Severe motor aphasia after reinfusion of cryopreserved autologous stem cells after myeloablative conditioning.

BACKGROUND: Autologous peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) are usually cryopreserved before high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT). The freezing process requires the addition of cryoprotectants such as dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), which is vital for cell viability in frozen aliquots. DMSO has a number of well-described side effects. However, severe neurologic side effects assigned to DMSO are exceedingly rare. CASE REPORT: A 64-year-old female underwent HDCT followed by PBSCT as consolidation therapy in relapsed high-grade (Grade 3B) Stage IIIA follicular lymphoma. PBSCs were mobilized using granulocyte-colony stimulating factor and plerixafor after the second cycle of R-DHAP (rituximab, dexamethasone, high-dose Ara-C, cisplatin) salvage chemotherapy. A total of 7.18 × 106 /kg body weight CD34+ cells were cryopreserved using 10% DMSO. HDCT was administered some weeks later followed by reinfusion of two bags of PBSCs, each containing 98 mL with 1.6 × 106 /kg body weight CD34+ cells. Within a few minutes the patient developed a motor aphasia and became very agitated. Brain imaging did not reveal any pathologic finding. After being transferred to the intensive care unit the patient's condition steadily improved and the motor aphasia resolved completely within 6 hours after its onset. CONCLUSION: This is, to our knowledge, the first report to describe an episode of severe motor aphasia during PBSCT. Given the close timely correlation with PBSCT, this episode appears to be caused by dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and might possibly have been prevented by use of lower concentrations of DMSO.

Impact of body mass index on outcomes after conformal radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Several retrospective analyses have suggested that obese men with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) have outcomes inferior to those of normal-weight men. However, a recently presented analysis for the first time challenged this association between body mass index (BMI) and treatment failure. It is therefore important to provide further data on this issue. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This was a retrospective analysis of 564 men treated with risk-adapted conformal EBRT at a single institution. Low-risk patients received EBRT alone, and the other patients received EBRT plus endocrine treatment. In addition, high-risk patients were treated to higher EBRT doses (74 Gy). A rectal balloon catheter for internal immobilization, which can be identified on portal images, was used in 261 patients (46%). Thus, localization did not rely on bony landmarks alone in these cases. RESULTS: The median BMI was 26, and 15% of patients had BMI≥30. Neither univariate nor multivariate analyses detected any significant impact of BMI on biochemical relapse, prostate cancer-specific survival, or overall survival. The 5-year biochemical relapse rate was 21% and prostate cancer-specific survival 96%. CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis of a large cohort of consecutively treated patients suggests that efforts to reduce prostate movement and geographic miss might result in comparable outcomes in obese and normal-weight patients.