Barnes-Jewish Hospital

To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Some recommendations were ungraded (UG). Recommendations were classified into three groups: 1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; 2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and 3) pediatric considerations. Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 hr of recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 hrs of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1C); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients) (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement, as based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO2/FIO2 ratio of ≤ 100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 hrs) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao2/Fio2 < 150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are > 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 hrs after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 hrs of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5 to 10 mins (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C). Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Osteoporosis, a disease endemic in Western society, typically reflects an imbalance in skeletal turnover so that bone resorption exceeds bone formation. Bone resorption is the unique function of the osteoclast, and anti-osteoporosis therapy to date has targeted this cell. The osteoclast is a specialized macrophage polykaryon whose differentiation is principally regulated by macrophage colony-stimulating factor, RANK ligand, and osteoprotegerin. Reflecting integrin-mediated signals, the osteoclast develops a specialized cytoskeleton that permits it to establish an isolated microenvironment between itself and bone, wherein matrix degradation occurs by a process involving proton transport. Osteopetrotic mutants have provided a wealth of information about the genes that regulate the differentiation of osteoclasts and their capacity to resorb bone.

This document represents the first collaboration between 2 organizations-the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition and the Society of Critical Care Medicine-to describe best practices in nutrition therapy in critically ill children. The target of these guidelines is intended to be the pediatric critically ill patient (>1 month and <18 years) expected to require a length of stay >2-3 days in a PICU admitting medical, surgical, and cardiac patients. In total, 2032 citations were scanned for relevance. The PubMed/MEDLINE search resulted in 960 citations for clinical trials and 925 citations for cohort studies. The EMBASE search for clinical trials culled 1661 citations. In total, the search for clinical trials yielded 1107 citations, whereas the cohort search yielded 925. After careful review, 16 randomized controlled trials and 37 cohort studies appeared to answer 1 of the 8 preidentified question groups for this guideline. We used the GRADE criteria (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to adjust the evidence grade based on assessment of the quality of study design and execution. These guidelines are not intended for neonates or adult patients. The guidelines reiterate the importance of nutrition assessment-particularly, the detection of malnourished patients who are most vulnerable and therefore may benefit from timely intervention. There is a need for renewed focus on accurate estimation of energy needs and attention to optimizing protein intake. Indirect calorimetry, where feasible, and cautious use of estimating equations and increased surveillance for unintended caloric underfeeding and overfeeding are recommended. Optimal protein intake and its correlation with clinical outcomes are areas of great interest. The optimal route and timing of nutrient delivery are areas of intense debate and investigations. Enteral nutrition remains the preferred route for nutrient delivery. Several strategies to optimize enteral nutrition during critical illness have emerged. The role of supplemental parenteral nutrition has been highlighted, and a delayed approach appears to be beneficial. Immunonutrition cannot be currently recommended. Overall, the pediatric critical care population is heterogeneous, and a nuanced approach to individualizing nutrition support with the aim of improving clinical outcomes is necessary.

Importance: Tumor-treating fields (TTFields) is an antimitotic treatment modality that interferes with glioblastoma cell division and organelle assembly by delivering low-intensity alternating electric fields to the tumor. Objective: To investigate whether TTFields improves progression-free and overall survival of patients with glioblastoma, a fatal disease that commonly recurs at the initial tumor site or in the central nervous system. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized, open-label trial, 695 patients with glioblastoma whose tumor was resected or biopsied and had completed concomitant radiochemotherapy (median time from diagnosis to randomization, 3.8 months) were enrolled at 83 centers (July 2009-2014) and followed up through December 2016. A preliminary report from this trial was published in 2015; this report describes the final analysis. Interventions: Patients were randomized 2:1 to TTFields plus maintenance temozolomide chemotherapy (n = 466) or temozolomide alone (n = 229). The TTFields, consisting of low-intensity, 200 kHz frequency, alternating electric fields, was delivered (≥ 18 hours/d) via 4 transducer arrays on the shaved scalp and connected to a portable device. Temozolomide was administered to both groups (150-200 mg/m2) for 5 days per 28-day cycle (6-12 cycles). Main Outcomes and Measures: Progression-free survival (tested at α = .046). The secondary end point was overall survival (tested hierarchically at α = .048). Analyses were performed for the intent-to-treat population. Adverse events were compared by group. Results: Of the 695 randomized patients (median age, 56 years; IQR, 48-63; 473 men [68%]), 637 (92%) completed the trial. Median progression-free survival from randomization was 6.7 months in the TTFields-temozolomide group and 4.0 months in the temozolomide-alone group (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.76; P < .001). Median overall survival was 20.9 months in the TTFields-temozolomide group vs 16.0 months in the temozolomide-alone group (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.76; P < .001). Systemic adverse event frequency was 48% in the TTFields-temozolomide group and 44% in the temozolomide-alone group. Mild to moderate skin toxicity underneath the transducer arrays occurred in 52% of patients who received TTFields-temozolomide vs no patients who received temozolomide alone. Conclusions and Relevance: In the final analysis of this randomized clinical trial of patients with glioblastoma who had received standard radiochemotherapy, the addition of TTFields to maintenance temozolomide chemotherapy vs maintenance temozolomide alone, resulted in statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival and overall survival. These results are consistent with the previous interim analysis. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00916409.

BACKGROUND: The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial showed that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, the 1-year survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical replacement. However, longer-term follow-up is necessary to determine whether TAVR has prolonged benefits. METHODS: At 25 centers, we randomly assigned 699 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to undergo either surgical aortic-valve replacement or TAVR. All patients were followed for at least 2 years, with assessment of clinical outcomes and echocardiographic evaluation. RESULTS: The rates of death from any cause were similar in the TAVR and surgery groups (hazard ratio with TAVR, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.15; P=0.41) and at 2 years (Kaplan-Meier analysis) were 33.9% in the TAVR group and 35.0% in the surgery group (P=0.78). The frequency of all strokes during follow-up did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.23; P=0.52). At 30 days, strokes were more frequent with TAVR than with surgical replacement (4.6% vs. 2.4%, P=0.12); subsequently, there were 8 additional strokes in the TAVR group and 12 in the surgery group. Improvement in valve areas was similar with TAVR and surgical replacement and was maintained for 2 years. Paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent after TAVR (P<0.001), and even mild paravalvular regurgitation was associated with increased late mortality (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A 2-year follow-up of patients in the PARTNER trial supports TAVR as an alternative to surgery in high-risk patients. The two treatments were similar with respect to mortality, reduction in symptoms, and improved valve hemodynamics, but paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent after TAVR and was associated with increased late mortality. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00530894.).

