Citations

Background Substantial proximal humeral bone loss may compromise reverse shoulder arthroplasty secondary to limited implant support, insufficient soft tissue tension due to shortening, lack of attachment sites for the posterosuperior cuff when present, and lack of lateral offset of the deltoid. In these circumstances, use of a proximal humeral replacement may be considered. Patients/Methods Between 2012 and 2014, 34 consecutive reverse shoulder arthroplasties were performed using a proximal humeral replacement system. The indications were failed shoulder arthroplasty (15), oncology reconstruction (9), humeral malunion/nonunion (7), prior resection arthroplasty (2), and intraoperative fracture (1). All patients were included in the survival analysis. Twenty-two patients with minimum 2-year follow-up were included in analysis of clinical results. Results Among the cohort of 34 patients, there were 8 additional reoperations: humeral loosening (3), periprosthetic fracture (2), irrigation and debridement (2), and glenoid loosening (1). Humeral component loosening occurred exclusively in patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty. The 4 patients had an average 3.75 prior procedures before the proximal humeral replacement. Two of the revisions were from cemented to uncemented stems. Among the 23 patients with minimum 2-year follow-up, there was significant improvement in pain scores (4.1 vs 0.6), forward elevation (31 vs 109) degrees, and 81% were satisfied. Conclusion Use of a proximal humeral replacement when performing a reverse shoulder arthroplasty in the complex setting of substantial proximal humerus bone loss provides good clinical results and a particularly low dislocation rate. However, the rate of loosening of the humeral component in the revision setting suggests that proximal humeral replacement components should be cemented when revising a previously cemented stem. IRB 16-006966.

The most recent late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) genome-wide association study revealed genome-wide significant association of two new loci: rs744373 near BIN1 (p = 1.6 × 10 −11 ) and rs597668 near EXOC3L2/BLOC1S3/MARK4 (p = 6.5 × 10 −9 ). We have genotyped these variants in a large (3,287 LOAD, 4,396 controls), independent dataset comprising eleven case-control series from the USA and Europe. We performed meta-analyses of the association of these variants with LOAD and also tested for association using logistic regression adjusted by age-at-diagnosis, gender, and APOE ε4 status. Meta-analysis results showed no evidence of series heterogeneity and logistic regression analysis successfully replicated the association of BIN1 (rs744373) with LOAD with an odds ratio (OR = 1.17, p = 1.1 × 10 −4 ) comparable to that previously reported (OR = 1.15). The variant near EXOC3L2 (rs597668) showed only suggestive association with LOAD (p = 0.09) after correcting for the presence of the APOE ε4 allele. Addition of our follow-up data to the results previously reported increased the strength of evidence for association with BIN1 (11,825 LOAD, 32,570 controls, rs744373 Fisher combined p = 3.8 × 10 −20 ). We also tested for epistatic interaction between these variants and APOE ε4 as well as with the previously replicated LOAD GWAS genes (CLU: rs11136000, CR1: rs3818361, and PICALM: rs3851179). No significant interactions between these genes were detected. In summary, we provide additional evidence for the variant near BIN1 (rs744373) as a LOAD risk modifier, but our results indicate that the effect of EXOC3L2 independent of APOE ε4 should be studied further.

Context.— Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and brightfield in situ hybridization (ISH) are 2 clinically approved laboratory methods for detecting ERBB2 (HER2) amplification in breast cancer. Objective.— To compare the performance of FISH and brightfield ISH on proficiency testing administered by the College of American Pathologists Laboratory Accreditation Program. Design.— Retrospective review was performed on 70 tissue core samples in 7 separate proficiency testing surveys conducted between 2009 and 2013. Results.— The samples included 13 consensus-amplified tissue cores, 53 consensus-nonamplified cores, and 4 cores that did not reach consensus for FISH and/or brightfield ISH. There were 2552 individual responses for FISH and 1871 individual responses for brightfield ISH. Consensus response rates were comparable for FISH (2474 of 2524; 98.0%) and brightfield ISH (2135 of 2189; 97.5%). The FISH analysis yielded an average HER2 copy number per cell that was significantly higher (by 2.86; P = .02) compared with brightfield ISH for amplified cores. For nonamplified cores, FISH yielded slightly, but not significantly, higher (by 0.17; P = .10) HER2 copy numbers per cell. There was no significant difference in the average HER2 to control ratio for either consensus-amplified or consensus-nonamplified cores. Participants reported “unable to analyze” more frequently for brightfield ISH (244 of 2453; 9.9%) than they did for FISH (160 of 2684; 6.0%). Conclusions.— Our study indicates a high concordance rate in proficiency testing surveys, with some significant differences noted in the technical performance of these assays. In borderline cases, updated American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists cutoff thresholds that place greater emphasis on HER2 copy number per cell could accentuate those differences between FISH and brightfield ISH.

