vs 3.0 g/dL; P = .015) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score (1.0 vs 1.3; P < .0001) in the paracentesis group, compared with no significant changes in the shunt cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with refractory ascites who are not candidates for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement, peritoneovenous shunt mitigates loss of truncal muscle and, in some instances, promotes muscle growth.

Clinical Characteristics, Disease Course, and Outcomes of Patients With Acute Generalized Exanthematous Pustulosis in the US.

Importance: Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) is a rare, severe cutaneous adverse reaction associated with systemic complications. Currently available data are largely limited to small retrospective case series. Objective: To describe the clinical characteristics, disease course, and outcomes of a heterogeneous group of patients with AGEP across the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective review of a case series of patients was conducted from January 1, 2000, through July 31, 2020. All 340 included cases throughout 10 academic health systems in the US were scored retrospectively using the EuroSCAR scoring system, and patients with a score corresponding to probable or definite AGEP and aged 18 years or older were included. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient demographic characteristics, clinical course, suspected causative agent, treatment, and short- and long-term outcomes. Results: Most of the 340 included patients were women (214 [62.9%]), White (206 [60.6%]), and non-Hispanic (239 [70.3%]); mean (SD) age was 57.8 (17.4) years. A total of 154 of 310 patients (49.7%) had a temperature greater than or equal to 38.0 °C that lasted for a median of 2 (IQR, 1-4) days. Of 309 patients, 263 (85.1%) developed absolute neutrophilia and 161 patients (52.1%) developed either absolute or relative eosinophilia. Suspected causes of AGEP were medications (291 [85.6%]), intravenous contrast agents (7 [2.1%]), infection (3 [0.9%]), or unknown (39 [11.5%]). In 151 cases in which a single medication was identified, 63 (41.7%) were ß-lactam antimicrobials, 51 (33.8%) were non-ß-lactam antimicrobials, 9 (6.0%) were anticonvulsants, and 5 (3.3%) were calcium channel blockers. The median time from medication initiation to AGEP start date was 3 (IQR, 1-9) days. Twenty-five of 298 patients (8.4%) had an acute elevation of aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase levels, with a peak at 6 (IQR, 3-9) days. Twenty-five of 319 patients (7.8%) experienced acute kidney insufficiency, with the median time to peak creatinine level being 4 (IQR, 2-5) days after the AGEP start date. Treatments included topical corticosteroids (277 [81.5%], either alone or in combination), systemic corticosteroids (109 [32.1%]), cyclosporine (10 [2.9%]), or supportive care only (36 [10.6%]). All-cause mortality within 30 days was 3.5% (n = 12), none of which was suspected to be due to AGEP. Conclusions and Relevance: This retrospective case series evaluation of 340 patients, the largest known study cohort to date, suggests that AGEP onset is acute, is usually triggered by recent exposure to an antimicrobial, may be associated with liver or kidney complications in a minority of patients, and that discontinuation of the triggering treatment may lead to improvement or resolution.

Radiologically Placed Peritoneovenous Shunt is an Acceptable Treatment Alternative for Refractory Ascites Due to End-Stage Liver Disease.

PURPOSE: To compare patients treated with large-volume paracentesis (LVP), transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and peritoneovenous shunt (PVS) for ascites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of 192 patients treated with LVP (94), TIPS (75), or PVS (23) was performed. Records were reviewed for patient characteristics and outcomes. The patients' age differed (LVP, 59.5 years; TIPS, 58.8 years; and PVS, 65.6 years; P = .003). Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis was the most common etiology in the PVS cohort (11/23, 47%), and hepatitis C in the TIPS (27/75, 36%), and LVP cohorts (43/94, 46%) (P = .032). The model for end-stage liver disease score was significantly different (LVP, 14; TIPS, 13; and PVS, 8; P = .035). Hepatocellular carcinoma was higher in the PVS cohort (6/23 patients, 25%) than in the TIPS (4/75, 5%), and LVP (12/94, 12%) cohorts (P = .03). RESULTS: Emergency department visits and hospital readmissions were the highest in the LVP cohort (40%, ≥2 readmissions, P < .001). Patients required fewer LVPs after TIPS (1.5 to 0.14, P < .001) or PVS (2.1 to 0.5, P = .019). In an unadjusted Cox model, patients in the TIPS cohort were found to have a 58% reduction in the risk of death compared with patients in the LVP cohort (P = .003). Transplant-free survival (PVS, 44 days; TIPS, 155 days; and LVP, 213 days) differed (log rank = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The survival in the PVS and TIPS cohorts was similar, with less healthcare utilization than the LVP cohort. PVS is a satisfactory alternative to LVP.