Cathepsin B: a potential prognostic marker for inflammatory breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is the most aggressive form of breast cancer. In non-IBC, the cysteine protease cathepsin B (CTSB) is known to be involved in cancer progression and invasion; however, very little is known about its role in IBC. METHODS: In this study, we enrolled 23 IBC and 27 non-IBC patients. All patient tissues used for analysis were from untreated patients. Using immunohistochemistry and immunoblotting, we assessed the levels of expression of CTSB in IBC versus non-IBC patient tissues. Previously, we found that CTSB is localized to caveolar membrane microdomains in cancer cell lines including IBC, and therefore, we also examined the expression of caveolin-1 (cav-1), a structural protein of caveolae in IBC versus non-IBC tissues. In addition, we tested the correlation between the expression of CTSB and cav-1 and the number of positive metastatic lymph nodes in both patient groups. RESULTS: Our results revealed that CTSB and cav-1 were overexpressed in IBC as compared to non-IBC tissues. Moreover, there was a significant positive correlation between the expression of CTSB and the number of positive metastatic lymph nodes in IBC. CONCLUSIONS: CTSB may initiate proteolytic pathways crucial for IBC invasion. Thus, our data demonstrate that CTSB may be a potential prognostic marker for lymph node metastasis in IBC.

Prevalence of influenza vaccine hesitancy at a tertiary care hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccine hesitancy is a major problem worldwide, with significant public health consequences. We aimed to determine the prevalence of influenza vaccine hesitancy and the effect of vaccine awareness campaigns on vaccine acceptance among three groups (parents, adult patients, and healthcare workers [HCWs]) at King Abdulaziz Medical City, a tertiary care hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. METHODS: The study was conducted during the 2015-2016 winter season. Participants anonymously completed a validated questionnaire on influenza vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: Of the 300 study participants, 17% (n=51) expressed vaccine hesitancy. The most common reasons given for vaccine refusal were: "It doesn't have any positive effect or benefit" (n=11 [21%]), "I don't need it because I'm healthy" (n=9 [17%]), and "I think it causes serious side effects" (n=7 [13%]). The most common sources of information about the vaccine were awareness campaigns (98/267 [36%]) and medical staff (98/267 [36%]). One hundred and sixty-three [54%] respondents knew that the effect of the influenza vaccine lasts up to 1year. There was no significant relationship between education level and receiving influenza vaccination. The study showed that confidence towards the Saudi Ministry of Health and medical doctors among three groups of participants was very high; 97% of adults, 95% of parents, and 93% of HCWs expressed trusted information provided to them by the Ministry of Health, and 97% of adults, 99% of parents, and 90% of HCWs trusted their physicians' information. CONCLUSION: Influenza vaccine hesitancy was low at KAMC. The most common reason for vaccine refusal was believing that it had no positive effect and that it is unnecessary. The most common sources of information for influenza vaccine were awareness campaigns and medical staff. Participants had high levels of trust in both the Saudi Ministry of Health and doctors.

The role of surgical management in pediatric germ cell tumors (GCTs), NCI case series.

PURPOSE: To review the experience of a tertiary referral center in pediatric germ cell tumors (GCTs) in the last 8 years and to investigate the impact of surgery and site of disease on prognosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the cases of pediatric germ cell tumors at National Cancer Institute over an 8 years period. Data concerning diagnosis, surgery and medical decisions were reviewed and analyzed for all patients. A total of 34 children with (GCTS) were found, with a mean age, at presentation, of 6.7 years and a follow-up period ranging from 3-52 months. One patient with benign GCT was excluded during analysis of the results. RESULTS: Among the 34 patients, there were 14 males and 20 females with mean age of 6.7 years (range: 9 months-15 years), with male to female ratio 1:1.4. All patients were symptomatic at presentation, most commonly with abdominal swelling (18 patients; 52.9%). Anatomic distribution of GCTs according to sex organ involvement was either gonadal in 21 patients (61.8%) or extragonadal in 13 patients (38.2%). All patients had surgery either in the form of curative resection or biopsy after formal exploration and evidence of irresectability. No significant surgical morbidity or mortality were encountered in our patients. Yolk sac tumor and malignant teratoma were the commonest histologic subtypes in our series. Metastatic disease was encountered in nine out of 33 patients (27.2%). Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered in 28 out of 33 patients (84.8%), following surgery, including all patients with extragonadal disease. Our patients were followed-up to 52 months. Twenty-two patients (66.7%) had no recurrence while two patients (6.1%) died from disease. Pelvic extragonadal site was the worst site regarding resectability. Complete surgical resection showed better disease free survival, while those with irresectable disease had comparable overall survival while none could be rendered disease free with chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: The initial surgical approach to malignant GCTs at all sites should be complete resection when possible; the morbidity of extensive surgical resection should be weighed carefully against the good tumor control with chemotherapy. Surgical staging does not preclude preservation of fertility, which should always be considered in this young age. The site of primary disease plays a role in the prognosis of pediatric germ cell tumors with the extragonadal pelvic tumors being the worst regarding resectability. Good tumor response can be achieved with surgery and chemotherapy even for advanced stage and metastatic disease.