BACKGROUND: The impact of a recurrent defect on the outcome after rotator cuff repair has been controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the functional and anatomic results after arthroscopic repair of large and massive rotator cuff tears with use of ultrasound as an imaging modality to determine the postoperative integrity of the repair. METHODS: Eighteen patients who had complete arthroscopic repair of a tear measuring >2 cm in the transverse dimension were evaluated at a minimum of twelve months after surgery and again at two years after surgery. The evaluation consisted of a standardized history and physical examination as well as calculation of the preoperative and postoperative shoulder scores according to the system of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons. The strength of both shoulders was quantitated postoperatively with use of a portable dynamometer. Ultrasound studies were performed with use of an established and validated protocol at a minimum of twelve months after surgery. RESULTS: Recurrent tears were seen in seventeen of the eighteen patients. Despite the absence of healing at twelve months after surgery, thirteen patients had an American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score of >/=90 points. Sixteen patients had an improvement in the functional outcome score, which increased from an average of 48.3 to 84.6 points. Sixteen patients had a decrease in pain, and twelve had no pain. Although eight patients had preoperative forward elevation to <95 degrees, all eighteen regained motion above shoulder level and had an average of 152 degrees of elevation. At the second evaluation, a minimum of twenty-four months after surgery, the average score, according to the system of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, had decreased to 79.9 points; only nine patients had a score of >/=90 points, and six patients had a score of </=79 points. The average forward elevation decreased to 142 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic repair of large and massive rotator cuff tears led to a high percentage of recurrent defects. The minimum twelve-month evaluation showed excellent pain relief and improvement in the ability to perform activities of daily living despite the high rate of recurrent defects; however, at a minimum follow-up of two years, the results deteriorated with only twelve patients who had an American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score of >/=80.

