Narrow interval dual phase 18F-FDG PET/CT: A practical approach for distinguishing tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis in brain metastasis.

Purpose of our research is to demonstrate efficacy of narrow interval dual phase [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) imaging in distinguishing tumor recurrence (TR) from radiation necrosis (RN) in patients treated for brain metastases. 35 consecutive patients (22 female, 13 male) with various cancer subtypes, lesion size > 1.0 cm3, and suspected recurrence on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) underwent narrow interval dual phase FDG-PET/CT (30 and 90 min after tracer injection). Clinical outcome was determined via sequential MRIs or pathology reports. Maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) of lesion (L), gray matter (GM), and white matter (WM) was measured on early (1) and delayed (2) imaging. Analyzed variables include % change, late phase, and early phase for L uptake, L/GM uptake, and L/WM uptake. Statistical analysis (P < .01), receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve and area under curve (AUC) cutoff values were obtained. Change in L/GM ratio of > -2% was 95% sensitive, 91% specific, and 93% accurate (P < .001, AUC = 0.99) in distinguishing TR from RN. Change in SUVmax of lesion alone was the second-best indicator (P < .001, AUC = 0.94) with an ROC cutoff > 30.5% yielding 86% sensitivity, 83% specificity, and 84% accuracy. Other variables (L alone or L/GM ratios in early or late phase, all L/WM ratios) were significantly less accurate. Utilizing narrow interval dual phase FDG-PET/CT in patients with brain metastasis treated with radiation therapy provides a practical approach to distinguish TR from RN. Narrow time interval allows for better patient comfort, greater efficiency of PET/CT scanner, and lower disruption of workflow.

Cryotherapy following total knee replacement.

