Idiopathic multicentric Castleman disease with marrow fibrosis and extramedullary hematopoiesis.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic multicentric Castleman disease (iMCD) is a rare inflammatory disorder mediated by excessive proinflammatory cytokine signaling, most notably by interleukin 6 (IL-6). IL-6-induced extramedullary hematopoiesis (EMH) has been reported in murine models of iMCD. Herein we present four cases of iMCD with EMH in humans. CASE SERIES: The index case is a 24-year-old white woman who presented with pancytopenia, hepatosplenomegaly, and diffuse lymphadenopathy (LAD) with EMH in core lymph node biopsies. We then searched ACCELERATE, a Castleman disease (CD) natural history registry, and identified three additional CD cases with EMH reported in biopsies: A 23-year-old Asian man with fatigue, edema, LAD, and splenomegaly; a 20-year-old white man with fever, dyspnea, LAD, and hepatosplenomegaly; and a 50-year-old white man with constitutional symptoms, LAD, and myelodysplastic syndrome in bone marrow with a KRAS mutation. RESULTS: All four patients presented with thrombocytopenia and fever and/or markedly elevated C-reactive protein. Patient 1 had iMCD-NOS (not otherwise specified) with severe thrombocytopenia, reticulin fibrosis in bone marrow, small volume LAD and organomegaly but no anasarca. The other three patients had iMCD-TAFRO (thrombocytopenia, anasarca, reticulin fibrosis, renal dysfunction, organomegaly). Two had mixed CD and two had hypervascular CD in lymph nodes. All four had bone marrow hypercellularity and megakaryocyte hyperplasia and two had reticulin fibrosis. CONCLUSIONS: This case series demonstrates that EMH can be seen in CD, particularly in iMCD-TAFRO. Given the similarity of this finding to previous murine models of IL-6-induced marrow and lymph node changes we hypothesize that this is an IL-6-mediated phenomenon.

Goblet cell carcinoid of the appendix - An interobserver variability study using two proposed classification systems.

Goblet cell carcinoid (GCC) is an uncommon tumor of the vermiform appendix. Due to a broad spectrum of morphological differentiation, subclassification and grading of GCCs remains an area of controversy. Two separate systems have proposed classifying GCC tumors into three (classical GCC; adenocarcinoma ex-GCC, signet ring cell type; adenocarcinoma ex-GCC, poorly differentiated carcinoma type) OR two subgroups (low and high grade GCC) based on morphological criteria. We independently compared the inter-observer variability associated with each classification system. Overall, both systems had moderate interobserver agreement, with the two-tiered system (κ=0.54) performing slightly better than the three-tiered system (κ=0.42). GI-specialist pathologists had substantial agreement for both two and three-tiered systems (κ=0.65 vs. 0.65). Non-GI trained pathologists had lower overall agreement than GI trained pathologists, but their agreement was better using the two-tiered system (κ=0.44) than the three-tiered system (κ=0.22). A sub-analysis of 6 cases with a high rate of discordant classification revealed several challenges that exist in applying current criteria, including differentiating "goblet" vs. "signet ring" cell morphology, applying a 1 mm2 criteria to multifocal non-contiguous glandular and single infiltrating cell architecture, differentiating fibro-inflammatory stroma from desmoplastic stroma, and solid architecture in cases with abundant extracellular mucin, and distinguishing "reactive" nuclear atypia from true "cytologic atypia". Despite these challenges, the study identified better agreement among GI pathologists than non-GI trained pathologists. While GI pathologist review may be helpful, further research on objective classification criteria remains an area of interest.

Informed consent for blood transfusion: what do medicine residents tell? What do patients understand?

Blood transfusion is a common intervention in the hospital setting, and its benefits may not be clear but it has associated risks. Despite this, transfusion consent may not be obtained satisfactorily. We assessed transfusion consent effectiveness by comparing information given by residents with information understood by patients who receive transfusions. Medicine department residents who obtained consent were surveyed via telephone in conjunction with bedside surveys of adult inpatients who received transfusions. A total of 43 patient and 34 resident surveys were completed. Deficiencies in the transfusion consent process were noted. Discussed transfusion benefits (such as wound healing) were not always true benefits whereas some important risks (such as transfusion-related acute lung injury) were infrequently conferred. Risks were more often reported as "not discussed" than benefits. Only a few participants were aware of the hospital's Transfusion Health Guide, which provides information on transfusion benefits, risks, and alternatives.