Practice guidelines are not intended as absolute requirements. The use of these practice guidelines does not in any way project or guarantee any specific benefit in outcome or survival. The judgment of the healthcare professional based on individual circumstances of the patient must always take precedence over the recommendations in these guidelines. The guidelines offer basic recommendations that are supported by review and analysis of the pertinent available current literature, by other national and international guidelines, and by the blend of expert opinion and clinical practicality. The “intensive care unit” (ICU) or “critically ill” patient is not a homogeneous population. Many of the studies on which the guidelines are based are limited by sample size, patient heterogeneity, variability in definition of disease state and severity of illness, lack of baseline nutrition status, and lack of statistical power for analysis. Whenever possible, these factors are taken into account and the grade of statement will reflect the power of the data. One of the major methodological problems with any guideline is defining the exact population to be included. These guidelines may be subject to periodic review and revision based on new peer-reviewed critical care nutrition literature and practice. These guidelines are intended for the adult medical and surgical critically ill patient populations expected to require an ICU stay of > 2 or 3 days and are not intended for those patients in the ICU for temporary monitoring or those who have minimal metabolic or traumatic stress. These guidelines are based on populations, but like any other therapeutic treatment in an ICU patient, nutrition requirements and techniques of access should be tailored to the individual patient. The intended use of these guidelines is for all individuals involved in the nutrition therapy of the critically ill, primarily physicians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and respiratory and physical therapists where indicated. A list of guideline recommendations was compiled by the experts on the Guidelines Committee for the 2 societies, each of which represented clinically applicable definitive statements of care or specific action statements. Prospective randomized controlled trials were used as the primary source to support guideline statements, with each study being evaluated and given a level of evidence. The overall grade for the recommendation was based on the number and level of investigative studies referable to that guideline. Large studies warranting level I evidence were defined as those with ≥100 patients or those which fulfilled endpoint criteria predetermined by power analysis. The level of evidence for uncontrolled studies was determined by whether they included contemporaneous controls (level III), historical controls (level IV), or no controls (level V, equal to expert opinion). See Table 1 . 1 Review papers and consensus statements were considered expert opinion and were designated the appropriate level of evidence. Meta-analyses were used to organize the information and to draw conclusions about an overall treatment effect from multiple studies on a particular subject. The grade of recommendation, however, was based on the level of evidence of the individual studies. An A or B grade recommendation required at least 1 or 2 large positive randomized trials supporting the claim, while a C grade recommendation required only 1 small supportive randomized investigation. The rationale for each guideline statement was used to clarify certain points from the studies, to identify controversies, and to provide clarity in the derivation of the final recommendation. Significant controversies in interpretation of the literature were resolved by consensus of opinion of the committee members, which in some cases led to a downgrade of the recommendation. Following an extensive review process by external reviewers, the final guideline manuscript was reviewed and approved by A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors and SCCM's Board of Regents and Council. The significance of nutrition in the hospital setting cannot be overstated. This significance is particularly noted in the ICU. Critical illness is typically associated with a catabolic stress state in which patients commonly demonstrate a systemic inflammatory response. This response is coupled with complications of increased infectious morbidity, multi-organ dysfunction, prolonged hospitalization, and disproportionate mortality. Over the past 3 decades, the understanding of the molecular and biological effects of nutrients in maintaining homeostasis in the critically ill population has made exponential advances. Traditionally, nutrition support in the critically ill population was regarded as adjunctive care designed to provide exogenous fuels to support the patient during the stress response. This support had 3 main objectives: to preserve lean body mass, to maintain immune function, and to avert metabolic complications. Recently these goals have become more focused on nutrition therapy, specifically attempting to attenuate the metabolic response to stress, to prevent oxidative cellular injury, and to favorably modulate the immune response. Nutritional modulation of the stress response to critical illness includes early enteral nutrition, appropriate macro- and micronutrient delivery, and meticulous glycemic control. Delivering early nutrition support therapy, primarily using the enteral route, is seen as a proactive therapeutic strategy that may reduce disease severity, diminish complications, decrease length of stay in the ICU, and favorably impact patient outcome. A1. Traditional nutrition assessment tools (albumin, prealbumin, and anthropometry) are not validated in critical care. Before initiation of feedings, assessment should include evaluation of weight loss and previous nutrient intake prior to admission, level of disease severity, comorbid conditions, and function of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. (Grade: E) Rationale. In the critical care setting, the traditional protein markers (albumin, prealbumin, transferrin, retinol binding protein) are a reflection of the acute phase response (increases in vascular permeability and reprioritization of hepatic protein synthesis) and do not accurately represent nutrition status in the ICU setting. Anthropometrics are not reliable in assessment of nutrition status or adequacy of nutrition therapy.2,3 A2. Nutrition support therapy in the form of enteral nutrition (EN) should be initiated in the critically ill patient who is unable to maintain volitional intake. (Grade: C) Rationale. EN supports the functional integrity of the gut by maintaining tight junctions between the intraepithelial cells, stimulating blood flow, and inducing the release of trophic endogenous agents (such as cholecystokinin, gastrin, bombesin, and bile salts). EN maintains structural integrity by maintaining villous height and supporting the mass of secretory IgA-producing immunocytes which comprise the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT) and in turn contribute to mucosal-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) at distant sites such as the lungs, liver, and kidneys.4-7 Adverse change in gut permeability from loss of functional integrity is a dynamic phenomenon which is time-dependent (channels opening within hours of the major insult or injury). The consequences of the permeability changes include increased bacterial challenge (engagement of GALT with enteric organisms), risk for systemic infection, and greater likelihood of multi-organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS).4,5 As disease severity worsens, increases in gut permeability are amplified and the enteral route of feeding is more likely to favorably impact outcome parameters of infection, organ failure, and hospital length of stay (compared to the parenteral route).8 The specific reasons for providing early EN are to maintain gut integrity, modulate stress and the systemic immune response, and attenuate disease severity.6,8,9 Additional endpoints of EN therapy include use of the gut as a conduit for the delivery of immune-modulating agents and use of enteral formulations as an effective means for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Nutrition support therapy (also called “specialized” or“ artificial” nutrition therapy) refers to the provision of enteral tube feeding or parenteral nutrition. “Standard therapy” refers to a patient's own volitional intake without provision of specialized nutrition support therapy. The importance of promoting gut integrity with regard to patient outcome is being strengthened by clinical trials comparing critically ill patients fed by EN to those receiving standard (STD) therapy. In a recent meta-analysis10 in elective gastrointestinal surgery and surgical critical care, patients undergoing a major operation who were given early postoperative EN experienced significant reductions in infection (relative risk [RR] = 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-0.98; P = .03), hospital length of stay (mean 0.84 days; range 0.36-1.33 days; P = .001), and a trend toward reduced anastomotic dehiscence (RR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.26-1.08; P = .08), when compared to similar patients receiving no nutrition support therapy.10-16 In a meta-analysis17 of patients undergoing surgery for complications of severe acute pancreatitis, those placed on EN 1 day postop showed a trend toward reduced mortality compared to controls randomized to STD therapy (RR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.06-1.09; P = .06).17-19 See Table 2 . 11-16,18,19 A3. EN is the preferred route of feeding over parenteral nutrition (PN) for the critically ill patient who requires nutrition support therapy. (Grade: B) Rationale. In the majority of critically ill patients, it is practical and safe to utilize EN instead of PN. The beneficial effects of EN when compared to PN are well documented in numerous prospective randomized controlled trials involving a variety of patient populations in critical illness, including trauma, burns, head injury, major surgery, and acute pancreatitis.8,20-22 While few studies have shown a differential effect on mortality, the most consistent outcome effect from EN is a reduction in infectious morbidity (generally pneumonia and central line infections in most patient populations, and specifically abdominal abscess in trauma patients).20 In many studies, further benefits are seen from significant reductions in hospital length of stay,21 cost of nutrition therapy,21 and even return of cognitive function (in head injury patients).23 All 6 meta-analyses that compared EN to PN showed significant reductions in infectious morbidity with use of EN.21,24-28 Noninfective complications (risk difference = 4.9; 95% CI 0.3-9.5; P =.04) and reduced hospital length of stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 1.20 days; 95% CI 0.38-2.03; P = .004) were seen with use of EN compared to PN in 1 metaanalysis by Peter et al.28 Five of the meta-analyses showed no difference in mortality between the 2 routes of nutrition support therapy.21,24,26-28 One meta-analysis by Simpson and Doig25 showed a significantly lower mortality (RR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.27-0.97; P =.04) despite a significantly higher incidence of infectious complications (RR = 1.66; 95% CI 1.09-2.51; P =.02) with use of PN compared to EN.25 See Table 3 . 8,20,22,29-61 A4. Enteral feeding should be started early within the first 24-48 hours following admission. (Grade: C) The feedings should be advanced toward goal over the next 48-72 hours. (Grade: E) Rationale. Attaining access and initiating EN should be considered as soon as fluid resuscitation is completed and the patient is hemodynamically stable. A “window of opportunity” exists in the first 24-72 hours following admission or the onset of a hypermetabolic insult. Feedings started within this time frame (compared to feedings started after 72 hours) are associated with less gut permeability, diminished activation, and release of inflammatory cytokines (ie, tumor necrosis factor [TNF] and reduced systemic endotoxemia).21 One meta-analysis by Heyland et al showed a trend toward reduced infectious morbidity (RR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.36-1.22; P =.08) and mortality (RR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.25-1.08; P = .08),21 while a second by Marik and Zaloga showed significant reductions in infectious morbidity (RR = 0.45; 95% CI 0.30-0.66; P = .00006) and hospital length of stay (mean 2.2 days, 95% CI 0.81-3.63 days; P = .001) with early EN compared to delayed feedings.62 See Table 4 . 