Miller, Michael J.

AimsBlue naevi are uncommon dermal melanocytic neoplasms characterised by GNAQ/GNA11 mutations, which very rarely progress to melanoma. Such melanomas also often have BAP1 mutations, and lack genetic events associated with conventional melanoma. Exceptionally, blue naevi arise in extracutaneous locations; one melanoma arising in this setting has been reported. We report the clinicopathological, immunohistochemical and molecular genetic features of two cases of melanoma arising in extracutaneous blue naevus.Methods and resultsBoth arose in males, aged 25 and 63 years, with no history of other melanocytic lesions, and presented as large, painful intra‐abdominal masses. The tumours were dark‐brown/black, multilobulated, involved small intestinal mesentery and consisted of a predominantly fascicular and spindled, but occasionally nested and epithelioid, proliferation of variably pigmented, relatively monotonous cells with pale cytoplasm and ovoid nuclei with mild to moderate atypia. Mitotic activity was variable but generally low. Both cases showed areas of conventional and cellular blue naevus. Recurrent tumour in one case showed predominantly epithelioid morphology and greater cytological atypia and mitotic activity. One case expressed Melan‐A, SOX10 and CD117, with absent expression of S100 protein and DOG1; the other expressed Melan‐A, HMB45 and S100 protein. Next‐generation sequencing identified GNAQ and BAP1 mutations in one case and GNA11 mutation in the other. Both patients developed widespread metastatic disease.ConclusionExceptionally rare, aggressive melanomas arising in extracutaneous blue naevi should be distinguished from metastatic melanoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumour and malignant melanotic nerve sheath tumour, especially given the significant therapeutic and prognostic differences between these different entities.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Simulation-based medical education (SBME) is used to teach residents. However, few studies have evaluated its clinical impact. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of an SBME session on pediatric interns’ clinical procedural success. METHODS: This randomized trial was conducted at 10 academic medical centers. Interns were surveyed on infant lumbar puncture (ILP) and child intravenous line placement (CIV) knowledge and watched audiovisual expert modeling of both procedures. Participants were randomized to SBME mastery learning for ILP or CIV and for 6 succeeding months reported clinical performance for both procedures. ILP success was defined as obtaining a sample on the first attempt with <1000 red blood cells per high-power field or fluid described as clear. CIV success was defined as placement of a functioning catheter on the first try. Each group served as the control group for the procedure for which they did not receive the intervention. RESULTS: Two-hundred interns participated (104 in the ILP group and 96 in the CIV group). Together, they reported 409 procedures. ILP success rates were 34% (31 of 91) for interns who received ILP mastery learning and 34% (25 of 73) for controls (difference: 0.2% [95% confidence interval: –0.1 to 0.1]). The CIV success rate was 54% (62 of 115) for interns who received CIV mastery learning compared with 50% (58 of 115) for controls (difference: 3% [95% confidence interval: –10 to 17]). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in a single SBME mastery learning session was insufficient to affect pediatric interns’ subsequent procedural success.

Purpose To review the state of the science with respect to diagnostic imaging and locoregional therapy for patients with breast cancer receiving preoperative chemotherapy. Methods Published data relevant to clinical staging, monitoring of tumor response, and locoregional therapy for patients with breast cancer treated with preoperative chemotherapy were reviewed. Results High-quality data from prospective randomized trials are limited. Available data suggest that locoregional therapy decisions should be based on both the pretreatment clinical extent of disease and the pathologic extent of the disease after chemotherapy. Accordingly, physical examination and imaging studies that accurately define the initial extent of disease are required before treatment. Sentinel lymph node biopsy can be performed either before or after preoperative chemotherapy for patients with clinical N0 disease. The success of breast conservation after preoperative chemotherapy depends on careful patient selection and achieving negative surgical margins. Adjuvant breast radiation is indicated for all patients treated with breast conservation. For patients treated with mastectomy, chest-wall and regional nodal radiation should be considered for those who present with clinical stage III disease or have histologically positive lymph nodes after preoperative chemotherapy. Additional prospective studies are needed to determine the value of postmastectomy radiation for patients with stage II breast cancer who have negative lymph nodes after chemotherapy. Conclusion The increased use of preoperative chemotherapy has raised new questions concerning the optimal methods to stage and monitor disease response to treatment and how to optimize locoregional treatment. The available evidence suggests that a multidisciplinary approach improves outcomes.