Missed breast carcinoma; why and how to avoid?

Introduction : Despite the advances in mammography techniques, it still has a number of limitations. It is estimated that about 10 to 25% of lesions are overlooked in mammograms out of which about two thirds are detected retrospectively by radiologists and oncologists. Causes of missed breast cancer on mammography can be secondary to many factors including those related to the patient (whether inherent or acquired), the nature of the malignant mass itself, poor mammographic techniques, provider factors or interpretive skills of radiologists and oncologists (including perception and interpretation errors). Aim of Work : The aim of this study is to investigate the aforementioned factors hindering early breast cancer detection and in turn lowering mammographic sensitivity and to outline the major guidelines to overcome these factors aiming to an optimum mammographic examination and interpretation by radiologists and oncologists. Subject and Methods : We conducted this multicenter study over a two-year interval. We included 152 histopathologicaly proven breast carcinomas that were initially missed on mammography. The cases were subjected to mammography, complementary US, MRI and digital mammography in some cases and all cases were histopathologically proven either by FNAB, CNB or open biopsy. Results : Revision of the pathological specimens of these 152 cases revealed 121 infiltrating ductal carcinomas, 2 lobular, 4 mucinous, 14 inflammatory carcinomas, 6 carcinomas in situ (3 of which were intracystic), 2 intraductal papillary carcinomas and 3 cases with Paget's disease of the nipple. In analyzing the causes responsible for misdiagnosis of these carcinomas we classified them into 4 causative factors; patient, tumor, technical or provider factors. Tumor factors were the most commonly encountered, accounting for 44.1%, while provider factors were the least commonly encountered in 14.5 %. Carcinomas were detected using several individual or combined complementary techniques. These techniques mainly included double reading, additional mammography views, ultrasound and MRI examinations. Forty four carcinomas were detected on double and re-reading by more experienced radiologists. Additional mammographic views were recommended in 35 (23%) cases. Complementary ultrasound examination was performed for all 152 cases (100%) and showed a higher sensitivity than mammography in carcinoma detection. It was diagnostic in 138 (90.8%) cases only. In the remaining 14 cases, further MRI and biopsy were performed. Conclusion : Why can breast carcinoma be missed? Four main factors are responsible for missing a carcinoma: (1) Patient factors (Inherently dense breasts or acquired dense breasts). (2) Tumor factors (subtle carcinoma, masked carcinoma, multifocal carcinoma and multicentric carcinoma). (3) Technical factors (bad exposure factors, malpositioned breasts and bad processing quality). (4) Provider factors (bad perception and misinterpretation). How to avoid missing a breast carcinoma? Review clinical data and use US and other adjunct techniques as MRI and biopsy to assess a palpable or mammographically detected mass. Be strict about positioning and technical factors. Try to optimize image quality. Be alert to subtle features of breast cancers. Always consider the well defined carcinoma. Compare current images with multiple prior studies to look for subtle increases in lesion size. Look for other lesions when one abnormality is seen. Judge a lesion by its most malignant features. Double reading and the use of computer aided diagnosis (CAD) and finally FFDM (Full Field Digital Mammography). Close cooperation between the oncologist, radiologist and pathologist is essential to avoid missing any case of breast carcinoma. Key Words : Missed breast carcinoma -Mammography - Ultrasonography -MRI.