Pediatric Sedation Unit: A Safe, Effective, and Satisfactory Alternative to Outpatient Pediatric Urological Procedures Under Anesthesia.

INTRODUCTION: The operating room is an increasingly expensive and limited resource. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, cost, and parental satisfaction of transitioning minor pediatric urology procedures from an operating room setting to a pediatric sedation unit. METHODS: Minor urological procedures were transitioned from the operating room to the pediatric sedation unit if they could be completed in 20 minutes using minimal instrumentation. Information regarding patient demographics, procedure characteristics, rates of success and complications, and cost were collected from urology procedures performed in the pediatric sedation unit between August 2019 and September 2021. Patient demographics and cost data from the most common urology procedures performed in the pediatric sedation unit were compared to data from historical controls of cases occurring in the operating room. Parent surveys were performed following the completion of procedures in the pediatric sedation unit. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients, ranging from 6-207 months old (mean 72 months), underwent procedures in the pediatric sedation unit. The most common procedures were lysis of adhesions and meatotomy. All procedures were successfully completed with procedural sedation, and no procedure was complicated by serious sedation adverse events. The cost reduction for lysis of adhesions in the pediatric sedation unit was 53.5% compared to the operating room, and meatotomy was 27.9%, leading to approximately $57,000 cost savings per year. Fifty families completed a follow-up satisfaction survey, and 83% of parents were satisfied with the care their family received. CONCLUSIONS: The pediatric sedation unit can provide a successful and cost-efficient alternative to the operating room while preserving safety and high rates of parental satisfaction.

Accuracy of clinical nodal staging and factors associated with receipt of lymph node dissection at the time of surgery for nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: The benefit of lymph node dissection (LND) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remains poorly defined. Despite this uncertainty, the American Urological Association (AUA) guideline on localized renal cancer recommends that LND be performed for staging purposes when there is suspicion of regional lymphadenopathy on imaging. Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we sought to determine how much of a departure the new AUA guideline is from current practice. We hypothesized that practice patterns would reflect the "Expert Opinion" recommendation and that patients who are clinical lymph node (cLN) positive would receive a LND more often than those who are cLN negative. Additionally, we sought to determine factors that would trigger a LND as well the accuracy of clinical staging by examining the relationship between cLN and pathologic lymph node (pLN) status of patients who received a LND. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The NCDB was queried for patients with nonmetastatic RCC who underwent partial nephrectomy or nephrectomy from 2010 to 2014. Patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were extracted. Frequency distributions were calculated for patients with both cLN and pLN status available. Of patients who received a LND, sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) of cLN status for pLN positivity were calculated. Logistic regression models were used to examine association between clinical and socioeconomic factors and receipt of LND. Propensity score matching was used in sensitivity analyses to examine potential for reporting bias in NCDB data. RESULTS: We identified 110,963 patients who underwent surgery for RCC, of whom 11,867 (11%) had LND performed at the time of surgery. cLN and pLN information were available in 11,300 patients, of which 1,725 were preoperatively staged as having positive cLN. More LNDs were performed per year for patients who were cLN negative than cLN positive. Of patients who received a LND, the majority of patients were cLN negative across all clinical T (cT) stages. Multivariable analysis showed that all patients who had care at an academic/research institution (odds ratio [OR]: 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-1.74) and had to travel >12.5 to 31.0 miles and >31.0 miles to a treatment center (OR: 1.08, 95%CI: 1.01-1.15 and OR: 1.28, 95%CI: 1.20-1.36, respectively) were more likely to get a LND. As cT stage increased from cT2-4, the risk of LND increased (OR range: 4.7-7.90, respectively). Patients who were cLN positive were more likely to receive a LND at the time of surgery (OR: 18.68, 95%CI: 16.62-21.00). Of the patients who received a LND, clinical staging was more specific than sensitive. CONCLUSION: More patients received a LND who were cLN negative compared to patients who were cLN positive. Patients who were cLN positive were more likely to receive a LND. Treatment center type, distance to treatment center, cT stage, and cLN positivity were factors associated with LND receipt.

