Corrigendum: Leukemia cutis as the presenting symptom of acute myeloid leukemia: report of three cases.

The original article was published on July19, 2017 and corrected on June 15, 2018.The revised version of the article adds appropriate in-text references to Figures 3B, C and 5B, C, and correctly renumbers the list of References. The changes appear in the revised online PDF copy of this article.

Leukemia cutis as the presenting symptom of acute myeloid leukemia: report of three cases.

Leukemia cutis (LC), a rare cutaneous manifestation of leukemia, can precede, follow, occur concurrently with, or present in the absence of (aleukemic) systemic leukemia. Leukemia cutis is especially rare as the presenting symptom of leukemia and is associated with a poor prognosis. Although more commonly seen in acute leukemias of myeloid and monocytic lineage, lymphocytic/lymphoblastic leukemias can also involve the skin. Three cases of LC presented with diverse skin lesions ranging from an erythematous rash to violaceous macules and papules to subcutaneous nodules. One case clinically mimicked fixed drug eruption. All the patients had acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Lesions showed two overarching histologic patterns: atypical perivascular infiltrate or nodular dermal histiocytoid infiltrate. Our cases expressed myeloperoxidase (MPO), a helpful marker to distinguish myeloid from non-myeloid cells, and CD68, a monocytic marker frequently expressed in cutaneous AML. CD14, a marker of monocyte maturity, was negative. In the absence of systemic leukemia, common diagnostic tools for hematologic malignancies such as bone marrow biopsy and flow cytometry are non-contributory, making morphologic and immunohistochemical analysis of the skin lesions key to diagnosis.

Lower limits of intraocular pressure in glaucoma clinical trials.

PURPOSE: To determine the association of the lower limit of intraocular pressure (IOP) specified in the inclusion criteria to baseline and active treatment visit IOPs for monotherapy treatments. METHODS: A review of clinical trial articles evaluating currently used topical glaucoma medicines. Articles were published between January 1995 and December 2011. RESULTS: This study included 37 monotherapy treatment arms from 15 studies. There were 18 prostaglandin analogs, 8 ß-blockers, 8 carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, 2 α-agonists, and 1 unoprostone. For all studies included generally there was a stepwise increase in the baseline 8 AM and diurnal IOP of approximately 1 mm Hg for each 1 mm Hg increase in entry criteria. This was true for all treatment arms together, with or without a PM entry criterion (P<0.0001). However, the inclusion of an afternoon entry criterion time point did not seem to affect average IOP at baseline for the 8 AM and diurnal IOP. The treated reductions from baseline were not statistically different based on morning or afternoon entry criteria for either the 8 AM or diurnal IOPs (P≥0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Progressively higher 8 AM entry criteria IOPs at untreated baseline may influence, depending on design, in a linear manner the 8 AM and diurnal baseline IOPs of glaucoma studies at baseline. However, this effect was not observed in the treated reductions from baseline. Further, the addition of an afternoon entry criterion time point does not seem to change baseline 8 AM and diurnal IOPs.

Predictors of clinical trial dropout in individuals with co-occurring bipolar disorder and alcohol dependence.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with co-occurring bipolar disorder and alcohol dependence have particularly low rates of retention in clinical trials. Past research has identified a variety of factors associated with dropout in this population, but few have been replicated. The present study investigated the ability of several baseline variables to predict clinical trial dropout in a sample of individuals with co-morbid bipolar and alcohol use disorders. METHODS: Demographics, psychiatric diagnoses, recent alcohol use, mood pathology, and risk taking behavior (measured with the Balloon Analogue Risk Task) were evaluated as predictors of dropout from a randomized clinical trial of acamprosate for individuals with co-morbid bipolar and alcohol use disorders (n=30) using stepwise logistic regression. RESULTS: Risk taking behavior was the only significant predictor of dropout in the present study (OR=1.44, p=0.03); opiate dependence marginally predicted dropout as well (OR=13.46, p=0.08). A model consisting of these predictors, as well as acamprosate group status (p=0.13), provided excellent prediction of dropout (i.e., area under the ROC curve=0.94; R(2)=0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Given the robust relationship between risk taking and dropout in the present study, the Balloon Analogue Risk Task may represent a valuable tool for researchers to predict who will drop out of clinical trials for comorbid bipolar and substance use disorders.