GRAvity- versus Wall suction-drIven large volume Thoracentesis: a rAndomized controlled Study (GRAWITAS study).

BACKGROUND: Prior studies found no differences in procedural chest discomfort for patients undergoing manual syringe aspiration or drainage with gravity after thoracentesis. However, whether gravity drainage could protect against chest pain due to the larger negative pressure gradient generated by wall suction has not been investigated. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does wall suction drainage result in more chest discomfort compared to gravity drainage in patients undergoing large volume thoracentesis? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this multicenter, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial, patients with large free-flowing effusions of ≥500 mL were assigned to wall suction or gravity drainage in a 1:1 ratio. Wall suction was performed with suction system attached to the suction tubing and with vacuum pressure adjusted to full vacuum. Gravity drainage was performed with a drainage bag placed 100 cm below the catheter insertion site and connected via straight tubing. Patients rated chest discomfort on a 100-mm visual analog scale before, during, and after drainage. The primary outcome was postprocedural chest discomfort at 5 minutes. Secondary outcomes included measures of post procedure chest discomfort, breathlessness, procedure time, volume of fluid drained and complication rates. RESULTS: Of the 228 patients initially randomized, 221 were included in the final analysis. The primary outcome of procedural chest discomfort did not differ significantly between the groups (p = 0.08), nor did the secondary outcomes of postprocedural discomfort and dyspnea. Similar volumes were drained in both groups, but the procedure duration was longer in the gravity arm by approximately 3 minutes. No differences in rate of pneumothorax or re-expansion pulmonary edema were noted between the two groups. INTERPRETATION: Thoracentesis via wall suction and gravity drainage results in similar levels of procedural discomfort and dyspnea improvement.

A Nasal Inflammatory Cytokine Signature Is Associated with Early Graft-versus-Host Disease of the Lung after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: Proof of Concept.

Respiratory inflammation in bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is poorly understood. Clinical criteria for early-stage BOS (stage 0p) often capture HCT recipients without BOS. Measuring respiratory tract inflammation may help identify BOS, particularly early BOS. We conducted a prospective observational study in HCT recipients with new-onset BOS (n = 14), BOS stage 0p (n = 10), and recipients without lung impairment with (n = 3) or without (n = 8) chronic graft-versus-host disease and measured nasal inflammation using nasosorption at enrollment and then every 3 mo for 1 y. We divided BOS stage 0p into impairment that did not return to baseline values (preBOS, n = 6), or transient impairment (n = 4). We tested eluted nasal mucosal lining fluid from nasosorption matrices for inflammatory chemokines and cytokines using multiplex magnetic bead immunoassays. We analyzed between-group differences using the Kruskal-Wallis method, adjusting for multiple comparisons. We found increased nasal inflammation in preBOS and therefore directly compared patients with preBOS to those with transient impairment, as this would be of greatest diagnostic relevance. After adjusting for multiple corrections, we found significant increases in growth factors (FGF2, TGF-α, GM-CSF, VEGF), macrophage activation (CCL4, TNF-α, IL-6), neutrophil activation (CXCL2, IL-8), T cell activation (CD40 ligand, IL-2, IL-12p70, IL-15), type 2 inflammation (eotaxin, IL-4, IL-13), type 17 inflammation (IL-17A), dendritic maturation (FLT3 ligand, IL-7), and counterregulatory molecules (PD-L1, IL-1 receptor antagonist, IL-10) in preBOS patients compared to transient impairment. These differences waned over time. In conclusion, a transient multifaceted nasal inflammatory response is associated with preBOS. Our findings require validation in larger longitudinal cohorts.

Predicting Lymph Node Metastasis in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Prospective External and Temporal Validation of the HAL and HOMER Models.

BACKGROUND: Two models, the Help with the Assessment of Adenopathy in Lung cancer (HAL) and Help with Oncologic Mediastinal Evaluation for Radiation (HOMER), were recently developed to estimate the probability of nodal disease in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as determined by endobronchial ultrasound-transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA). The objective of this study was to prospectively externally validate both models at multiple centers. RESEARCH QUESTION: Are the HAL and HOMER models valid across multiple centers? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This multicenter prospective observational cohort study enrolled consecutive patients with PET-CT clinical-radiographic stages T1-3, N0-3, M0 NSCLC undergoing EBUS-TBNA staging. HOMER was used to predict the probability of N0 vs N1 vs N2 or N3 (N2|3) disease, and HAL was used to predict the probability of N2|3 (vs N0 or N1) disease. Model discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC-AUC), and calibration was assessed using the Brier score, calibration plots, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. RESULTS: Thirteen centers enrolled 1,799 patients. HAL and HOMER demonstrated good discrimination: HAL ROC-AUC = 0.873 (95%CI, 0.856-0.891) and HOMER ROC-AUC = 0.837 (95%CI, 0.814-0.859) for predicting N1 disease or higher (N1|2|3) and 0.876 (95%CI, 0.855-0.897) for predicting N2|3 disease. Brier scores were 0.117 and 0.349, respectively. Calibration plots demonstrated good calibration for both models. For HAL, the difference between forecast and observed probability of N2|3 disease was +0.012; for HOMER, the difference for N1|2|3 was -0.018 and for N2|3 was +0.002. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test was significant for both models (P = .034 and .002), indicating a small but statistically significant calibration error. INTERPRETATION: HAL and HOMER demonstrated good discrimination and calibration in multiple centers. Although calibration error was present, the magnitude of the error is small, such that the models are informative.

A Prediction Model to Help with Oncologic Mediastinal Evaluation for Radiation: HOMER.

Rationale: When stereotactic ablative radiotherapy is an option for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), distinguishing between N0, N1, and N2 or N3 (N2|3) disease is important.Objectives: To develop a prediction model for estimating the probability of N0, N1, and N2|3 disease.Methods: Consecutive patients with clinical-radiographic stage T1 to T3, N0 to N3, and M0 NSCLC who underwent endobronchial ultrasound-guided staging from a single center were included. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression analysis was used to predict the presence of N0, N1, or N2|3 disease. Temporal validation used consecutive patients from 3 years later at the same center. External validation used three other hospitals.Measurements and Main Results: In the model development cohort (n = 633), younger age, central location, adenocarcinoma, and higher positron emission tomography-computed tomography nodal stage were associated with a higher probability of having advanced nodal disease. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) were 0.84 and 0.86 for predicting N1 or higher (vs. N0) disease and N2|3 (vs. N0 or N1) disease, respectively. Model fit was acceptable (Hosmer-Lemeshow, P = 0.960; Brier score, 0.36). In the temporal validation cohort (n = 473), AUCs were 0.86 and 0.88. Model fit was acceptable (Hosmer-Lemeshow, P = 0.172; Brier score, 0.30). In the external validation cohort (n = 722), AUCs were 0.86 and 0.88 but required calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow, P < 0.001; Brier score, 0.38). Calibration using the general calibration method resulted in acceptable model fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow, P = 0.094; Brier score, 0.34).Conclusions: This prediction model can estimate the probability of N0, N1, and N2|3 disease in patients with NSCLC. The model has the potential to facilitate decision-making in patients with NSCLC when stereotactic ablative radiotherapy is an option.