Background: The myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), including essential thrombocythemia (ET), polycythemia vera (PV) and myelofibrosis (MF) can be characterized by heterogeneous symptoms, disease features, and prognosis. Timely monitoring of blood counts and if needed, referral for discussion of stem cell transplant (SCT), are critical to optimizing survival and quality of life. In connection with the MPN SCT Transplantation Timing Taskforce's (MS3T's) work in developing the DIPPS-based Stem Cell Spectrum Timing Tool, the survey was deployed to explore factors contributing to delayed entry to SCT. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for MPNs strongly recommend referral to specialized centers with expertise in the management of MPNs (Mesa et. al. 2017). To date, efforts to assess the timing and quality of MPN patient care from the patient's perspective have been minimal. Methods: Patients were recruited from MPN-related Facebook pages, subscribers of MPNforum Magazine and E-mail support groups including the MPN-NET, MPDchat, and the MPN Research Foundation. Hematologists, MPN patients, and advocates constructed the 11-item survey questions and content. The survey was available for patient response between July 4-11th2018. Patients were queried on MPN type, time of diagnosis, and details regarding knowledge of their MPN disease features and care. Data: Demographics.Overall 2382 MPN patients responded to the online survey. Of these, 901 (38%) patients had ET, 865 (36%) had PV, 561 (24%) had MF, 41 (2%) had MPN-unclassifiable or MPN/MDS overlap and 15 (1%) did not respond. Among MF patients, 56% reported having primary MF, 42% secondary MF, 1% prefibrotic MF, and 1% reported having already undergone SCT (1% did not specify type of MF or transplant). The majority of patients were diagnosed with their MPN by a hematology/oncology (77.8%) or family practice (15 %) physician. MPN Care provider and monitoring: Out of all respondents, 35% reported being cared for by an MPN specialist, 36% were not cared for by an MPN specialist and 27% were unsure if their provider was an MPN specialist. Overall less than half (42%) of patients reported having sought a second opinion from an MPN specialist. The majority (87%) of participants knew their mutational status relating to the highly publicized and widely tested JAK2 V617F mutation (73.8%) and CALR (10.2%). However, a statistically insignificant number of patients had any idea of other driving and secondary mutations including MPL, EZH2, SRSF2, IDH1/2 or ASLX-1. Blood counts were reviewed by a hematologist for the majority of patients (93% responded "yes", 4% responded "sometimes", 3% responded "no"). SCT Referral: Among ET and PV, <1% of patients reported being referred to SCT. For MF, 34% of participants reported having been referred for SCT discussion (30% for primary MF and 28% for secondary MF). Conclusions: MPN patients often report receiving care outside of the care of an MPN specialist. Additionally, despite the poor outcomes and higher likelihood of progression to AML, less than a third of patients with secondary MF report being referred for SCT discussion. Independent validation of patient responses, particularly in regards to MPN specialized care and timing of transplant discussion should be investigated further. However, these patient responses suggest many patients may be receiving less than optimal MPN care. These results demonstrate the importance of community hematology/oncology physician and patient education regarding optimal MPN care. Disclosures Mesa: UT Health San Antonio - Mays Cancer Center: Employment; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Palmer:Novartis: Research Funding. Harrison:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Verstovsek:Italfarmaco: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Scherber:Gilead: Honoraria.

Mills, Logan, Chris Harper, Sophie Rozwadowski, and Chris Imray. High altitude pulmonary edema without appropriate action progresses to right ventricular strain: A case study. High Alt Med Biol. 17:228-232, 2016.-A 24-year-old male developed high altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) after three ascents to 4061 m over 3 days, sleeping each night at 2735 m. He complained of exertional dyspnea, dry cough, chest pain, fever, nausea, vertigo, and a severe frontal headache. Inappropriate continuation of ascent despite symptoms led to functional impairment and forced a return to the valley, but dyspnea persisted in addition to new orthopnea. Hospital admission showed hypoxemia, resting tachycardia, and systemic hypertension. ECG revealed right ventricular strain and a chest X-ray revealed right lower zone infiltrates. This case demonstrates that HAPE can develop in previously unaffected individuals given certain precipitating factors, and that in the presence of HAPE, prolonged exposure to altitude with exercise (or exertion) does not confer acclimatization with protective adaptations and that rest and descent are the appropriate actions. The case additionally demonstrates well-characterized right ventricular involvement.

No abstract

Primary Subject area Hospital Paediatrics Background Procalcitonin (PCT), a serum inflammatory biomarker, has recently been incorporated into several clinical decision tools to identify febrile infants at low risk for serious bacterial infection (SBI). These include the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) tool, the “Step-by-Step” approach, and the “Laboratory-Score.” Our institution is one of a few in Canada to incorporate serum PCT routinely, allowing us to complete these clinical decision tools. Thus, the objectives of this study were to externally validate and compare these tools in a Canadian pediatric population, indirectly assessing the utility of serum PCT in clinical practice. Objectives The primary outcomes were to derive the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value (NPV) of each stratification tool in predicting SBI. Design/Methods We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all infants less than 90 days of age presenting to our emergency departments between April 2016 and October 2019 with fever without a source, who had sufficient investigations to apply one (or more) of the above clinical decision tools. Results We applied the PECARN tool to 51 cases, and had sufficient data to apply the Step-by-Step and Lab Score criteria to 43 of these patients. Seventeen of the 51 patients (33%) were identified to have a SBI. The PECARN and Step-by-Step tools both had NPV of 100%; both were sensitive enough to detect all patients with SBI. They had poor specificity (0.47 and 0.55 respectively). These two tools were in agreement in 38 of 43 (88%) cases. Though the Laboratory-Score had the highest positive predictive value (0.88) and specificity (0.85), it failed to identify 3 of 16 true cases of SBI and had a suboptimal sensitivity of 0.81. Conclusion The ability to identify febrile infants at low risk for SBI in a reliable way would have significant clinical potential to change practice. Given the strong NPV of both the PECARN and Step-by-Step tools, we conclude that their use, incorporating the measurement of serum PCT, may be of use in reducing pediatric hospitalization, use of empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics, and investigations such as lumbar punctures, in these low-risk patients. This study had a small sample size. We look forward to analyzing a larger population of febrile infants, particularly in infants of a chronologic age (28-90 days) more amenable to clinical practice change.