Long-term outcome and prognosis of mixed histiocytosis (Erdheim-Chester disease and Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis).

Background: Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) is a rare histiocytosis that may overlap with Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis (LCH). This "mixed" entity is poorly characterized. We here investigated the clinical phenotype, outcome, and prognostic factors of a large cohort of patients with mixed ECD-LCH. Methods: This retrospective study was performed at two referral centers in France and Italy (Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris; Meyer Children's Hospital, Florence). We included children and adults with ECD diagnosed in 2000-2022 who had biopsy-proven LCH, available data on clinical presentation, treatment and outcome, and a minimum follow-up of one year. Outcomes included differences in clinical presentation and survival between mixed ECD-LCH and isolated ECD; we also investigated response to treatments and predictors of survival in the mixed cohort. Survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Maier method and differences in survival with the long-rank test. Cox regression models were used to evaluate the potential impact of age and gender on survival and to identify predictors of non-response and survival. Findings: Out of a cohort of 502 ECD patients, 69 (14%) had mixed ECD-LCH. Compared to isolated ECD, mixed ECD-LCH occurred more frequently in females (51 vs. 26%, p < 0.001) and in patients with multisystem disease (≥4 sites). Mixed ECD-LCH more frequently involved long bones (91 vs. 79%, p = 0.014), central nervous system (51 vs. 34%, p = 0.007), facial/orbit (52 vs. 38%, p = 0.031), lungs (43 vs. 28%, p = 0.009), hypothalamic/pituitary axis (51 vs. 26%, p < 0.001), skin (61 vs. 29%, p < 0.001), and lymph nodes (15 vs. 7%, p = 0.028); the BRAFV600E mutation was also more frequent in mixed ECD-LCH (81 vs. 59%, p < 0.001). Targeted treatments (BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors) induced response more frequently than conventional therapies (interferon-α, chemotherapy), either as first-line (77 vs. 29%, p < 0.001) or as any line (75 vs. 24%, p < 0.001). After a median follow-up of 71 months, 24 patients (35%) died. Survival probability was comparable between ECD alone and mixed ECD-LCH (log-rank p = 0.948). At multivariable analysis, age at diagnosis (HR 1.052, 95% CI 1.008-1.096), associated hematologic conditions (HR 3.030, 95% CI 1.040-8.827), and treatment failure (HR 9.736, 95% CI 2.919-32.481) were associated with an increased risk of death, while lytic bone lesions with a lower risk (HR 0.116, 95% CI 0.031-0.432). Interpretation: Mixed ECD-LCH is a multisystem disease driven by the BRAFV600E mutation and targeted treatments are effective. Age at diagnosis, bone lesion patterns, associated hematologic conditions, and treatment failure are the main predictors of death in mixed ECD-LCH. Funding: None.

Edematous myositis: a clinical presentation first suggesting dermatomyositis diagnosis.

AIMS: Edema of the limbs is uncommon in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM). The few reported cases have been associated with severe and refractory dermatomyositis (DM), sometimes in association with cancers. We aimed to determine if edematous myositis is a homogeneous subtype based on clinical, serological and pathological features. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study performed between 2008 and 2015 in the French national referral center for myositis. All adult patients with an inflammatory muscle biopsy and upper limbs edema were included as well as IIM cases without limb edema as controls. Clinical, biological and pathological features were collected. RESULTS: Seventeen edematous myositis were included and compared to 174 IIM without edema, including 50 DM controls. Edema was the first manifestation in 23% of patients. Muscle weakness was severe and symmetric, 71% of patients presented dysphagia and a restrictive ventilatory pattern was found in 40%. Fifty-two percent of patients had a typical DM skin rash and 23% had cancer within 3 years of diagnosing myositis. Fifty-three percent of patients presented a myositis specific antibody and only DM-specific antibodies were detected. Classic pathological DM features (perifascicular atrophy, perifascicular/perimysial perivascular inflammation) were uncommon but capillary C5b-9 deposition and MxA expression were seen in 79% and 73% of cases, respectively. A perimysial edema was found in 82% of cases. Seventeen percent of patients died (median follow up of 18 months). Edematous myositis demonstrated more marked capillary C5b-9 deposition compared to IIM controls. There was no clinical, biological or pathological difference with DM controls except for limb edema. CONCLUSION: Our study underlines that limb edema could be a symptom of IIM and that edematous myositis are mostly DM. The vasculopathy seems to play a key role in its pathophysiology. Limb edema associated with muscle impairment should suggest the diagnosis of DM in clinical settings.

Rituximab in the Treatment of Refractory Anti-HMGCR Immune-mediated Necrotizing Myopathy.

OBJECTIVE: A pathogenic role of anti-3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase (anti-HMGCR) antibodies has been proposed. Our objective was to assess efficacy of rituximab (RTX) in anti-HMGCR immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy. METHODS: All patients who had been treated with RTX were retrospectively reviewed to assess features and outcome. RESULTS: Three of 9 patients demonstrated stable or improved muscle strength ± decline in creatine kinase levels, or T2/short-tau inversion recovery hypersignal decrease on magnetic resonance imaging following RTX treatment. RTX permitted intravenous immunoglobulin discontinuation and corticosteroid reduction to low dose in 2 patients. CONCLUSION: One-third of patients with refractory anti-HMGCR had improved strength or other evidence of improved disease activity following RTX treatment.

Variability and errors when applying the BIRADS mammography classification.

To standardize mammographic reporting, the American College of Radiology mammography developed the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) lexicon. However, wide variability is observed in practice in the application of the BIRADS terminology and this leads to classification errors. This review analyses the reasons for variations in BIRADS mammography, describes the types of errors made by readers with illustrated examples, and details BIRADS category 3 which is the most difficult category to use in practice.