Search

Objectives This study evaluated the red blood cell (RBC) Lewis phenotypes by simple haemagglutination technique and molecular genotyping in healthy individuals. Background The expression of Lewis antigen on RBCs is dependent on the interaction of FUT3 and FUT2 genes. Complexity of the genetic control of Lewis antigen expression and the error-prone nature of Lewis phenotyping result in non-genuine RBC Lewis phenotypes, which could be misleading. Materials and methods ABO blood group and RBC Lewis phenotypes were determined by conventional haemagglutination tube techniques. FUT2 and FUT3 genotypes were analysed by polymerase chain reaction and direct DNA sequencing. The RBC Lewis phenotypes were also inferred from the FUT2 and FUT3 genotyping results. Results The frequencies of RBC Lewis phenotypes typed by the conventional tube test were Le(a+b-) 19.63%, Le(a-b+) 49.32% and Le(a-b-) 31.05%, whereas the frequencies inferred from the FUT2 and FUT3 genotypes were Le(a+b-) 20.09%, Le(a-b+), 59.82%; Le(a-b-), 17.81%; and Le(a+b+), 5 (2.28%). The Le(a+b+) phenotype was not detected by the tube test, and a significant difference was observed in the frequencies of the determined Le(a-b-) and Le(a-b+) phenotypes. Conclusion The phenotyping and genotyping of Lewis blood group system reveal a high rate of discordance in the frequencies of Lewis phenotypes among the healthy individuals.

Background: Radiation therapy prophylaxis for heterotopic ossification is well-established for the hip, either pre or post-operatively. There is limited data for this treatment in non-hip sites. We report our institution’s experience. Methods: From October 2004 to August 2015, a total of 39 non-hip sites in 38 patients were treated with prophylactic radiation therapy for heterotopic ossification at our institution. An IRB approved retrospective review was performed. There were 15 patients who received treatments to the elbow, 13 to the knee (1 bilateral for a total of 14 knees), and 10 to other sites (leg stump (2), pubic symphysis (2), femur (1), foot (1), humerus stump (1), abdominal wall (1), shoulder (1), thigh (1)). All but 1 patient were treated with a single fraction treatment with 700 or 800 cGy. One patient received 2000 cGy in 10 fractions to the abdominal wall for heterotopic ossification extending from the xiphoid process. Results: Fifteen patients underwent treatment to the elbow with a median follow-up of 5 months (0 - 99). Median age for this group was 50 years (37 - 69). Nine (60.0%) patients had evidence of heterotopic ossification prior to surgery. All (100%) of the elbow patients were free from recurrence at last follow-up. There were no acute or late toxicities noted. For treatment to the knee, there were 4 (28.6%) recurrences, all in cases where there were pre-operative heterotopic ossification. There were two other recurrences in the non-hip, elbow or knee sites: one patient who received radiation therapy to the abdominal wall and one patient who underwent treatment to the thigh. Conclusions: Prophylactic radiation therapy with 700 cGy or 800 cGy in 1 fraction either before or after surgery remains a safe and effective treatment for both hip and most non-hip sites. Fractionated treatment may be used for larger treatment fields, however experience is limited.

The blood specimen of a 30-year-old male donor showing a discrepancy in cell and serum grouping was targeted for detailed study at the blood bank at tertiary care hospital in South Gujarat. Forward grouping showed group as "O" RhD positive and reverse grouping as group "A." Further testing confirmed that the individual's blood group was para-Bombay A (para-AH). Family members were screened, and younger brother was also identified as para-Bombay phenotype. The para-Bombay phenotype is very rare, and only a few cases have been reported from India. This blood group is characterized by the absence of ABH antigens on red blood cells (RBC's) with the presence of ABH substances in body secretions or by the weak expression of ABH antigens on RBC's with the absence or presence of substances in body secretions. This rare phenotype can be mislabeled as "O" if all detailed investigations are not performed.

Rare Tumors is an international peerreviewed medical journal established in 2009. The journal is focused on rare cancers and aims to expand upon current knowledge on their presentation, diagnosis, management, and outcomes. We reviewed the 335 case reports published from 2009 to 2015. We found great diversity in both the country of origin as well as specialty of first authors. Outside of the United States (US) and European Union (EU), there were 20 countries with contributions to the journal. Similarly, there was representation from twelve medical specialties with first authorship of reports. Rare Tumors continues to encourage involvement from physicians across the globe and from all medical disciplines.

