Search

BACKGROUND Pulmonary cryptococcosis is an uncommon infection mainly affecting immunocompromised individuals. Presentation of cryptococcal disease ranges from asymptomatic pulmonary colonization to severe pneumonia. It can progress to acute respiratory failure and life-threatening meningoencephalitis. CASE REPORT A 55-year-old woman with a history of a kidney transplant, on immunosuppressive therapy, presented to the hospital with persistent low-grade fever, headache, weight loss, and fatigue for 2 weeks. On arrival, she was tachycardic, normotensive, and saturating 99% on room air. Her chest X-ray showed right middle lung opacity measuring 1.9×2.8 cm. She was admitted and started on broad-spectrum antibiotics for suspected pneumonia. Her chest computed tomography (CT) scan showed a 3.0×1.7 cm hypo-dense opacity at the right upper lobe. Overnight, she developed a severe headache and neck stiffness. Her serum cryptococcal antigen and cerebrospinal fluid culture results were positive. The patient was started on intravenous liposomal amphotericin B plus flucytosine. A CT-guided lung biopsy was performed to rule out malignancy. Cultures came back positive for Cryptococcus neoformans. She completed a 2-week course of amphotericin and flucytosine and was switched to oral fluconazole to complete an 8-week course. CONCLUSIONS Prompt diagnosis and effective management of the cryptococcal disease can decrease morbidity and mortality. Diagnosis requires CT-guided lung biopsy, with culture growing mucoid colonies of Cryptococcus neoformans. Antifungal therapy with intravenous liposomal amphotericin B plus flucytosine is the mainstay of treatment. Clinicians should be aware of the various presentations of pulmonary cryptococcosis, especially in immunocompromised patients.

BACKGROUND Secretory breast carcinoma (SBC), an extremely rare malignancy, is related to a chromosomal translocation which leads to an ETV6-NTRK3 fusion mutation. SBC is characterized by eosinophilic secretions and is usually triple-negative, with a small number of patients demonstrating ER-positivity of the tumors. Diagnosis can be challenging and requires genomic testing for confirmation. CASE REPORT A 40-year-old woman presented with a breast mass found on mammography. She underwent an ultrasound-guided biopsy of the tumor. Initial pathology evaluation revealed features consistent with invasive ductal carcinoma. The immunochemistry report described an ER-positive, PR-negative, and HER2-negative tumor. The specimen was sent for oncotype scoring, which was not performed due to the specimen not meeting the criteria for invasive ductal carcinoma and displaying pathological features of SBC. A fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) study revealed ETV6 translocation, consistent with the diagnosis of SBC. The patient underwent lumpectomy followed by adjuvant radiotherapy and endocrine therapy. She remains in complete remission 3 years after treatment. CONCLUSIONS Accurately diagnosing SBC is of extreme importance as it has an indolent clinical course, but has a favorable prognosis if detected early. Due to nonspecific imaging findings, pathology evaluation with immunohistochemical staining followed by genomic testing is required. Our case highlights the challenges associated with SBC diagnosis requiring genomic testing due to equivocal pathological findings, along with increasing incidence of SBT in adults. There are no established guidelines for SBC management. The mainstay of treatment is partial or total mastectomy. Data on the benefits of adjuvant endocrine therapy, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy are inconclusive.

22 Background: The American Society of Hematology (ASH) Choosing Wisely campaign have created thoughtful conversations between providers and patients in recommending care that is supported by evidence to reduce duplicative testing. However, some have raised concerns regarding the impact on patient care. We provide our institutional experience in exploring the clinical feasibility of the recommendation on reducing unnecessary inpatient thrombophilia testing. Methods: This was a retrospective review of patients admitted with a diagnosis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) across the 3 hospitals in Central PA from September 2021 to December 2021. Pregnancy was an exclusion criterion. Thrombophilia workup included tests for factor V Leiden mutation, activated protein C resistance, protein S activity, antithrombin deficiency, prothrombin gene mutation, anti-cardiolipin antibodies, dilute Russell viper venom time, lupus anticoagulant, anti-beta2-glycoprotein antibodies. The cost of testing was extrapolated by institutional hospital cost reports. Descriptive statistics included reporting the categorical variables as number and percent. The categorical variables were compared between groups with the use of Fisher’s exact test or the chi-square test. Results: During our study period, 310 patients had new VTE. Of those, 47.9% had pulmonary embolism, 33.7% upper or lower extremities deep vein thrombosis (DVT), 1.6% splanchnic DVT, 14.6% multiple DVTs, and 2.2% DVTs in other locations. The median age was 64. Provoked factors were found in 269 patients (86.7%) and 41 patients (13.2%) had unprovoked VTE. Overall, 33 out of 310 patients (10%) underwent thrombophilia workup with a total of 175 tests performed. More thrombophilia testing was ordered in unprovoked group (29.3% vs 7.8%, p = 0.0003) compared to provoked. There was no difference between the amount of inpatient hematology consults in both groups (33.83% vs 47.50%, p = 0.0920). Of the hematology consult, 19 out of 118 patients (16%) had thrombophilia testing recommended by hematologist. The cost of all tests ordered outside of hematology recommendation was $34,083 (avg $344 per person). Of the group that got tested regardless of provoking factors, there was no difference between hospital length of stay (2-12 days vs 3-12 days, p = 0.0665). Anticoagulation choice was also not affected by thrombophilia testing between the two groups. Conclusions: Our experience found that many thrombophilia work up were costly and did not impact quality patient care. Despite the relatively low frequency of inpatient workup (10%), eliminating testing could save our health system approximately $136,332 per year ($34,083 per quarter). Therefore, we support ASH’s campaign in reducing inpatient thrombophilia testing. We aim to work with our administration to provide education in reducing unnecessary testing.