63-72 A5. In the setting of hemodynamic compromise (patients requiring significant hemodynamic support including high dose catecholamine agents, alone or in combination with large volume fluid or blood product resuscitation to maintain cellular perfusion), EN should be withheld until the patient is fully resuscitated and/or stable. (Grade: E) Rationale. At the height of critical illness, EN is being provided to patients who are prone to GI dysmotility, sepsis, and hypotension and thus are at increased risk for subclinical ischemia/reperfusion injury involving the intestinal microcirculation. Ischemic bowel is a rare complication of EN, occurring in <1% of cases.73,74 EN-related ischemic bowel has been reported most often in the past with use of surgical jejunostomy tubes. However, more recently, this complication has been described with use of nasojejunal tubes.75 EN intended to be infused into the small bowel should be withheld in patients who are hypotensive (mean arterial blood pressure <60 mm Hg), particularly if clinicians are initiating use of catecholamine agents (eg, norepinephrine, phenylephrine, epinephrine, dopamine) or escalating the dose of such agents to maintain hemodynamic stability. EN may be provided with caution to patients into either the stomach or small bowel on stable low doses of pressor agents,76 but any signs of intolerance (abdominal distention, increasing nasogastric tube output or gastric residual volumes, decreased passage of stool and flatus, hypoactive bowel sounds, increasing metabolic acidosis and/or base deficit) should be closely scrutinized as possible early signs of gut ischemia. A6. In the ICU patient population, neither the presence nor absence of bowel sounds nor evidence of passage of flatus and stool is required for the initiation of enteral feeding. (Grade: B) Rationale. The literature supports the concept that bowel sounds and evidence of bowel function (ie, passing flatus or stool) are not required for initiation of enteral feeding. GI dysfunction in the ICU setting occurs in 30%-70% of patients depending on the diagnosis, premorbid condition, ventilation mode, medications, and metabolic state.77 Proposed mechanisms of ICU and postoperative GI dysfunction can be separated into 3 general categories: mucosal barrier disruption, altered motility and atrophy of the mucosa, and reduced mass of GALT. Bowel sounds are only indicative of contractility and do not necessarily relate to mucosal integrity, barrier function, or absorptive capacity. Success at attaining nutrition goals within the first 72 hours ranges from 30% to 85%. When ICU enteral feeding protocols are followed, rates of GI tolerance in the range of 70%-85% can be achieved.76 Ten randomized clinical trials,63-72 the majority in surgical critically ill patients, have reported feasibility and safety of enteral feeding within the initial 36-48 hours of admission to the ICU. The grade of this recommendation is based on the strength of the literature supporting A3, where patients in the experimental arm of the above mentioned studies were successfully started on EN within the first 36 hours of admission (regardless of clinical signs of stooling, flatus, or borborygmi). See Table 4 . 63-72 A7. Either gastric or small bowel feeding is acceptable in the ICU setting. Critically ill patients should be fed via an enteral access tube placed in the small bowel if at high risk for aspiration or after showing intolerance to gastric feeding. (Grade: C) Withholding of enteral feeding for repeated high gastric residual volumes alone may be sufficient reason to switch to small bowel feeding (the definition for high gastric residual volume is likely to vary from one hospital to the next, as determined by individual institutional protocol). (Grade: E) (See guideline D4 for recommendations on gastric residual volumes, identifying high risk patients, and reducing chances for aspiration.) Rationale. Multiple studies have evaluated gastric vs jejunal feeding in various medical and surgical ICU settings. One level II study comparing gastric vs jejunal feeding showed significantly less gastroesophageal reflux with small bowel feeding.78 In a nonrandomized prospective study using a radioisotope in an enteral formulation, esophageal reflux was reduced significantly with a trend toward reduced aspiration as the level of infusion was moved from the stomach down through the third portion of the duodenum.79 Three meta-analyses have been published comparing gastric with post-pyloric feeding in the ICU setting.80-82 Only 1 of these meta-analyses showed a significant reduction in ventilator-associated pneumonia with post-pyloric feeding (RR = 0.76; 95% CI 0.59-0.99; P = .04),82 an effect heavily influenced by 1 study by Taylor et al.23 With removal of this study from the meta-analysis, the difference was no longer significant. The 2 other meta-analyses (which did not include the Taylor study) showed no difference in pneumonia between gastric and post-pyloric feeding.80,81 While 1 showed no difference in ICU length of stay,80 all 3 meta-analyses showed no significant difference in mortality between gastric and post-pyloric feeding.80-82 See Table 5 . 23,68,78,83-91 B1. If early EN is not feasible or available the first 7 days following admission to the ICU, no nutrition support therapy (ie, STD therapy) should be provided. (Grade: C) In the patient who was previously healthy prior to critical illness with no evidence of protein-calorie malnutrition, use of PN should be reserved and initiated only after the first 7 days of hospitalization EN is not (Grade: E) Rationale. These 2 recommendations are the most in these guidelines, are influenced primarily by 2 and should be in to patient meta-analyses compared use of PN with STD therapy no nutrition support therapy was In critically ill patients in the absence of EN is not et al 7 and showed that use of STD therapy was associated with significantly reduced infectious morbidity (RR = 95% CI P and a trend toward reduced overall complications (RR = 95% CI P not compared to use of In the circumstances ill, no EN and no evidence of Heyland et 4 and showed a significant in mortality with use of PN (RR = 95% CI P and a trend toward greater of complications (RR = 95% CI P not when compared to STD therapy. See Table 6 . With increased of severe illness, between STD therapy and PN become et al first showed that after the first days of hospitalization had to provide no nutrition therapy was associated with significantly greater mortality vs P and longer hospital length of stay days vs days, P when compared to use of The of as to the appropriate length of time initiating PN in a patient on STD therapy who has not to days, Heyland were reported in a study of patients with severe acute In this a significant was seen in each clinical outcome length of infection, overall complications, and when comparing patients randomized to STD therapy vs PN vs PN with parenteral of the to the of this study to of but were The final recommendation was based on the overall treatment effect of PN over the first of hospitalization seen in the 2 the literature PN for days, the Guidelines Committee that to provide STD therapy nutrition support therapy) 7 days to of nutrition status and an effect on clinical outcome. If is evidence of protein-calorie on admission and EN is not it is appropriate to PN as soon as possible following admission and (Grade: C) Rationale. In the where EN is not available and evidence of protein-calorie is defined by recent weight loss of or body weight of body initial are and use of PN has a more outcome STD therapy. See Table 6 . In the Heyland meta-analysis, use of PN in ICU patients was associated with significantly overall complications (RR = 0.52; 95% CI P STD In the meta-analysis, STD therapy in ICU patients was associated with significantly higher risk for mortality (RR = 95% CI P and a trend toward higher of infection (RR = 95% CI P not compared to use of these patients, when EN is not should be in initiating PN after admission to the ICU. If a patient is expected to major GI surgery and EN is not PN should be provided specific If the patient is PN should be initiated days and into the postoperative (Grade: B) PN should not be initiated in the postoperative but should be delayed for days EN not to be (Grade: B) PN therapy provided for a of days be expected to have no outcome effect and may in increased risk to the patient. PN should be initiated only if the of therapy is to be (Grade: B) Rationale. One population of patients that has shown more consistent benefit of PN over STD those patients undergoing major GI surgery or other major abdominal if is evidence of protein-calorie and the PN is provided specific critically ill patients in the Heyland meta-analysis experienced increased mortality with use of PN compared to STD therapy rationale for guideline surgical patients no treatment effect with PN mortality (RR = 95% CI P = Critically ill patients experienced a trend toward increased complications, while surgical patients significant reductions in complications with use of PN mortality (RR = 95% CI P These benefits were noted when PN was provided for a of days and through the In an meta-analysis by et comparing PN with STD therapy, only of provided PN for As a only 1 study showed a treatment and the overall meta-analysis showed no significant benefit from In a meta-analysis by et the from all of which provided PN for of the studies showed significant beneficial treatment effects from use of with the from the overall meta-analysis showing a significant decrease in infectious morbidity compared to STD See Table 6 . is to be that the beneficial effect of PN is if given only of from studies that evaluated postoperative showed a significant in complications compared to STD of the outcome effect from PN initiated in the postoperative et al PN for days following surgery if EN not to be The goal of EN by should be determined and at the time of initiation of nutrition support therapy. (Grade: C) requirements may be by or by should be used with as they provide a less of requirements in the individual patient. In the patient, the are even more without of (Grade: E) Rationale. should identify the goal of EN, as determined by requirements. Over have been published in the requirements may be either through published or the use of provided via infusion of should be considered when the nutrition While it is often to provide of goal by the enteral route, studies in which a was used to delivery of EN have shown that a volume of EN where the level of and protein provided is to goal This recommendation is supported by level II studies in which those patients who by a greater volume of EN experienced significantly complications and less infectious as well as hospital of and a trend toward lower those patients receiving lower to provide of goal should be made in to the clinical benefit of EN over the first of (Grade: C) Rationale. The impact of early EN on patient outcome to be a or trophic defined as may be sufficient to prevent mucosal atrophy but may be to the endpoints from EN therapy. that of goal may be required to prevent increases in intestinal permeability in and patients, to return of cognitive function in head injury patients, and to outcome from immune-modulating enteral formulations in critically ill This recommendation is supported by one level and one level where increases in the goal infused from a range of to clinical outcome. If unable to requirements of goal after days by the enteral route initiating PN. (Grade: E) PN prior to this day in the patient receiving EN does not outcome and may be to the patient. (Grade: C) Rationale. EN is toward maintaining gut integrity, reducing oxidative stress, and systemic In patients receiving some volume of EN, use of PN over the first days and to provide no In 1 small study in patients, EN with PN was associated with a significant in mortality vs P when compared to EN See Table 7 . As in guideline the time to PN in a patient who is receiving some volume of enteral feeding is not The by et al and et al that after the first days, the to provide and protein is increased in to prevent the consequences of of nutrition At this if the provision of EN is to the of PN should be assessment of adequacy of protein provision should be The use of protein is a as standard enteral formulations to have a high In patients with body mass protein requirements should be in the range of body weight and may likely be even higher in or (Grade: E) Rationale. In the critical care setting, protein to be the most for supporting immune function, and maintaining lean body most critically ill patients, protein requirements are higher requirements and are not by provision of enteral The to protein should be based on an assessment of adequacy of protein in the critical care setting, of protein requirements is