BACKGROUND: Total knee replacement (TKR) is a common intervention for people with end-stage symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, resulting in significant improvements in pain, function and quality of life within three to six months. It is, however, acutely associated with pain, local oedema and blood loss. Post-operative management may include cryotherapy. This is the application of low temperatures to the skin surrounding the surgical site, through ice or cooled water, often delivered using specialised devices. This is an update of a review published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of cryotherapy in the acute phase after TKR (within 48 hours after surgery) on blood loss, pain, transfusion rate, range of motion, knee function, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers, as well as reference lists, related links and conference proceedings on 27 May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials comparing cryotherapy with or without other treatments (such as compression, regional nerve block or continuous passive motion) to no treatment, or the other treatment alone, following TKR for osteoarthritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We discussed any disagreements and consulted another review author to resolve them, if required. Major outcomes were blood loss, pain, transfusion rate, knee range of motion, knee function, total adverse events and withdrawals from adverse events. Minor outcomes were analgesia use, knee swelling, length of stay, quality of life, activity level and participant-reported global assessment of success. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 trials (20 randomised trials and two controlled clinical trials), with 1839 total participants. The mean ages reflected the TKR population, ranging from 64 to 74 years. Cryotherapy with compression was compared to no treatment in four studies, and to compression alone in nine studies. Cryotherapy without compression was compared to no treatment in eight studies. One study compared cryotherapy without compression to control with compression alone. We combined all control interventions in the primary analysis. Certainty of evidence was low for blood loss (downgraded for bias and inconsistency), pain (downgraded twice for bias) and range of motion (downgraded for bias and indirectness). It was very low for transfusion rate (downgraded for bias, inconsistency and imprecision), function (downgraded twice for bias and once for inconsistency), total adverse events (downgraded for bias, indirectness and imprecision) and withdrawals from adverse events (downgraded for bias, indirectness and imprecision). The nature of cryotherapy made blinding difficult and most studies had a high risk of performance and detection bias. Low-certainty evidence from 12 trials (956 participants) shows that cryotherapy may reduce blood loss at one to 13 days after surgery. Blood loss was 825 mL with no cryotherapy and 561 mL with cryotherapy: mean difference (MD) 264 mL less (95% confidence interval (CI) 7 mL less to 516 mL less). Low-certainty evidence from six trials (530 participants) shows that cryotherapy may slightly improve pain at 48 hours on a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (lower scores indicate less pain). Pain was 4.8 points with no cryotherapy and 3.16 points with cryotherapy: MD 1.6 points lower (95% CI 2.3 lower to 1.0 lower). We are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves transfusion rate at zero to 13 days after surgery. The transfusion rate was 37% with no cryotherapy and 79% with cryotherapy (risk ratio (RR) 2.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 109.63; 2 trials, 91 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence from three trials (174 participants) indicates cryotherapy may improve range of motion at discharge: it was 62.9 degrees with no cryotherapy and 71.2 degrees with cryotherapy: MD 8.3 degrees greater (95% CI 3.6 degrees more to 13.1 degrees more). We are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves function two weeks after surgery. Function was 75.4 points on the 0- to 100-point Dutch Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scale (lower score indicates worse function) in the control group and 88.6 points with cryotherapy (MD 13.2 points better, 95% CI 0.5 worse to 27.1 improved; 4 trials, 296 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether cryotherapy reduces total adverse events: the risk ratio was 1.30 (95% CI 0.53 to 3.20; 16 trials, 1199 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events included discomfort, local skin reactions, superficial infections, cold-induced injuries and thrombolytic events. We are uncertain whether cryotherapy reduces withdrawals from adverse events (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.42 to 17.38; 19 trials, 1347 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No significant benefit was found for secondary outcomes of analgesia use, length of stay, activity level or quality of life. Evidence from seven studies (403 participants) showed improved mid-patella swelling between two and six days after surgery (MD 7.32 mm less, 95% CI 11.79 to 2.84 lower), though not at six weeks and three months after surgery. The included studies did not assess participant-reported global assessment of success. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The certainty of evidence was low for blood loss, pain and range of motion, and very low for transfusion rate, function, total adverse events and withdrawals from adverse events. We are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves transfusion rate, function, total adverse events or withdrawals from adverse events. We downgraded evidence for bias, indirectness, imprecision and inconsistency. Hence, the potential benefits of cryotherapy on blood loss, pain and range of motion may be too small to justify its use. More well-designed randomised controlled trials focusing especially on clinically meaningful outcomes, such as blood transfusion, and patient-reported outcomes, such as knee function, quality of life, activity level and participant-reported global assessment of success, are required.

Preoperative Factors and Patient-Reported Outcomes After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Multivariable Prediction Modeling.

BACKGROUND: Although total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been established as a cost-effective intervention, some patients experience ongoing pain and dissatisfaction. There is interest in predicting postoperative outcomes based on preoperative data, but the relative contribution of different preoperative factors is unclear. The study's aim was to develop multivariable prediction models for the assessment of patient-reported outcomes. METHOD: Registry data on 1412 patients undergoing THA for osteoarthritis at two hospitals between 2013 and 2018 was used. Potential predictors included age, sex, body mass index, spoken language, education level, previous THA, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score, lower back pain, depression/anxiety, other lower limb arthritis, number of other comorbidities, the preoperative expectation of pain and function, EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS) and preoperative OHS. Radiographic scores were also used: joint space narrowing (JSN), osteophytes, sclerosis, and an overall grade based on the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) classification. Outcomes assessed were the patient-rated improvement, satisfaction, and OHS at six months. RESULTS: JSN or overall KL scores were the most important predictors (P < .001) for all outcomes, with better radiographic scores associated with worse outcomes. Other predictors associated with poorer outcomes were lower back pain and lower expectation (predicting poor improvement), lower education and higher ASA (predicting lower satisfaction) and younger age, female sex, non-English speakers, lower preoperative EQ-VAS, lower education, back pain, and anxiety/depression (predicting lower OHS). CONCLUSION: Preoperative radiological scores are an important predictor of patient-reported outcomes at six months postoperatively. Understanding the relative strengths and significance of different factors in predicting outcomes will help the clinician and patient decision-making for THA.