Bruce M. Robinson

Regional approaches to the management of patients with advanced, radioactive iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid carcinoma

For patients with advanced, radioactive iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer, current treatment guidelines recommend clinical trial enrollment or small-molecule kinase inhibitor therapy. However, details of patient management vary between countries depending on trial availability and national regulatory policies. Insufficient clinical trial data and variable disease characteristics challenge the creation of universal guidelines, and treatment plans often reflect regional influences. A multidisciplinary, multiregional panel of experts met to discuss regional approaches to managing patients with advanced, radioactive iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer and the potential impact of emerging therapies on current treatment strategies. Despite process-oriented regional differences, the decision-making strategies were similar. Multidisciplinary teams used to manage high-risk patients varied in composition across regions, particularly regarding the responsible physician’s specialty. Cytotoxic chemotherapy was viewed as limited in clinical benefit, and targeted agents as attractive, based on promising data. Panel members support clinical trial enrollment as the preferred treatment strategy for managing these patients.

Dialyzer reuse and patient outcomes: what do we know now?

Although some hemodialysis (HD) providers in the United States have recently embarked on programs to discontinue dialyzer reprocessing, the practice of dialyzer reuse is still much more common in the United States than in many other countries. Continuation of reprocessing programs has been justified chiefly as an effort to deliver HD with biocompatible and often expensive higher flux dialysis membranes. However, this rationale is considerably less compelling with the decrease in cost for most types of HD membranes and with ongoing debates about the relative effectiveness of HD membranes according to flux and other characteristics. While it is highly likely that mandated quality control standards have limited catastrophic events, such as outbreaks of blood‐borne bacterial infections that can occur due to poor dialyzer reprocessing techniques, hemodialyzer reprocessing remains vulnerable to poor implementation. Reprocessing is no longer indicated in order to improve blood‐membrane biocompatibility, due to the marked decrease in first‐use syndrome since the widespread adoption of synthetic dialysis membranes. Rather, the possibility exists that certain chronic inflammatory responses observed with dialyzer reuse may be deleterious, although these relationships remain speculative. While observational studies have not consistently demonstrated a large excess mortality attributable to reuse, the association of reuse to mortality remains uncertain. Evaluation of the safety of particular reprocessing techniques, germicides, and cleaners has been even harder to examine. Given the widespread availability of inexpensive biocompatible HD membranes and persistent uncertainties about the safety of dialyzer reprocessing, it is time for providers to reexamine their rationale for continuing hemodialyzer reprocessing programs.