BACKGROUNDThe prognosis of patients with early relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after the receipt of first-line chemoimmunotherapy is poor. METHODSIn this international, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with large B-cell lymphoma that was refractory to or had relapsed no more than 12 months after first-line chemoimmunotherapy to receive axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel, an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy) or standard care (two or three cycles of investigator-selected, protocol-defined chemoimmunotherapy, followed by high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients with a response to the chemoimmunotherapy). The primary end point was event-free survival according to blinded central review. Key secondary end points were response and overall survival. Safety was also assessed. RESULTSA total of 180 patients were randomly assigned to receive axi-cel and 179 to receive standard care. The primary end-point analysis of event-free survival showed that axi-cel therapy was superior to standard care. At a median follow-up of 24.9 months, the median event-free survival was 8.3 months in the axi-cel group and 2.0 months in the standard-care group, and the 24-month event-free survival was 41% and 16%, respectively (hazard ratio for event or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.31 to 0.51; P<0.001). A response occurred in 83% of the patients in the axi-cel group and in 50% of those in the standard-care group (with a complete response in 65% and 32%, respectively). In an interim analysis, the estimated overall survival at 2 years was 61% in the axi-cel group and 52% in the standardcare group. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 91% of the patients who received axi-cel and in 83% of those who received standard care. Among patients who received axi-cel, grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome occurred in 6% and grade 3 or higher neurologic events in 21%. No deaths related to cytokine release syndrome or neurologic events occurred. CONCLUSIONSAxi-cel therapy led to significant improvements, as compared with standard care, in event-free survival and response, with the expected level of high-grade toxic effects. (Funded by Kite; ZUMA-7 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03391466.

Abstract Objective To conduct a systematic literature review of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for pain. Design Grade the evidence for SCS. Methods An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted literature searches, reviewed abstracts, and selected studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with intractable pain of greater than one year’s duration. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers. Excluded studies were retrospective, had small numbers of subjects, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. Results SCS has Level 1 evidence (strong) for axial back/lumbar radiculopathy or neuralgia (five high-quality RCTs) and complex regional pain syndrome (one high-quality RCT). Conclusions High-level evidence supports SCS for treating chronic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. For patients with failed back surgery syndrome, SCS was more effective than reoperation or medical management. New stimulation waveforms and frequencies may provide a greater likelihood of pain relief compared with conventional SCS for patients with axial back pain, with or without radicular pain.

Moderate to severe pain occurs in many cancer patients during their clinical course and may stem from the primary pathology, metastasis, or as treatment side effects. Uncontrolled pain using conservative medical therapy can often lead to patient distress, loss of productivity, shorter life expectancy, longer hospital stays, and increase in healthcare utilization. Various publications shed light on strategies for conservative medical management for cancer pain and a few international publications have reviewed limited interventional data. Our multi-institutional working group was assembled to review and highlight the body of evidence that exists for opioid utilization for cancer pain, adjunct medication such as ketamine and methadone and interventional therapies. We discuss neurolysis via injections, neuromodulation including targeted drug delivery and spinal cord stimulation, vertebral tumor ablation and augmentation, radiotherapy and surgical techniques. In the United States, there is a significant variance in the interventional treatment of cancer pain based on fellowship training. As a first of its kind, this best practices and interventional guideline will offer evidenced-based recommendations for reducing pain and suffering associated with malignancy.

NA.

Objective To conduct a systematic literature review of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for pain. Design Grade the evidence for PNS. Methods An international interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for PNS. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meaningful clinical outcomes that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, had less than two months of follow-up, or existed only as abstracts. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. Results Peripheral nerve stimulation was studied in 14 RCTs for a variety of painful conditions (headache, shoulder, pelvic, back, extremity, and trunk pain). Moderate to strong evidence supported the use of PNS to treat pain. Conclusion Peripheral nerve stimulation has moderate/strong evidence. Additional prospective trials could further refine appropriate populations and pain diagnoses.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common spinal disease of aging with a growing patient population, paralleling population growth. Minimally invasive treatments are evolving, and the use of these techniques needs guidance to provide the optimal patient safety and efficacy outcomes. Methods The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for guidance on the prudent use of the innovative minimally invasive surgical therapies for the treatment of symptomatic LSS. The executive board nominated experts spanning anesthesiology, physiatry, orthopedic surgery, and neurosurgery based on expertise, publications, research, diversity and field of practice. Evidence was reviewed, graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for evidence and recommendation strength and grade, and expert opinion was added to make consensus points for best practice. Results The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for LSS-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using USPSTF criteria and consensus points are presented. Discussion The algorithm for patient selection in the management of symptomatic spinal stenosis is evolving. Careful consideration of patient selection and anatomic architecture variance is critical for improved outcomes and patient safety. Conclusion ASPN created a guidance for best practice for minimally invasive surgical treatment of symptomatic spinal stenosis.