Search

We retrospectively analyzed three patients with pure motor neuronopathy followed for more than four years in our center. The patients presented a rapidly progressive lower motor neuron syndrome (LMNS) over the course of a few weeks leading to a severe functional impairment. The neurological symptoms preceded the diagnosis of a breast adenocarcinoma and a thymoma in the first two patients, one of them with anti-CV2/CRMP5 antibodies. Cancer was not detected in the third patient who had circulating anti-Hu antibodies. A final diagnosis of paraneoplastic syndrome was made after investigations for alternative causes of lower motor neuron syndrome. Early diagnosis, combined treatment of the underlying cancer, and immunomodulatory treatment led to neurological improvement of the disease in two out of the three cases in which the cancer was diagnosed. Cases of subacute LMNS with rapid progression may occur as an expression of a paraneoplastic neurological syndrome. Identification of these syndromes is important, as the treatment of underlying malignancy along with immunomodulatory treatment may result in a favorable long-term outcome of these potentially fatal diseases., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The present study is designed to evaluate and compare percutaneous radiologic arm port (R) and surgical subclavian port (S) devices in two homogeneous sets of breast cancer patients in terms of safety, efficacy, quality of life (QoL) and cost analysis., Material and Methods: This study involved a retrospective review of a prospective databank including 200 consecutive port device implantation attempted procedures performed over a 4-year period, in two similar groups of 100 breast cancer women who underwent either the surgical cephalic vein cutdown approach or the percutaneous basilic vein catheterization for intravenous adjuvant chemotherapy. Parameters analyzed included technical success, procedure duration, complications, QoL and cost evaluation for both techniques., Results: The success rate for port implantation was higher for R than for S placement (96% versus 91%). Mean implant duration time was 5.6 and 7.6 months for R and S, respectively. The overall complication rate was 10 and 16% for R and S, respectively. Mean implant duration time, without any complication or death, was 6.4 and 7.8 months for R and S, respectively. Six and seven percent for R and S, respectively, had to be removed prematurely. Both techniques exhibited very good QoL. Direct costs were respectively euro 230.8 and 219.1 for R and S, respectively., Conclusion: The significant advantages of R over S include higher success rate, higher cosmetic results despite a 15% relative overcost for R placement. Both are indicated for breast cancer chemotherapy treatment, nevertheless R placement is mandatory in anxious patients who fear surgery, in case of previous cervico-thoracic irradiation or upper extremity venous thrombosis, or in patients at risk of respiratory insufficiency.