Trichloroethylene Hypersensitivity Syndrome: Should Be Considered When Diagnosing DRESS Syndrome

Trichloroethylene (TCE) is an organic solvent that is used for degreasing and removing impurities from metal parts. However, this solvent's characteristics and hypersensitivity can produce clinical patterns and laboratory data that mimic drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome. Thus, exposure confirmation is critical to making an accurate diagnosis. This is a case of TCE-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (TCE HS) in a 24-year-old Indonesian man who was working in an electro-plating business. He was admitted to a referral hospital after one month of working, and exhibited a fever with skin symptoms. He was administered immunosuppressive therapy based on an assumed diagnosis of DRESS syndrome, although he subsequently experienced cardiac arrest and did not respond to resuscitation. An investigation into his disease history confirmed that he was prescribed medications one week before he developed the skin disease, and had been periodically exposed to TCE for the previous 4 weeks. Based on these findings, it was believed that his clinical course was caused by TCE HS, rather than DRESS syndrome.

Ovarian cancer in a former asbestos textile factory worker: a case report

BACKGROUND: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) defined that asbestos is a group 1 substance that causes lung cancer, mesothelioma (pleura and peritoneum), laryngeal cancer, and ovarian cancer in humans. Many studies on lung cancer, and mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure have been conducted, but there was no case report of ovarian cancer due to asbestos exposure in Korea. We describe a case of ovarian cancer caused by asbestos exposure in a worker who worked at an asbestos textile factory for 3 years and 7 months in the late 1970s. CASE PRESENTATION: A 57-year-old woman visited the hospital because she had difficulty urinating. Ovarian cancer was suspected in radiologic examination, and exploratory laparotomy was performed. She was diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. The patient did not undergo postoperative chemotherapy and recovered. She joined the asbestos factory in March 1976 and engaged in asbestos textile twisting and spinning for 1 year, 2 years and 7 months respectively. In addition, she lived near the asbestos factory for more than 20 years. There was no other specificity or family history. CONCLUSION: Considering the patient’s occupational and environmental history, it is estimated that she had been exposed to asbestos significantly, so we determined that ovarian cancer in the patient is highly correlated with the occupational exposure of asbestos and environmental exposure is a possible cause as well. Social devices are needed to prevent further exposure to asbestos. It is also necessary to recognize that ovarian cancer can occur in workers who have previously been exposed to asbestos, and the education and social compensation for those workers are needed.

HCFC-123-induced toxic hepatitis and death at a Korean fire extinguisher manufacturing facility: a case series

BACKGROUND: Exposure to sustained high concentrations of HCFC-123 is known to be hepatotoxic. We report two simultaneous cases of toxic hepatitis related to exposure to 2,2-dichloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HCFC-123), a common refrigerant, at a Korean fire extinguisher manufacturing facility. CASE PRESENTATION: Patients A and B were men aged 21 and 22 years, respectively, with no notable medical histories. They had recently started working for a manufacturer of fire extinguishers. During the third week of their employment, they visited the emergency center of a general hospital due to fever, lack of appetite, and general weakness. At the time of their visit, they were suspected as having hepatitis due to elevated aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), and total bilirubin levels and were hospitalized. However, as their condition did not improve, they were moved to a tertiary general hospital. After conservative treatment, one patient improved but the other died from acute hepatic failure. Assessments of the work environment showed that the short-term exposure levels of HCFC-123 for valve assembly processes were as high as 193.4 ppm. A transjugular liver biopsy was performed in patient A; the results indicated drug/toxin-induced liver injury (DILI). Given the lack of a medical history and the occupational exposure to high levels of HCFC-123, a hepatotoxic agent, the toxic hepatitis of the workers was likely related to HCFC-123 exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Work environment assessments have not included this agent. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to report a case of death related to HCFC-123-induced liver damage. Our findings suggest that exposure standards and limits for HCFC-123 must be developed in Korea; work environments will have to be improved based on such standards.