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon Cancer focuses on systemic therapy options for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), because important updates have recently been made to this section. These updates include recommendations for first-line use of checkpoint inhibitors for mCRC, that is deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high, recommendations related to the use of biosimilars, and expanded recommendations for biomarker testing. The systemic therapy recommendations now include targeted therapy options for patients with mCRC that is HER2-amplified, or BRAF V600E mutation-positive. Treatment and management of nonmetastatic or resectable/ablatable metastatic disease are discussed in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include risk assessment, staging, pathology, posttreatment surveillance, and survivorship.

Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Over 95% of gastric cancers are adenocarcinomas, which are typically classified based on anatomic location and histologic type. Gastric cancer generally carries a poor prognosis because it is often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Systemic therapy can provide palliation, improved survival, and enhanced quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The implementation of biomarker testing, especially analysis of HER2 status, microsatellite instability (MSI) status, and the expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), has had a significant impact on clinical practice and patient care. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Palliative management, which may include systemic therapy, chemoradiation, and/or best supportive care, is recommended for all patients with unresectable or metastatic cancer. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with localized gastric cancer. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Gastric Cancer focuses on the management of unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic disease.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast represents a heterogeneous group of neoplastic lesions in the breast ducts. The goal for management of DCIS is to prevent the development of invasive breast cancer. This manuscript focuses on the NCCN Guidelines Panel recommendations for the workup, primary treatment, risk reduction strategies, and surveillance specific to DCIS.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States and is the country's fifth most common cause of cancer mortality in women. A major challenge in treating ovarian cancer is that most patients have advanced disease at initial diagnosis. These NCCN Guidelines discuss cancers originating in the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum, as these are all managed in a similar manner. Most of the recommendations are based on data from patients with the most common subtypes─high-grade serous and grade 2/3 endometrioid. The NCCN Guidelines also include recommendations specifically for patients with less common ovarian cancers, which in the guidelines include the following: carcinosarcoma, clear cell carcinoma, mucinous carcinoma, low-grade serous, grade 1 endometrioid, borderline epithelial, malignant sex cord-stromal, and malignant germ cell tumors. This manuscript focuses on certain aspects of primary treatment, including primary surgery, adjuvant therapy, and maintenance therapy options (including PARP inhibitors) after completion of first-line chemotherapy.

Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor (IMT) or inflammatory pseudotumor is a spindle cell proliferation of disputed nosology, with a distinctive fibroinflammatory and even pseudosarcomatous appearance. Although the lung is the best known and most common site, inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor occurs in diverse extrapulmonary locations. We report our experience with 84 cases occurring in the soft tissues and viscera of 48 female patients and 36 male patients between the ages of 3 months and 46 years (mean, 9.7 years; median, 9 years). A mass, fever, weight loss, pain, and site-specific symptoms were the presenting complaints. Laboratory abnormalities included anemia, thrombocytosis, polyclonal hypergammaglobulinemia, and elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Sites of involvement included abdomen, retroperitoneum, or pelvis (61 cases); head and neck, including upper respiratory tract (12 cases); trunk (8 cases); and extremities (3 cases). The lesions ranged in size from 1 to 17 cm (mean, 6.4; median, 6.0). Excision was performed in 69 cases. Eight had biopsy only. Five patients received chemotherapy or radiation in addition to undergoing biopsy or resection as initial treatment. Sixteen patients had multinodular masses involving one region. Clinical follow-up in 53 cases revealed that 44 patients were alive with no evidence of disease, four were alive with IMT, and five were dead. Thirteen patients had one or more recurrences at intervals of 1-24 months (mean, 6 months; median, 10 months). No distant metastases were documented. The five patients who died had complications either due to the location of the lesion (heart, peritoneum, retroperitoneum, or mesentery) or related to treatment (lymphoproliferative disorder following hepatic transplantation; sepsis following wound infection). The abdominal masses were the largest. All tumors were firm and white with infiltrative borders and focal myxoid change. Three basic histologic patterns were recognized: (a) myxoid, vascular, and inflammatory areas resembling nodular fasciitis; (b) compact spindle cells with intermingled inflammatory cells (lymphocytes, plasma cells, and eosinophils) resembling fibrous histiocytoma; and (c) dense plate-like collagen resembling a desmoid or scar. Immunohistochemistry demonstrated positivity for vimentin, muscle-specific actin, smooth muscle actin, and cytokeratin consistent with myofibroblasts. Based on this series, inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor is a benign, nonmetastasizing proliferation of myofibroblasts with a potential for recurrence and persistent local growth, similar in some respects to the fibromatoses.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations regarding diagnosis, risk stratification and workup, treatment options for localized disease, and management of recurrent and advanced disease for clinicians who treat patients with prostate cancer. The portions of the guidelines included herein focus on the roles of germline and somatic genetic testing, risk stratification with nomograms and tumor multigene molecular testing, androgen deprivation therapy, secondary hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.

The process of surface adhesion and biofilm development is a survival strategy employed by virtually all bacteria and refined over millions of years. This process is designed to anchor microorganisms in a nutritionally advantageous environment and to permit their escape to greener pastures when essential growth factors have been exhausted. Bacterial attachment to a surface can be divided into several distinct phases, including primary and reversible adhesion, secondary and irreversible adhesion, and biofilm formation. Each of these phases is ultimately controlled by the expression of one or more gene products. Ultrastructurally, the mature bacterial biofilm resembles an underwater coral reef containing pyramidal or mushroom-shaped microcolonies of organisms embedded within an extracellular glycocalyx, with channels and cavities to allow the exchange of nutrients and waste. The biofilm protects its inhabitants from predators, dehydration, biocides, and other environmental extremes while regulating population growth and diversity through primitive cell signals. From a physiological standpoint, surface-bound bacteria behave quite differently from their planktonic counterparts. Recognizing that bacteria naturally occur as surface-bound and often polymicrobic communities, the practice of performing antimicrobial susceptibility tests using pure cultures and in a planktonic growth mode should be questioned. That this model does not reflect conditions found in nature might help explain the difficulties encountered in the management and treatment of biomedical implant infections.

