Introduction Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can induce adverse neurological effects. Due to its rarity as an adverse effect, meningitis has been poorly described. Therefore, meningitis diagnosis and management can be challenging for specialists. Moreover, meningitis can be an obstacle to resuming immunotherapy. Given the lack of alternatives, the possibility of reintroducing immunotherapy should be discussed on an individual basis. Here, we present a comprehensive systematic review of meningitis related to ICIs. Review We performed a search for articles regarding immune-related meningitis published in PubMed up to November 2021 with the MeSH terms “meningitis” and “immune checkpoint” using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method. We summarized the studies not only by category but also based on whether it was a primary article or case report to provide a systematic overview of the subject. We reviewed a total of 38 studies and herein report the clinical experiences, pharmacovigilance data and group knowledge from these studies. Conclusion This review summarizes the existing information on immune-related meningitis and the possibility of reintroducing immunotherapy after the development of central neurological side effects. To the best of our knowledge, there is little information in the literature to guide clinicians on decisions regarding whether immunotherapy should be continued after a neurological adverse event occurs, especially meningeal events. This review emphasizes the necessity of systematic examinations, steroid treatment (as a cornerstone of management) and the need for further exploratory studies to obtain a clearer understanding of how to better manage patients who experience these side effects. The findings summarized in this review can help provide guidance to practitioners who face this clinical situation.
PEComas is a family of rare mesenchymal tumors. This systematic review aims to better understand the natural history of advanced PEComas. After a search on the PubMed database and main oncology meeting libraries according to the PRISMA guidelines, 88 articles reported in the English literature were included. Data on clinical and histological features, treatments and outcomes were collected. To identify risk factors, univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Seven cohorts of patients and 124 individual patients were identified. Focusing on case reports, most patients were metastatic, and the median overall survival (OS) of the entire cohort was 60 months (95%CI 33; NA). Risk factors significantly associated with OS in the multivariate analysis were the presence of metastasis at diagnosis (HR: 2.59, 95%CI 1.06;6.33, p = 0.036) and the grouped-Bleeker’s risk category (HR: 4.66; 95%CI 1.07;20.19; p = 0.039). In the metastatic population, only the presence of lymph node metastasis was associated with OS (HR: 3.11; 95%CI 1.13;8.60, p < 0.05). Due to a lack of events, it was not possible to conclude on other factors. This review of the literature highlights the heterogeneity of literature data and shows the great diversity of clinical management strategies.
Introduction: Cancer patients are at high risk of developing septic shock (SSh) and are increasingly admitted to ICU given their improved long-term prognosis. We, therefore, compared the prognosis of cancer and non-cancer patients with SSh. Methods: We conducted a monocentric, retrospective cohort study (2013–2019) on patients admitted to ICU for SSh. We compared the clinical characteristics and management and studied short- and long-term mortality with ICU and in-hospital mortality and 1-year survival according to cancer status. Results: We analyzed 239 ICU stays in 210 patients, 59.5% of whom were men (n = 125), with a median age of 66.5 (IQR 56.3–77.0). Of the 121 cancer patients (57.6% of all patients), 70 had solid tumors (33.3%), and 51 had hematological malignancies (24.3%). When comparing ICU stays of patients with versus without cancer (n = 148 vs. n = 91 stays, respectively), mortality reached 30.4% (n = 45) vs. 30.0% (n = 27) in the ICU (p = 0.95), and 41.6% (n = 59) vs. 35.6% (n = 32) in hospital (p = 0.36), respectively. ICU length of stay (LOS) was 5.0 (2.0–11.3) vs. 6.0 (3.0–15.0) days (p = 0.27), whereas in-hospital LOS was 25.5 (13.8–42.0) vs. 19.5 (10.8–41.0) days (p = 0.33). Upon multivariate analysis, renal replacement therapy (OR = 2.29, CI95%: 1.06–4.93, p = 0.03), disseminated intravascular coagulation (OR = 5.89, CI95%: 2.49–13.92, p < 0.01), and mechanical ventilation (OR = 7.85, CI95%: 2.90–21.20, p < 0.01) were associated with ICU mortality, whereas malignancy, hematological, or solid tumors were not (OR = 1.41, CI95%: 0.65–3.04; p = 0.38). Similarly, overall cancer status was not associated with in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.99, CI95%: 0.98–4.03, p = 0.06); however, solid cancers were associated with increased in-hospital mortality (OR = 2.52, CI95%: 1.12–5.67, p = 0.03). Lastly, mortality was not significantly different at 365-day follow-up between patients with and without cancer. Conclusions: In-hospital and ICU mortality, as well as LOS, were not different in SSh patients with and without cancer, suggesting that malignancies should no longer be considered a barrier to ICU admission.
Background According to guidelines, all patients with sarcoma must be managed from initial diagnosis at expert sarcoma centers. However, in everyday practice, the time interval to an expert center visit can be long, which delays presentation to an expert multidisciplinary tumor board and increases the risk of inappropriate management, negatively affecting local tumor control and prognosis. The advent of mobile health offers an easy way to facilitate communication and cooperation between general health care providers (eg, general practitioners and radiologists) and sarcomas experts. We developed a mobile app (Sar’Connect) based on the algorithm designed by radiologists from the French Sarcoma Group. Through a small number of easy-to-answer questions, Sar’Connect provides personalized advice for the management of patients and contact information for the closest expert center. Objective This retrospective study is the first to assess this mobile app’s potential benefits in reducing the time interval for patient referral to an expert center according to the initial clinical characteristics of the soft tissue tumor. Methods From May to December 2021, we extracted tumor mass data for 78 patients discussed by the multidisciplinary tumor boards at 3 centers of the French Sarcoma Group. We applied the Sar’Connect algorithm to these data and estimated the time interval between the first medical description of the soft tissue mass and the referral to expert center. We then compared this estimated time interval with the observed time interval. Results We found that the use of Sar’Connect could potentially shorten the time interval to an expert center by approximately 7.5 months (P<.001). Moreover, for half (31/60, 52%) of the patients with a malignant soft tissue tumor, Sar’Connect could have avoided inappropriate management outside of the reference center. We did not identify a significant determinant for shortening the time interval for referral. Conclusions Overall, promoting the use of a simple mobile app is an innovative and straightforward means to potentially accelerate both the referral and management of patients with soft tissue sarcoma at expert centers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.