The Rare Cancer Network (RCN), founded in 1993, performs research involving rare tumors that are not common enough to be the focus of prospective study. Over 55 studies have either been completed or are in progress. The aim of the paper is to present an overview of the 30 studies done through the RCN to date, organized by disease site. Five studies focus on breast pathology, including sarcoma, lymphoma, phyllodes tumor, adenoid cystic carcinoma, and ductal carcinoma in situ in young women. Three studies on prostate cancer address prostatic small cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of young and elderly patients. Six studies on head and neck cancers include orbital and intraocular lymphoma, mucosal melanoma, pediatric nasopharyngeal carcinoma, olfactory neuroblastoma, and mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma of the salivary glands. There were 4 central nervous system studies on patients with cerebellar glioblastoma multiforme, atypical and malignant meningioma, spinal epidural lymphoma and myxopapillary ependymoma. Outside of these disease sites, there is a wide variety of other studies on tumors ranging from uterine leiomyosarcoma to giant cell tumors of the bone. The studies done by the RCN represent a wide range of rare pathologies that were previously only studied in small series or case reports. With further growth of the RCN and collaboration between members our ability to analyze rare tumors will increase and result in better understanding of their behavior and ultimately help direct research that may improve patient outcomes.

Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate acute and late toxicities of radiotherapy for patients with discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE). Methods A retrospective review was performed of patients with DLE who received radiotherapy at our institution between 1980 and 2005. Patients with other connective tissue disorders were excluded. Control patients were matched 2:1 with the DLE treatment courses based on age, cancer diagnosis, year of treatment, radiotherapy dose, and sex. Acute (within 30 days from the completion of radiotherapy) and late toxicities were evaluated for each treatment course using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 3.0. Results Twelve patients with DLE received a total of 15 radiotherapy courses. The median follow-up time was 2.6 years (range, 0.0-15.2 years). Acute toxicity of any organ was observed in 10 (67%) treatment courses, of which 2 (13%) were Grade 3 or higher. Acute Grade 1 or 2 dermatologic toxicity was observed in 8 courses (53%). Late toxicity of any organ was observed in 7 of 12 (58%) evaluable treatment courses, of which 3 (23%) were grade 3 or higher. Late grade 1 or 2 dermatologic toxicity was observed in 5 (42%) courses. No patient experienced acute or late Grade 3 or higher dermatologic toxicity. The rates of any organ or dermatologic acute and late toxicity were not significantly different between DLE and control treatment courses. Conclusions Our findings do not suggest an increased risk of toxicity to the skin or other organs in patients with DLE receiving radiotherapy.

Purpose/Objective(s): Radiation therapy (RT) for prevention of heterotopic ossification (HO) around the joints has been used for decades. While there is ample evidence to support its use at the hip, data on non-hip joints such as the elbow are scant, with recent studies raising concern over toxicities. We conducted an IRB-approved single-institution retrospective review of our experience delivering radiation to the elbow to evaluate outcomes and complications related to RT. Materials/Methods: From 2003 to 2012, 31 patients received perioperative RT for HO prophylaxis at the elbow. Patients with postoperative films (n Z 20) were included in our study. Data on patient characteristics, treatment details, and clinical status at each encounter were reviewed. Radiological studies were reviewed using 5 classification schemes. Patients were contacted for interview on current status using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS). Results: Median patient age was 42.5 years, median body mass index (BMI) was 29, and 85% were male. Mean follow-up was 9.2 months. All patients received a single fraction of 600-700 cGy, preoperatively within 24 hours (n Z 8), postoperatively within 24 hours (n Z 11), or postoperatively in 3 days (n Z 1). Five patients underwent primary prophylaxis while 15 patients received RT for secondary prophylaxis. Two patients developed new HO and 1 patient had progression of disease at the time of follow-up, but all 3 reported a fair MEPS and denied severe functional limitations. Three patients required surgical re-excision of HO. Conclusions: NSAID treatment, whether newly prescribed or prior use, variations in field size, differences in technique, whether open-field AP/PA or 3D conformal with multi-leaf collimation, did not appear to make a difference in risk of recurrence, mal-union, non-union, or functional outcome. Furthermore, all of the subjects available for phone interview, including those with evidence of severe HO, reported fair or better functionality. Timing of RT seems optimal within 24 hours preoperatively or postoperatively. Patients with high-risk indications should undergo primary prophylaxis against HO. Author Disclosure: S.K. Yoo: None. C. Miyamoto: None.