e19053 Background: Ruxolitinib, an elective Janus Kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor, has been approved by FDA for the treatment of steroid-refractory chronic graft-versus-host-disease (SR cGVHD) after the failure of one or two lines of systemic therapy in adult and pediatric patients 12 years and older. However, it remains underutilized despite promising results in the treatment of SR cGVHD. Methods: We did a comprehensive literature search across various data sets, including PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase, and presented data in ASH and ASCO. A review of the most recent data is summarized in this abstract. Results: Two retrospective cohort studies and one pilot prospective study evaluated ruxolitinib in SR cGVHD. In a retrospective cohort study by Yang et al., 36 patients with SR cGVHD treated with ruxolitinib showed complete response (CR) in 27.8% of patients with complete disappearance of cGVHD symptoms and partial response (PR) with symptom relief of 52.7% at a dose of 2.5 to 10 mg two times daily with ruxolitinib tapering one week after symptoms improvement. In the pilot prospective study by Mozo et al., 12 pediatric patients with SR cGVHD received ruxolitinib at a dose of 2.5 to 10 mg two times daily and showed CR in 8.3% of patients and PR in 82.7% of patients. Morozova et al. conducted a prospective pilot study in 20 patients with primary or secondary myelofibrosis who were treated with pre-transplant ruxolitinib 45 mg/day from ruxolitinib (45 mg) starting from seven days before transplant to 2 days before the transplant, and 15 mg from day five after transplant to day 100 after transplant along with cyclophosphamide 50 mg/kg on days three and four after transplant. PR was observed in 47.1% of patients at 6 months with the incidence of cGVHD of 20%. In Phase III trial by Zeiser et al. reported CR of 6.7% and PR of 43% in 165 patients treated with ruxolitinib at a dose of 10 mg daily for 6 cycles (28 days/cycle). The most common all-grade adverse events are listed here. Conclusions: Ruxolitinib was recently approved by FDA for the treatment of SR GVHD and should be utilized more due to its high effectiveness and tolerable safety profile.[Table: see text]

e24064 Background: Long-term survival is common after breast cancer treatment with 5-year survival reaching almost 90%. Breast cancer survivors (BCS) face varying degrees of quality of life (QOL) issues depending on their age of diagnosis, disease severity, and treatment. We present a retrospective analysis aimed to describe demographics of BCS, recognize common concerns and identify the vulnerable patients. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of BCS seen at our Breast Cancer Survivorship Program from October 2016 to May 2021. Patients were given a survey to assess self-reported symptoms following treatment. The descriptive analysis of patient characteristics included age, cancer stage, and treatment type. The bivariate analysis included the relationship between the patient characteristics and their outcomes. Chi-square test was used to analyze group differences. Fisher exact test was employed when any of the expected frequencies was five or less. Logistic regression models were developed to identify significant predictors for outcomes. Results: 902 patients (age 26-94; median 64) were seen. Patient's characteristics studied included cancer stage, age group, and treatment modality. Most common self-reported concerns affecting BCS were fatigue (34%), insomnia (33%), hot flashes (26%), night sweats (23%), pain (22%), trouble concentrating (19%) and neuropathy (21%). Majority of patients (91%) reported having a happy outlook and felt a sense of purpose (89%), but 13% of BCS felt isolated at least 50% of the time. Young survivors (age ≤45) (p = 0.028), higher stage BCS (Stage 2-3) (p = 0.0061) and those who had chemotherapy either alone or as part of their multi-modality treatment (p < 0.0001) were significantly less likely to return back to at least 50% of their pre-treatment baseline (Table). Conclusions: Our study showed that younger BCS, patients with higher cancer stage, and those who underwent chemotherapy are the most vulnerable groups in terms of severity of QOL issues. Identifying vulnerable populations and evaluating common concerns after treatments are important in delivering quality care. Optimizing interventions under standardized approach would help to increase QOL in BCS.[Table: see text]