To determine which proteinases are responsible for the lung destruction characteristic of pulmonary emphysema, macrophage elastase-deficient (MME-/-) mice were subjected to cigarette smoke. In contrast to wild-type mice, MME-/- mice did not have increased numbers of macrophages in their lungs and did not develop emphysema in response to long-term exposure to cigarette smoke. Smoke-exposed MME-/- mice that received monthly intratracheal instillations of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 showed accumulation of alveolar macrophages but did not develop air space enlargement. Thus, macrophage elastase is probably sufficient for the development of emphysema that results from chronic inhalation of cigarette smoke.

PRELIMINARY REMARKS (INTENT OF GUIDELINES) A.S.P.E.N. and SCCM are both nonprofit organizations composed of multidisciplinary healthcare professionals. The mission of A.S.P.E.N. is to improve patient care by advancing the science and practice of clinical nutrition and metabolism. The mission of SCCM is to secure the highest quality care for all critically ill and injured patients. Guideline Limitations: These A.S.P.E.N.−SCCM Clinical Guidelines are based on general conclusions of health professionals who, in developing such guidelines, have balanced potential benefits to be derived from a particular mode of medical therapy against certain risks inherent with such therapy. However, practice guidelines are not intended as absolute requirements. The use of these practice guidelines does not in any way project or guarantee any specific benefit in outcome or survival. The judgment of the healthcare professional based on individual circumstances of the patient must always take precedence over the recommendations in these guidelines. The guidelines offer basic recommendations that are supported by review and analysis of the current literature, other national and international guidelines, and a blend of expert opinion and clinical practicality. The population of critically ill patients in an intensive care unit (ICU) is not homogeneous. Many of the studies on which the guidelines are based are limited by sample size, patient heterogeneity, variability in disease severity, lack of baseline nutritional status, and insufficient statistical power for analysis. Periodic Guideline Review and Update: This particular report is an update and expansion of guidelines published by A.S.P.E.N. and SCCM in 2009 (1). Governing bodies of both A.S.P.E.N. and SCCM have mandated that these guidelines be updated every three to five years. The database of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that served as the platform for the analysis of the literature was assembled in a joint "harmonization process" with the Canadian Clinical Guidelines group. Once completed, each group operated separately in their interpretation of the studies and derivation of guideline recommendations (2). The current A.S.P.E.N. and SCCM guidelines included in this paper were derived from data obtained via literature searches by the authors through December 31, 2013. Although the committee was aware of landmark studies published after this date, these data were not included in this manuscript. The process by which the literature was evaluated necessitated a common end date for the search review. Adding a last-minute landmark trial would have introduced bias unless a formalized literature search was re-conducted for all sections of the manuscript. Target Patient Population for Guideline: The target of these guidelines is intended to be the adult (≥ 18 years) critically ill patient expected to require a length of stay (LOS) greater than 2 or 3 days in a medical ICU (MICU) or surgical ICU (SICU). The current guidelines were expanded to include a number of additional subsets of patients who met the above criteria, but were not included in the previous 2009 guidelines. Specific patient populations addressed by these expanded and updated guidelines include organ failure (pulmonary, renal, and liver), acute pancreatitis, surgical subsets (trauma, traumatic brain injury [TBI], open abdomen [OA], and burns), sepsis, postoperative major surgery, chronic critically ill, and critically ill obese. These guidelines are directed toward generalized patient populations but, like any other management strategy in the ICU, nutrition therapy should be tailored to the individual patient. Target Audience: The intended use of these guidelines is for all healthcare providers involved in nutrition therapy of the critically ill, primarily physicians, nurses, dietitians, and pharmacists. Methodology: The authors compiled clinical questions reflecting key management issues in nutrition therapy. A committee of multidisciplinary experts in clinical nutrition composed of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and dietitians was jointly convened by the two societies. Literature searches were then performed using key words (critically ill, critical care, intensive care, nutrition, enteral, parenteral, tube feeding, and those related to assigned topics such as pancreatitis, sepsis, etc.) to evaluate the quality of evidence supporting a response to those questions, which were then used to derive a subsequent treatment recommendation. The literature search included MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, the National Guidelines Clearing House and an Internet search using the Google search engine for scholarly articles through an end date of December 31, 2013 (including ePub publications). While preference was given to RCTs, other forms of resource material were used to support the response, including nonrandomized cohort trials, prospective observational studies, and retrospective case series. Use of publications was limited to full-text articles available in English on adult humans. For all included RCTs, two readers completed data abstraction forms (DAFs) examining the data and assessing the quality of the research methodology to produce a shared evaluation achieved by consensus for each study (example of DAF provided in the supplemental data, Supplemental Digital Content 1, https://links.lww.com/CCM/B571). DAFs were constructed only for RCTs. When the strongest available evidence was a published meta-analysis, the studies from the meta-analysis were used to determine the quality of the evidence and assessed by two evidence assessors. The data from included trials were entered into Review Manager 5.2 software to create forest plots aggregating the effect size for each intervention and outcome (3). The key forest plots supporting the recommendation are included throughout the text and in the supplement data (Supplemental Digital Content 1, https://links.lww.com/CCM/B571). No new forest plots were created when a meta-analysis was evaluated. Since release of the 2009 A.S.P.E.N. and SCCM Clinical Guidelines, the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group have been adopted (4–7). A full description of the methodology has been previously published (4). The data from the Review Manager analysis was uploaded to GRADEPro software (8), where the body of evidence for a given intervention and outcome was evaluated for overall quality. One analyst created each GRADE table that was then independently confirmed by a second analyst. The GRADE tables are provided in the supplement data (Supplemental Digital Content 1, https://links.lww.com/CCM/B571). Due to the inordinately large number of RCTs evaluated, observational studies were critically reviewed, but not utilized to construct the GRADE tables. However, in the few cases where observational studies were the only available evidence in a population, their quality of evidence was reviewed, using GRADE (Table 1). When no RCT or observational study was available to answer a question directly, consensus of the author group on the best clinical practice approach was used, and the recommendation was designated "based on expert consensus."TABLE 1: Type of EvidenceA recommendation for clinical practice was based on both the best available evidence and the risks and benefits to patients. While small author teams developed each recommendation and provided the supporting rationale, a full discussion by the entire author group followed, and every committee member was polled anonymously for their agreement with the recommendation. Achievement of consensus was arbitrarily set at 70% agreement of authors with a particular recommendation. Only one recommendation (H3a) did not meet this level of agreement, with a final consensus of 64%. All other consensus-based recommendations reached a level of agreement of 80% or higher. As with all A.S.P.E.N. and SCCM clinical guidelines, this manuscript was subjected to rigorous peer review by clinical content experts from all the practice disciplines that would use the guidelines, both internal and external to the organizations. A summary of the guidelines is presented in the supplement data (Supplemental Digital Content 1, https://links.lww.com/CCM/B571). A nutrition bundle based on the top guidelines (as voted on by the committee) for the bedside practitioner is presented in Table 2.TABLE 2: Bundle StatementsCONFLICT OF INTEREST All authors completed both an A.S.P.E.N. and SCCM conflict of interest form for copyright assignment and financial disclosure. There was no input or funding from industry, nor were any industry representatives present at any of the committee meetings. DEFINITIONS Nutrition Therapy refers specifically to the provision of either enteral nutrition (EN) by enteral access device and/or parenteral nutrition (PN) by central venous access. Standard therapy (STD) refers to provision of IV fluids, no EN or PN, and advancement to oral diet as tolerated. INTRODUCTION The significance of nutrition in the hospital setting (and especially the ICU) cannot be overstated. Critical illness is typically associated with a catabolic stress state in which patients demonstrate a systemic inflammatory response coupled with complications of increased infectious morbidity, multiple organ dysfunction, prolonged hospitalization, and disproportionate mortality. Over the past three decades, exponential advances have been made in the understanding of the molecular and biological effects of nutrients in maintaining homeostasis in the critically ill population. Traditionally, nutrition support in the critically ill population was regarded as adjunctive care designed to provide exogenous fuels to preserve lean body mass and support the patient throughout the stress response. Recently this strategy has evolved to represent nutrition therapy, in which the feeding is thought to help attenuate the metabolic response to stress, prevent oxidative cellular injury, and favorably modulate immune responses. Improvement in the clinical course of critical illness may be achieved by early EN, appropriate macro- and micronutrient delivery, and meticulous glycemic control. Delivering early nutrition support therapy, primarily by the enteral route, is seen as a proactive therapeutic strategy that may reduce disease severity, diminish complications, decrease LOS in the ICU, and favorably impact patient outcomes. A. NUTRITION ASSESSMENT Question: Does the use of a nutrition risk indicator identify patients who will most likely benefit from nutrition therapy? A1. Based on expert consensus, we suggest a determination of nutrition risk (for example, Nutritional Risk Score [NRS-2002], NUTRIC score) be performed on all patients admitted to the ICU for whom volitional intake is anticipated to be insufficient. High nutrition risk identifies those patients most likely to benefit from early EN therapy. Rationale: Poor outcomes have been associated with inflammation generated by critical illness that leads to deterioration of nutrition status and malnutrition (9). However, malnutrition in the critically ill has always been difficult to define. An international consensus group modified definitions to recognize the impact of inflammation. Objective measures of baseline nutrition status have been described by A.S.P.E.N. and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (10, 11). On the other hand, nutrition risk is easily defined and more readily determined by evaluation of baseline nutrition status and assessment of disease severity. All hospitalized patients are required to undergo an initial nutrition screen within 48 hours of admission. However, patients at higher nutrition risk in an ICU setting require a full nutrition assessment. Many screening and assessment tools are used to evaluate nutrition status, such as