SRS for CD is well tolerated and frequently results in control of hypercortisolism. However, recurrences can occur. SRS should be considered for patients with persistent hypercortisolism after pituitary surgery and as a primary treatment in those unfit for surgery. Long-term endocrine follow-up is essential after SRS.

IMPORTANCEAlthough stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is preferred for limited brain metastases from most histologies, whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) has remained the standard of care for patients with small cell lung cancer. Data on SRS are limited.OBJECTIVE To characterize and compare first-line SRS outcomes (without prior WBRT or prophylactic cranial irradiation) with those of first-line WBRT.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS FIRE-SCLC (First-line Radiosurgery for Small-Cell Lung Cancer) was a multicenter cohort study that analyzed SRS outcomes from 28 centers and a single-arm trial and compared these data with outcomes from a first-line WBRT cohort.

C urrent treatment strategies for intracranial dural arteriovenous fistulas (DAVFs) include microsurgical ligation, transarterial or transvenous embolization, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), and various combinations of these therapeutic options. Endovascular therapy, most commonly performed via transvenous routes, has become the preferred treatment approach for DAVFs. 27,44,48 Due to the immediate obliteration that can be achieved with endovascular or surgical occlusion, SRS is typically reserved for lesions that cannot be obliterated with endovascular or surgical approaches, or for patients who pose a high surgical risk due to medical comorbidities. Therefore, published SRS series for DAVFs remain relatively few and comprise mostly retrospective, single-center studies.In this systematic review, we evaluate the obliteration rate of DAVFs in patients treated with SRS. We also compare obliteration rates between cavernous sinus (CS) and noncavernous sinus (NCS) DAVFs, and between DAVFs with and without cortical venous drainage (CVD), by using available data in the literature. Methods inclusion CriteriaIn our attempt to balance between the largest possible patient population and a relatively homogeneous cohort, the following inclusion criteria for this systematic review were devised: 1) the study must contain at least 5 patients abbreviatioNs AVM = arteriovenous malformation; CS = cavernous sinus; CVD = cortical venous drainage; DAVF = dural arteriovenous fistula; GKS = Gamma Knife surgery; LINAC = linear accelerator; NCS = noncavernous sinus; SRS = stereotactic radiosurgery; TSS = transverse and sigmoid sinus. obJeCt The goal of this study was to evaluate the obliteration rate of intracranial dural arteriovenous fistulas (DAVFs) in patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), and to compare obliteration rates between cavernous sinus (CS) and noncavernous sinus (NCS) DAVFs, and between DAVFs with and without cortical venous drainage (CVD). Methods A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed. The CS DAVFs and the NCS DAVFs were categorized using the Barrow and Borden classification systems, respectively. The DAVFs were also categorized by location and by the presence of CVD. Statistical analyses of pooled data were conducted to assess complete obliteration rates in CS and NCS DAVFs, and in DAVFs with and without CVD. results Nineteen studies were included, comprising 729 patients harboring 743 DAVFs treated with SRS. The mean obliteration rate was 63% (95% CI 52.4%-73.6%). Complete obliteration for CS and NCS DAVFs was achieved in 73% and 58% of patients, respectively. No significant difference in obliteration rates between CS and NCS DAVFs was found (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.66-4.46; p = 0.27). Complete obliteration in DAVFs with and without CVD was observed in 56% and 75% of patients, respectively. A significantly higher obliteration rate was observed in DAVFs without CVD compared with DAVFs with CVD (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.07-5.28; p = 0.03). CoNClusioNs Treatment with SRS offers favorable rates of D...

IntroductionContinuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) peritonitis may develop after endoscopic procedures, and the benefit of prophylactic antibiotics is unclear. In the present study, we investigated whether prophylactic antibiotics reduce the incidence of peritonitis in these patients.Patients and methodsWe retrospectively reviewed all endoscopic procedures, including esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, cystoscopy, hysteroscopy, and hysteroscopy-assisted intrauterine device (IUD) implantation/removal, performed in CAPD patients at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan, between February 2001 and February 2012.ResultsFour hundred and thirty-three patients were enrolled, and 125 endoscopies were performed in 45 patients. Eight (6.4%) peritonitis episodes developed after the examination. Antibiotics were used in 26 procedures, and none of the patients had peritonitis (0% vs. 8.1% without antibiotic use; p = 0.20). The peritonitis rate was significantly higher in the non-EGD group than in the EGD group (15.9% [7/44] vs. 1.2% [1/81]; p<0.005). Antibiotic use prior to non-EGD examinations significantly reduced the endoscopy-associated peritonitis rate compared to that without antibiotic use (0% [0/16] vs. 25% [7/28]; p<0.05). Peritonitis only occurred if invasive procedures were performed, such as biopsy, polypectomy, or IUD implantation, (noninvasive procedures, 0% [0/20] vs. invasive procedures, 30.4% [7/23]; p<0.05). No peritonitis was noted if antibiotics were used prior to examination with invasive procedures (0% [0/10] vs. 53.8% [7/13] without antibiotic use; p<0.05). Although not statistically significant, antibiotics may play a role in preventing gynecologic procedure-related peritonitis (antibiotics, 0% [0/4] vs. no antibiotics, 55.6% [5/9]; p = 0.10).ConclusionAntibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduced endoscopy-associated PD peritonitis in the non-EGD group. Endoscopically assisted invasive procedures, such as biopsy, polypectomy, IUD implantation/removal, and dilatation and curettage (D&C), pose a high risk for peritonitis. Prophylactic antibiotics for peritonitis prevention may be required in colonoscopic procedures and gynecologic procedures.

SRS affords a reasonable rate of endocrine remission in patients with acromegaly and generally does so with a low rate of adverse effects.

Both endoscopic and microsurgical approaches for TSR of growth hormone-secreting adenomas are viable treatment options for patients with acromegaly, and yield similarly high rates of remission under the most current consensus criteria.

Approximately 1 in 3 patients with AVMs treated with SRS develop radiologically evident RIC, and of those with radiologic RIC, 1 in 4 develop neurological symptoms. Lack of prior AVM hemorrhage and repeat SRS are risk factors for radiologic RIC, and deep nidus location is a risk factor for symptomatic RIC.

IMPORTANCE Adults receiving dialysis treatment have a higher likelihood of death when infected with SARS-CoV-2 than adults not receiving dialysis treatment. To date, the immune response of people receiving dialysis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has not been systematically discussed.OBJECTIVE To assess immunogenicity rates in people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) receiving SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, explore postvaccination potential risk factors for nonresponse, and assess whether receiving dialysis is associated with different antibody response rates compared with the nondialysis population.DATA SOURCES This systematic review and meta-analysis used articles from PubMed, Medline, and Embase published before July 30, 2021, as well as articles in the medRxiv preprint server. STUDY SELECTIONStudies that evaluated the immunogenicity rate according to the postvaccine antibody response rate in patients with ESKD receiving dialysis were selected. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESISThe meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. A random-effects model was used. Two independent reviewers conducted the literature search and extracted the data. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was the pooled antibody postvaccine response rates in individuals with ESKD. The secondary outcomes were pooled response rates in individuals receiving and not receiving dialysis. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were conducted to identify the sources of heterogeneity. RESULTSA total of 32 studies were included. The overall immunogenicity rate of the dialysis group was 86% (95% CI, 81%-89%). Meta-regression showed a significant difference was detected in the postvaccine response rate on the basis of prevalence of diabetes (regression coefficient, −0.06; 95% CI, −0.10 to −0.02; P = .004). Compared with nondialysis controls, patients in the dialysis group had a lower response rate after the first (relative risk [RR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.79; I 2 = 70.2%) and second (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.93; I 2 = 72.2%) doses, with statistically significantly increased RR between first and second doses (P = .007). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThese findings suggest that the immunogenicity rate among patients receiving dialysis was 41% after the first dose and 89% after the second dose. Diabetes might be a risk factor for nonresponse in the dialysis population. Patients receiving dialysis had a poorer antibody response rate than did individuals not receiving dialysis, particularly after the first dose.