Survival outcomes of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma by association with concurrent or antecedent follicular lymphoma and double hit status.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) transformed from follicular lymphoma (FL) (tDLBCL) has been traditionally associated with an aggressive course, but more recent studies have shown longer survivals. The clinical significance of concurrent FL at the time of diagnosis of DLBCL (cDLBCL/FL) is less clear. We compared outcomes of tDLBCL, cDLBCL/FL, and de novo DLBCL (dDLBCL) and then evaluated the impact of double hit (DH) rearrangements (MYC with BCL2 and/or BCL6) in these subgroups' outcomes. The progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different among the three groups (dDLBCL, tDLBCL, and cDLBCL/FL). The effect of DH on survival was then analyzed in two subgroups: (1) dDLBCL and (2) tDLBCL + cDLBCL/FL. PFS and OS were significantly shorter in lymphomas with DH in each of these two subgroups. We conclude that DH status drives outcomes in all DLBCLs, regardless of their transformation status.

Outcomes of Patients With Double-Hit Lymphoma Who Achieve First Complete Remission.

Purpose Patients with double-hit lymphoma (DHL) rarely achieve long-term survival following disease relapse. Some patients with DHL undergo consolidative autologous stem-cell transplantation (autoSCT) to reduce the risk of relapse, although the benefit of this treatment strategy is unclear. Methods Patients with DHL who achieved first complete remission following completion of front-line therapy with either rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or intensive front-line therapy, and deemed fit for autoSCT, were included. A landmark analysis was performed, with time zero defined as 3 months after completion of front-line therapy. Patients who experienced relapse before or who were not followed until that time were excluded. Results Relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) rates at 3 years were 80% and 87%, respectively, for all patients (n = 159). Three-year RFS and OS rates did not differ significantly for autoSCT (n = 62) versus non-autoSCT patients (n = 97), but 3-year RFS was inferior in patients who received R-CHOP compared with intensive therapy (56% v 88%; P = .002). Three-year RFS and OS did not differ significantly for patients in the R-CHOP or intensive therapy cohorts when analyzed by receipt of autoSCT. The median OS following relapse was 8.6 months. Conclusion In the largest reported series, to our knowledge, of patients with DHL to achieve first complete remission, consolidative autoSCT was not associated with improved 3-year RFS or OS. In addition, patients treated with R-CHOP experienced inferior 3-year RFS compared with those who received intensive front-line therapy. When considered in conjunction with reports of patients with newly diagnosed DHL, which demonstrate lower rates of disease response to R-CHOP compared with intensive front-line therapy, our findings further support the use of intensive front-line therapy for this patient population.

Sole rearrangement but not amplification of MYC is associated with a poor prognosis in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma and B cell lymphoma unclassifiable.

Rearrangement of MYC is associated with a poor prognosis in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and B cell lymphoma unclassifiable (BCLU), particularly in the setting of double hit lymphoma (DHL). However, little is known about outcomes of patients who demonstrate MYC rearrangement without evidence of BCL2 or BCL6 rearrangement (single hit) or amplification (>4 copies) of MYC. We identified 87 patients with single hit lymphoma (SHL), 22 patients with MYC-amplified lymphoma (MYC amp) as well as 127 DLBCL patients without MYC rearrangement or amplification (MYC normal) and 45 patients with DHL, all treated with either R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) or intensive induction therapy. For SHL and MYC amp patients, the 2-year progression-free survival rate (PFS) was 49% and 48% and 2-year overall survival rate (OS) was 59% and 71%, respectively. SHL patients receiving intensive induction experienced higher 2-year PFS (59% vs. 23%, P = 0·006) but similar 2-year OS as compared with SHL patients receiving R-CHOP. SHL DLBCL patients treated with R-CHOP, but not intensive induction, experienced significantly lower 2-year PFS and OS (P < 0·001 for both) when compared with MYC normal patients. SHL patients appear to have a poor prognosis, which may be improved with receipt of intensive induction.