the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), the Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ), the Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST), and the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) (12). However, only the NRS-2002 and the NUTRIC score determine both nutrition status and disease severity. Although both scoring systems were based on retrospective analysis, they have been used to define nutrition risk in RCTs in critically ill patients (13–16). Patients at "risk" are defined by an NRS-2002 > 3 and those at "high risk" with a score ≥ 5; or a NUTRIC score ≥ 5 (if interleukin-6 is not included, otherwise ≥ 6) (13, 18). Interleukin-6 is rarely available as a component for the NUTRIC score; therefore, Heyland et al has shown a NUTRIC score ≥ 5 still indicates high nutrition risk (19). Two prospective nonrandomized studies show that patients at high nutrition risk are more likely to benefit from early EN with improved outcome (reduced nosocomial infection, total complications, and mortality) than patients at low nutrition risk (13, 18). While widespread use and supportive evidence is somewhat lacking to date, improvement in these scoring systems may increase their applicability in the future by providing guidance as to the role of EN and PN in the ICU. Question: What additional tools, components or surrogate markers provide useful information when performing nutrition assessments in critically ill adult patients? A2. Based on expert consensus, we suggest that nutritional assessment include an evaluation of comorbid conditions, function of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, and risk of aspiration. We suggest not using traditional nutrition indicators or surrogate markers, as they are not validated in critical care. Rationale: In the critical care setting, the traditional serum protein markers (albumin, prealbumin, transferrin, retinol-binding protein) are a reflection of the acute phase response (increases in vascular permeability and reprioritization of hepatic protein synthesis) and do not accurately represent nutrition status in the ICU setting (20). Anthropometrics are not reliable in assessment of nutrition status or adequacy of nutrition therapy (21). Individual levels of calcitonin, C-reactive protein (CRP), IL-1, tumor necrosis factor (TNF), IL-6, and citrulline are still investigational and should not be used as surrogate markers. Ultrasound is emerging as a tool to expediently measure muscle mass and determine changes in muscle tissue at bedside in the ICU, given its ease of use and availability (22, 23). A CT scan provides a precise quantification of skeletal muscle and adipose tissue depots; however it is quite costly unless a scan taken for other purposes is used to determine body composition (24, 25). Both may be valuable future tools to incorporate into nutrition assessment; however, validation and reliability studies in ICU patients are still pending. Assessment of muscle function is still in its infancy. Its measurement, reproducibility, and applicability are still being validated for use in critically ill patients, and may be of value in the future. Question: What is the best method for determining energy needs in the critically ill adult patient? A3a. We suggest that indirect calorimetry (IC) be used to determine energy requirements, when available and in the absence of variables that affect the accuracy of measurement. [Quality of Evidence: Very Low] A3b. Based on expert consensus, in the absence of IC, we suggest that a published predictive equation or a simplistic weight-based equation (25–30 kcal/kg/day) be used to determine energy requirements. (See section Q for obesity recommendations.) Rationale: Clinicians should determine energy requirements in order to establish the goals of nutrition therapy. Energy requirements may be calculated either through simplistic formulas (25–30 kcal/kg/day), published predictive equations, or IC. The applicability of IC may be limited at most institutions by availability and cost. Variables in the ICU that affect the timing and accuracy of IC measurements include the presence of air leaks or chest tubes, supplemental oxygen (e.g., nasal cannula, bilevel positive airway pressure), ventilator settings (fractional inspiratory oxygen and positive end-expiratory pressure), continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), anesthesia, physical therapy, and excessive movement (26). More than 200 predictive equations have been published in the literature, with accuracy rates ranging from 40–75% when compared to IC, and no single equation emerges as being more accurate in an ICU (27–32). Predictive equations are less accurate in obese and underweight patients (33–36). Equations derived from testing hospital patients (Penn State, Ireton-Jones, Swinamer) are no more accurate than equations derived from testing normal volunteers (Harris-Benedict, Mifflin St. Jeor) (37). The poor accuracy of predictive equations is related to many non-static variables affecting energy expenditure in the critically ill patient, such as weight, medications, treatments, and body temperature. The only advantage of using weight-based equations over other predictive equations is simplicity. However, in critically ill patients following aggressive volume resuscitation or in the presence of edema or anasarca, clinicians should use dry or usual body weight in these equations. Additional energy provided by dextrose-containing fluids and lipid-based medications such as propofol should be accounted for when deriving nutrition therapy regimens to meet target energy goals. Achieving energy balance as guided by IC measurements compared to predictive equations may lead to more appropriate nutrition intake. While two RCTs (38, 39) that met our inclusion criteria (with data from 161 patients) showed that higher mean intake of energy and protein were provided in IC-directed study patients compared to controls whose nutrition therapy was directed by predictive equations, issues with study design prevent a stronger recommendation for use of IC. In a study of burn patients, use of IC-directed nutrition therapy helped provide the minimal effective intake, avoiding the excesses of overfeeding seen in controls whose therapy was directed by the Curreri formula. Complications between groups (diarrhea and hyperglycemia) were no different, but traditional outcome parameters were not evaluated (38). A second study in general ICU patients used both EN and PN to meet target energy goals determined by IC measurement or a weight-based predictive equation (25 kcal/kg/day) (39). While the IC-directed energy goal was no different than the value obtained by predictive equation (1976 ± 468 vs 1838 ± 468 kcal/day, respectively, p = 0.60), only study patients were monitored vigilantly by an ICU dietitian, while controls were managed by standard of care (less frequent ICU dietitian monitoring), which led to significantly more energy and protein per in the study patients. The toward in study patients compared to controls = p = is difficult to in of their increased with to ICU LOS vs p = and of vs p = (38, by IC or by predictive equations, energy expenditure should be more than per and to energy and protein intake should be used Question: protein provision be monitored independently from energy provision in critically ill adult patients? Based on expert consensus, we suggest an evaluation of adequacy of protein provision be Rationale: In the critical care setting, protein to be the most for supporting immune and maintaining lean body For most critically ill patients, protein requirements are higher than energy requirements and are not easily met by provision of enteral have a high Patients with EN to frequent may benefit from protein The to protein should be based on an assessment of adequacy of protein intake. equations (e.g., may be used to adequacy of protein provision by the of protein to that especially when balance studies are not available to needs section protein markers (albumin, prealbumin, transferrin, are not validated for determining adequacy of protein provision and should not be used in the critical care setting in this EN Question: What is the benefit of early EN in critically ill adult patients compared to or this therapy? We that nutrition support therapy in the form of early EN be within hours in the critically ill patient who is to volitional intake. [Quality of Evidence: Very Low] Rationale: EN the of the by maintaining between the and the release of as and EN by maintaining and supporting the mass of and that the tissue and in to tissue at such as the and in permeability from of is a that is within hours of the major or The of the permeability changes include increased of with risk for systemic infection, and greater of multiple organ As disease in permeability are and the enteral of feeding is more likely to favorably impact outcome parameters of infection, organ and hospital LOS The specific for providing EN are to modulate stress and the systemic immune response, and attenuate disease Additional of EN therapy may include use of the as a for the of and use of enteral as an effective for stress previous data from RCTs early One meta-analysis of trials by Heyland showed a toward = p = when EN was within 48 hours compared to of EN after that A second meta-analysis of trials by showed in infectious = p = and hospital LOS p = when early EN was on within hours of ICU A meta-analysis of trials by showed a in = p = and = p = but no in multiple organ failure when early EN was within hours of to the ICU, compared to EN after that an updated meta-analysis of RCTs that met our inclusion criteria the provision of early EN EN, all on with on of early EN was associated with a in = p = and infectious = p = compared to early EN EN or 1: enteral nutrition (EN) vs EN, 2: enteral nutrition (EN) vs EN, infectious a in outcome between the use of EN or PN for adult critically ill patients? We suggest the use of EN over PN in critically ill patients who require nutrition support therapy. [Quality of Evidence: to Very Low] Rationale: In the of critically ill patients it is and to use EN of The effects of EN compared to PN are in RCTs a of patient populations in critical including injury, major surgery, and acute While few studies have shown a effect on the most outcome effect from EN is a in infectious and central in most patient and in patients) and ICU previous EN to PN showed in infectious with use of EN complications = p = and hospital LOS mean = p = were seen with use of EN compared to PN in one of the by of the showed no in between the two of nutrition support therapy One meta-analysis by showed a significantly = p = a significantly higher of infectious complications = p = with use of PN compared to EN In studies patients that met our inclusion criteria, on which was shown to be significantly less with EN than PN = p ICU LOS was with EN compared to PN by one full = to p = LOS and were not significantly These in outcome from the of feeding from studies and may diminish in the future with in glycemic medical management and new nutrition (EN) vs parenteral nutrition infectious the clinical evidence of required to EN in critically ill adult patients? Based on expert consensus, we suggest in the of and patient while should be evaluated when EN, of should not be required to of Rationale: The literature the that and evidence of or are not required for of in the ICU setting in of patients, on the medications, and metabolic state of ICU and postoperative are related to of the and mass of has been defined (e.g., absence or high etc.) and to in to of patients on are only of and do not to or The for EN of the of is based on studies of which critically ill surgical patients) the and of EN within the initial hours of to the ICU. or may greater disease and Patients with normal have been shown to have ICU than those with or vs vs ICU LOS has been shown to increase with greater number of of days when to days with of of EN is with a greater number of of A greater number of of may increased as EN is and may clinical Question: What is the level of of EN within the for critically ill patients? does the level of of EN affect patient We that the level of be in the in those critically ill patients at high risk for section or those who have shown to [Quality of Evidence: to Based on expert consensus we suggest in most critically ill patients, it is to EN in the Rationale: EN therapy in the is and may decrease the to of The of level of the of the feeding tube is in the different of the or or the within the may be determined by patient within ICU and of small enteral access and

NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) provide recommended management for patients with NSCLC, including diagnosis, primary treatment, surveillance for relapse, and subsequent treatment. Patients with metastatic lung cancer who are eligible for targeted therapies or immunotherapies are now surviving longer. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for NSCLC focuses on targeted therapies for patients with metastatic NSCLC and actionable mutations.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. In 2016, an estimated 95,270 new cases of colon cancer and approximately 39,220 cases of rectal cancer will occur. During the same year, an estimated 49,190 people will die of colon and rectal cancer combined. 1 Despite these high numbers, the incidence of colon and rectal cancers per 100,000 people decreased from NCCN Colon Cancer, Version 1.

Treatment is complex for patients with head and neck (H&N) cancers with specific site of disease, stage, and pathologic findings guiding treatment decision-making. Treatment planning for H&N cancers involves a multidisciplinary team of experts. This article describes supportive care recommendations in the NCCN Guidelines for Head and Neck Cancers, as well as the rationale supporting a new section on imaging recommendations for patients with H&N cancers. This article also describes updates to treatment recommendations for patients with very advanced H&N cancers and salivary gland tumors, specifically systemic therapy recommendations.

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) focuses on targeted therapies and immunotherapies for metastatic NSCLC, because therapeutic recommendations are rapidly changing for metastatic disease. For example, new recommendations were added for atezolizumab, ceritinib, osimertinib, and pembrolizumab for the 2017 updates.