AbstractAcquired progressive lymphangioma (benign lymphangioendothelioma) is a rare lymphatic anomaly of unclear pathogenesis. Excision is generally advised for local disease, although other therapies have been tried. This report describes a unique case of extensive acquired progressive lymphangioma involving the abdomen, genitalia, and lower extremity of a 1‐year‐old boy. Rapid progression and multisite involvement required exploration of nonsurgical options for management.

AbstractBackgroundVorinostat combined with retinoids produces additive antitumor effects in preclinical studies of neuroblastoma. Higher systemic exposures of vorinostat than achieved in pediatric phase I trials with continuous daily dosing are necessary for in vivo increased histone acetylation and cytotoxic activity. We conducted a phase I trial in children with relapsed/refractory neuroblastoma to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of vorinostat on an interrupted schedule, escalating beyond the previously identified pediatric MTD.MethodsIsotretinoin (cis‐13‐retinoic acid) 80 mg/m2/dose was administered by mouth twice daily on days 1–14 in combination with escalating doses of daily vorinostat up to 430 mg/m2/dose (days 1–4; 8–11) in each 28‐day cycle using the standard 3 + 3 design. Vorinostat pharmacokinetic testing and histone acetylation assays were performed.ResultsTwenty‐nine patients with refractory or relapsed neuroblastoma were enrolled and 28 were evaluable for dose escalation decisions. Median number of cycles completed was two (range 1–15); 11 patients received four or more cycles. Three patients experienced cycle 1 dose‐limiting toxicities. A total of 18 patients experienced grade 3/4 toxicities related to study therapy. The maximum intended dose of vorinostat (430 mg/m2/day, days 1–4; 8–11) was tolerable and led to increased histone acetylation in surrogate tissues when compared to lower doses of vorinostat (P = 0.009). No objective responses were seen.ConclusionsIncreased dose vorinostat (430 mg/m2/day) on an interrupted schedule is tolerable in combination with isotretinoin. This dose led to increased vorinostat exposures and demonstrated increased histone acetylation. Prolonged stable disease in patients with minimal residual disease warrants further investigation.

This pathology PILOT study aims to define the role and feasibility of centralized pathology review in a cohort of 75 patients from different centers in the United States and Europe using digital slide scanning. The pathologic material from 75 patients who had been diagnosed with mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome and were clinically staged as IIb or above was retrieved from 11 participating centers. Each pathology reviewer was provided with the pathologic diagnosis (by the referring pathologist), and the following list of histopathologic criteria (presence or absence) from the initial report: epidermotropism, folliculotropism (FT), large cell transformation, syringotropism, and granulomas. Patients with advance stage were selected for this study as this is a population where there is significant variability in the diagnosis of pathologic prognostic and predictive biomarkers. The slides were digitally scanned with an Aperio scanner and consensus review of cases occurred when major or minor discrepancies between the referral diagnosis and central pathology review occurred. Among the 75 cases, 70 (93.3%) had a final consensus diagnosis between the 3 central review pathologists. The overall agreement between the consensus review and the referring pathologist was 60%. The overall agreement was also higher between the reviewers and consensus review, compared with the referring pathologist and consensus. 65.3% of cases had some type of discrepancy (major or minor) between the outside and consensus review. Major discrepancies were seen in 34 of 73 cases (46.6%; 73 cases indicated a yes or no response). Minor discrepancies were seen in 32 of 75 (42.7%) of cases. Most of the major discrepancies were accounted by a difference in interpretation in the presence or absence of large cell transformation or FT. Most minor discrepancies were explained by a different interpretation in the expression of CD30. We found digital slide scanning to be a beneficial, reliable, and practical for a methodical approach to perform central pathology review in the context of a large clinical prospective study.