Keratin-Positive Giant Cell Tumor of Bone and Soft Tissue With HMGA2::NCOR2 Fusion in Children Under 10 With Response to Imatinib Therapy: A Case Series.

HMGA2::NCOR2 keratin-positive giant cell tumors in children with response to imatinib in an infant.

Fidelity of 3D Printed Brains from MRI Scan in Children with Pathology (Prior Hypoxic Ischemic Injury).

Cortical injury on the surface of the brain in children with hypoxic ischemic injury (HII) can be difficult to demonstrate to non-radiologists and lay people using brain images alone. Three-dimensional (3D) printing is helpful to communicate the volume loss and pathology due to HII in children's brains. 3D printed models represent the brain to scale and can be held up against models of normal brains for appreciation of volume loss. If 3D printed brains are to be used for formal communication, e.g., with medical colleagues or in court, they should have high fidelity of reproduction of the actual size of patients' brains. Here, we evaluate the size fidelity of 3D printed models from MRI scans of the brain, in children with prior HII. Twelve 3D prints of the brain were created from MRI scans of children with HII and selected to represent a variety of cortical pathologies. Specific predetermined measures of the 3D prints were made and compared to measures in matched planes on MRI. Fronto-occipital length (FOL) and bi-temporal/bi-parietal diameters (BTD/BPD) demonstrated high interclass correlations (ICC). Correlations were moderate to weak for hemispheric height, temporal height, and pons-cerebellar thickness. The average standard error of measurement (SEM) was 0.48 cm. Our results demonstrate high correlations in overall measurements of each 3D printed model derived from brain MRI scans versus the original MRI, evidenced by high ICC values for FOL and BTD/BPD. Measures with low correlation values can be explained by variability in matching the plane of measurement to the MRI slice orientation.

Pharmacological interventions for generalised itching (not caused by systemic disease or skin lesions) in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Generalised itching is one of the most common dermatological symptoms in pregnant women. Having itchy skin during pregnancy may be very frustrating and can lead to poor sleep, exhaustion and impaired quality of life. There is a need for a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for treating itching in pregnancy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for treating generalised itching (not caused by systemic diseases or skin lesions) in pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 January 2016) and the reference list of the one identified study. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions for itching in pregnancy.Quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs, RCTs using a cross-over design, and studies reported in abstract form (without full text) were not eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the one trial report that was identified from the search strategy and this was subsequently excluded. MAIN RESULTS: There are no included studies as we did not identify any relevant trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Generalised itching (not caused by systemic disease or skin lesions) is quite a common symptom in pregnancy. However, there is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to guide practice in terms of the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for treating this condition.Well-designed randomised controlled trials are needed in order to evaluate the effectiveness of topical and systemic pharmacological interventions as well as any adverse effects of the interventions. Such studies should consider important outcomes such as relief of itching, women's satisfaction, sleep disturbance, and adverse effects.

Interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Constipation is a common symptom experienced during pregnancy. It has a range of consequences from reduced quality of life and perception of physical health to haemorrhoids. An understanding of the effectiveness and safety of treatments for constipation in pregnancy is important for the clinician managing pregnant women. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and quasi-RCTs, evaluating interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for constipation in pregnancy. Cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Trials published in abstract form only (without full text publication) were not eligible for inclusion.We compared one intervention (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) against another intervention, placebo or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies were included, but only two studies with a total of 180 women contributed data to this review. It was not clear whether they were RCTs or quasi-RCTs because the sequence generation was unclear. We classified the overall risk of bias of three studies as moderate and one study as high risk of bias. No meta-analyses were carried out due to insufficient data.There were no cluster-RCTs identified for inclusion. Comparisons were available for stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxatives, and fibre supplementation versus no intervention. There were no data available for any other comparisons.During the review process we found that studies reported changes in symptoms in different ways. To capture all data available, we added a new primary outcome (improvement in constipation) - this new outcome was not prespecified in our published protocol. Stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxativesNo data were identified for any of this review's prespecified primary outcomes: pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools.Compared to bulk-forming laxatives, pregnant women who received stimulant laxatives had significantly more improvement in constipation (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence), but also significantly more abdominal discomfort (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.73; 140 women, one study, low quality of evidence), and borderline difference in diarrhoea (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 20.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). In addition, there was no significant difference in women's satisfaction (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence).No usable data were identified for any of this review's secondary outcomes: quality of life; dehydration; electrolyte imbalance; acute allergic reaction; or asthma. Fibre supplementation versus no interventionPregnant women who received fibre supplementation had significantly higher frequency of stools compared to no intervention (mean difference (MD) 2.24 times per week, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.52; 40 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). Fibre supplementation was associated with improved stool consistency as defined by trialists (hard stool decreased by 11% to 14%, normal stool increased by 5% to 10%, and loose stool increased by 0% to 6%).No usable data were reported for either the primary outcomes of pain on defecation and improvement in constipation or any of this review's secondary outcomes as listed above. Quality Five outcomes were assessed with the GRADE software: improvement in constipation, frequency of stools, abdominal discomfort, diarrhoea and women's satisfaction. These were assessed to be of moderate quality except for abdominal discomfort which was assessed to be of low quality. The results should therefore be interpreted with caution. There were no data available for evaluation of pain on defecation or consistency of stools. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy, due to limited data (few studies with small sample size and no meta-analyses). Compared with bulk-forming laxatives, stimulant laxatives appear to be more effective in improvement of constipation (moderate quality evidence), but are accompanied by an increase in diarrhoea (moderate quality evidence) and abdominal discomfort (low quality evidence) and no difference in women's satisfaction (moderate quality evidence). Additionally, fibre supplementation may increase frequency of stools compared with no intervention (moderate quality evidence), although these results were of moderate risk of bias.There were no data for a comparison of other types of interventions, such as osmotic laxatives, stool softeners, lubricant laxatives and enemas and suppositories.More RCTs evaluating interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy are needed. These should cover different settings and evaluate the effectiveness of various interventions (including fibre, osmotic, and stimulant laxatives) on improvement in constipation, pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools.