Citations

Everolimus is an oral raptor mTOR inhibitor and has shown activity in patients with Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM). This study examines a large cohort of patients with relapsed/refractory WM with long‐term follow up for survival. Patients were eligible if they had measurable disease, a platelet count >75,000 × 106/L, an absolute neutrophil count >1,000 × 106/L. Patients received everolimus 10 mg PO daily and were evaluated monthly. A success was defined as a complete or partial response (PR); minor responses (MR) were recorded and considered to be of clinical benefit. Sixty patients were enrolled and treated. The overall response rate (ORR) was 50% (all PR); the clinical benefit rate including MR or better was 73% (95% CI: 60–84%) with 23% MR. The median time to response for patients who achieved PR was 2 months (range, 1–26). The median duration of response has not been reached and median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 21 months. Grade 3 or higher toxicities (at least possibly related to everolimus) were observed in 67% of patients. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities were anemia (27%), leukopenia (22%), and thrombocytopenia (20%). Other nonhematological toxicities were diarrhea (5%), fatigue (8%), stomatitis (8%) and pulmonary toxicity (5%). Everolimus has a high single‐agent activity of 73% including MR, with a progression free survival of 21 months, indicating that this agent is active in relapsed/refractory WM. Am. J. Hematol. 89:237–242, 2014. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc

AbstractObjectivesWhole‐slide imaging with virtual microscopy is increasingly used as a tool in resident education and training, board certification and maintenance of certification examinations, and diagnostic evaluation. The objective of this study was to determine attitudes toward virtual microscopy compared with traditional glass slide microscopy during a continuing medical education dermatopathology workshop.MethodsTwenty‐three board‐certified, practicing or retired dermatopathologists were given 26 “advanced” cases to review using both virtual microscopy and traditional glass slides. Diagnostic accuracy was not assessed because of the complexity of the cases. Participants were surveyed on: (i) their previous experience with digital imaging; (ii) the quality, ease of use, and speed of slide review; and (iii) overall attitudes toward digital and traditional review.ResultsEqual proportions of participants did and did not have prior experience with digital imaging of histopathologic specimens. Most participants preferred to use both virtual microscopy and traditional microscopy together. The quality of glass slides was rated as better than that of digital images, but virtual microscopy achieved higher ratings for ease of navigation and overall satisfaction.ConclusionsVirtual microscopy is a useful tool for dermatopathology workshops. Specifically, dermatopathologists with and without prior digital slide review experience responded favorably to viewing slides on a computer monitor. Overall satisfaction was high, and the majority of participants indicated that they would use virtual microscopy in the future. These results show a trend toward the acceptance of digital slide review, which supports the inevitable expansion of this practice in an increasingly digitized world.