MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter cross-sectional study, data on mechanical ventilation and clinical outcomes were collected. Predictors of mortality were analyzed by univariate and multivariable logistic regression. A scoring system was generated to predict 28-day mortality.
RESULTS: A total of 1408 patients were enrolled. In 138 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), 65.9% were on a tidal volume ≤ 8 ml/kg predicted body weight (PBW), and 71.3% were on sufficient PEEP. In 1270 patients without ARDS, 88.8% were on a tidal volume ≤ 10 ml/kg PBW. A plateau pressure
OBJECTIVE: To survey the current global clinical practice of clinicians treating MOGAD.
METHOD: Neurologists worldwide with expertise in treating MOGAD participated in an online survey (February-April 2019).
RESULTS: Fifty-two responses were received (response rate 60.5%) from 86 invited experts, comprising adult (78.8%, 41/52) and paediatric (21.2%, 11/52) neurologists in 22 countries. All treat acute attacks with high dose corticosteroids. If recovery is incomplete, 71.2% (37/52) proceed next to plasma exchange (PE). 45.5% (5/11) of paediatric neurologists use IV immunoglobulin (IVIg) in preference to PE. Following an acute attack, 55.8% (29/52) of respondents typically continue corticosteroids for ≥ 3 months; though less commonly when treating children. After an index event, 60% (31/51) usually start steroid-sparing maintenance therapy (MT); after ≥ 2 attacks 92.3% (48/52) would start MT. Repeat MOG antibody status is used by 52.9% (27/51) to help decide on MT initiation. Commonly used first line MTs in adults are azathioprine (30.8%, 16/52), mycophenolate mofetil (25.0%, 13/52) and rituximab (17.3%, 9/52). In children, IVIg is the preferred first line MT (54.5%; 6/11). Treatment response is monitored by MRI (53.8%; 28/52), optical coherence tomography (23.1%; 12/52) and MOG antibody titres (36.5%; 19/52). Regardless of monitoring results, 25.0% (13/52) would not stop MT.
CONCLUSION: Current treatment of MOGAD is highly variable, indicating a need for consensus-based treatment guidelines, while awaiting definitive clinical trials.
Methods: We performed a multinational, multicenter, prospective registry of adult patients with PTCLs that was named as the International Cooperative non-Hodgkin T-cell lymphoma prospective registry study where thirty-two institutes from six Asian countries and territories (Korea, China, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia) participated.
Findings: A total of 486 patients were registered between April 2016 and February 2019, and more than a half of patients (57%) had stage III or IV. Extranodal natural killer (NK)/T- cell lymphoma was the most common subtype (n = 139,28.6%), followed by angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL, n = 120,24.7%), PTCL-not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS, n = 101,20.8%), ALK-positive anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL, n = 34,6.9%), and ALK-negative ALCL (n = 30,6.2%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 21.1 months (95% CI,10.6-31.6) and 83.6 months (95% CI, 56.7-110.5), respectively. Upfront use of combined treatment with chemotherapy and radiotherapy showed better PFS than chemotherapy alone in localized ENKTL whereas consolidation with upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT) provided longer PFS in advance stage ENKTL. In patients with PTCLs other than ENKTL, anthracycline-containing chemotherapies were widely used, but the outcome of those regimens was not satisfactory, and upfront autologous SCT was not significantly associated with survival benefit, either. The treatment outcome of salvage chemotherapy was disappointing, and none of the salvage strategies showed superiority to one another.
Interpretation: This multinational, multicenter study identified the relative frequency of each subtype of PTCLs across Asian countries, and the survival outcomes according to the therapeutic strategies currently used.
Funding: Samsung Biomedical Research Institute.
METHOD: A modified Delphi approach with three rounds of questionnaire was adopted. A total of 29 international experts from 11 countries were recruited for this study. Six domains with a total of 37 statements were examined, including anatomical definition; definition of intersphincteric dissection, intersphincteric resection (ISR) and ultra-low anterior resection (uLAR); indication for ISR; surgical technique of ISR; specimen description of ISR; and functional outcome assessment protocol.
RESULTS: Three rounds of questionnaire were performed (response rate 100%, 89.6%, 89.6%). Agreement (≥80%) reached standardization on 36 statements.
CONCLUSION: This study provides an international expert consensus-based definition and standardization of ISR. This is the first study standardizing terminology and definition of deep pelvis/anal canal anatomy from a surgical point of view. Intersphincteric dissection, ISR and uLAR were specifically defined for precise surgical description. Indication for ISR was determined by the rectal tumour's maximal radial infiltration (T stage) below the levator ani. A new surgical definition of T3isp was reached by consensus to define T3 low rectal tumours infiltrating the intersphincteric plane. A practical flowchart for surgical indication for uLAR/ISR/abdominoperineal resection was developed. A standardized ISR surgical technique and functional outcome assessment protocol was defined.