ABSTRACT
Background: Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is used for the treatment of high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). MMS examines the surgical margins in real time and does not commonly examine the central component of the tumor. Objective: To determine if debulk specimens provide additional details relevant to tumor staging not gained from routine MMS. Methods: A retrospective chart review of debulk specimens taken during MMS for cSCC was performed. Dermatopathology reports were analyzed and tumors were staged using Brigham and Women's Hospital and American Joint Committee on Cancer's 8th edition staging systems. Results: Permanent section evaluation of debulk specimens did not result in clinically meaningful information for staging that could not be gained from MMS layers or initial biopsy analysis. Limitations: A single institution, and a small sample size of 39 tumors. Conclusions: Evaluation of debulk specimens during MMS may not always be an effective use of time or health care resources.
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT: Ponatinib is a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor used to treat chronic myeloid leukemia and Philadelphia-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cutaneous toxicities are a commonly reported side effect of ponatinib treatment with "rash" being one of the most common. Specific subtypes are infrequently reported, but include hyperkeratotic, folliculocentric, ichthyosiform, and pityriasis rubra pilaris-like eruptions. Herein, we highlight the clinicopathologic features of 2 cases of ponatinib-induced pityriasis rubra pilaris-like eruptions. We also classify the clinical and histopathologic features of all previously reported ponatinib-associated eruptions in the literature and discuss treatment and potential diagnostic pitfalls.
Subject(s)
Exanthema , Leukemia, Myelogenous, Chronic, BCR-ABL Positive , Pityriasis Rubra Pilaris , Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma , Humans , Leukemia, Myelogenous, Chronic, BCR-ABL Positive/drug therapy , Protein Kinase Inhibitors/adverse effects , Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma/drug therapy , Pityriasis Rubra Pilaris/drug therapy , Exanthema/chemically inducedSubject(s)
Bandages , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/therapeutic use , Steroids/therapeutic use , Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/diagnosis , Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/therapy , Wounds and Injuries/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Prognosis , Risk Assessment , Severity of Illness Index , Skin Care/methods , Wound Healing/physiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Patients with a history of prior breast augmentation and newly diagnosed breast cancer represent a rapidly expanding and unique subset of patients. Prior studies have described changes in breast parenchyma and characteristic body habitus of previously augmented patients, as well as increased rates of capsular contracture associated with breast conservation therapy. In our current study, we aimed to study the risk factors contributing to morbidity and whether recurrence rates are higher in patients with prior breast augmentation undergoing lumpectomy or mastectomy for breast cancer and identify differences in complications between these 2 groups. METHODS: Retrospective analysis approved by institutional review board was performed on patients with prior breast augmentation undergoing lumpectomy (N = 52) and mastectomy (N = 64) for breast cancer. RESULTS: Patients with prior breast augmentation undergoing mastectomy had a higher rate of complications compared with those undergoing lumpectomy (20.3% vs 5.9% respectively, P = 0.031), after adjusting for patient-specific factors including body mass index [odds ratio (OR), 0.242; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.063-0.922; P = 0.0376], tumor stage (OR, 0.257; 95% CI, 0.064-1.036; P = 0.0562), smoking status (OR, 0.244; 95% CI, 0.065-0.918; P = 0.0370), and chemotherapy (OR, 0.242; 95% CI, 0.064-0.914; P = 0.0364). Four patients (7.7%) developed late complications in the lumpectomy group with 2 developing capsular contractures, 1 had fat necrosis and 1 needed complex reconstruction because of flattening of the nipple-areolar complex. There was no difference in recurrence or tumor margins between lumpectomy and mastectomy groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prior breast augmentation undergoing mastectomy have higher complication rates compared with lumpectomy even after adjusting for tumor stage. There appears to be no increased oncologic risk associated with either procedure given our current follow-up. Understanding these operative risks may help in patients' decision-making process with regards to type of oncologic surgery.
