Breast lymphomas comprise a rare group of malignant breast tumors. Among these, a new entity has emerged as a potentially under-diagnosed disease. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BI-ALCL) most often manifests as a late periprosthetic effusion between 1 and 10 years after the implantation of silicone or saline-filled breast prostheses. BI-ALCL is an anaplastic lymphoma kinase-negative T-cell lymphoma that has a distinctively different clinical course than other breast lymphomas or ALCLs. Diagnosis is based on aspiration of the effusion around the implant and CD30 positivity of the sample. Every periprosthetic effusion after breast augmentation or reconstruction using implants should be considered as potential BI-ALCL until proven otherwise. The majority of cases at diagnosis are in the in situ stage, i.e., confined to the lumen around the prosthesis. Most patients have an excellent prognosis when complete removal of the capsule and prosthesis with negative margins is achieved surgically. Some patients, however, develop infiltrative disease with a potentially life-threatening clinical course. Treatment planning regarding the extent of surgery and role of adjuvant therapy, especially in advanced cases, requires further investigation.

Background: Alternating administration of docetaxel and gemcitabine might result in improved time-to-treatment failure (TTF) and fewer adverse events compared with single-agent docetaxel as treatment of advanced breast cancer.Patients and methods: Women diagnosed with advanced breast cancer were randomly allocated to receive 3-weekly docetaxel (group D) or 3-weekly docetaxel alternating with 3-weekly gemcitabine (group D/G) until treatment failure as first-line chemotherapy. The primary end point was TTF.Results: Two hundred and thirty-seven subjects were assigned to treatment (group D, 115; group D/G, 122). The median TTF was 5.6 and 6.2 months in groups D and D/G, respectively (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.63–1.16; P = 0.31). There was no significant difference in time-to-disease progression, survival, and response rate between the groups. When adverse events were evaluated for the worst toxicity encountered during treatment, there was little difference between the groups, but when they were assessed per cycle, alternating treatment was associated with fewer severe (grade 3 or 4) adverse effects (P = 0.013), and the difference was highly significant for cycles when gemcitabine was administered in group D/G (P < 0.001).Conclusion: The alternating regimen was associated with a similar TTF as single-agent docetaxel but with fewer adverse effects during gemcitabine cycles.

No abstract

Objective• To evaluate imaging methods and prognoses between small renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) and larger tumours according to the era of diagnostics. Patients and Methods• In all, 784 consecutive patients diagnosed with RCC between 1964 and 1997 at the Pirkanmaa Hospital District in Finland were included. • Patients were divided into two groups: tumours of ≤3.0 and >3.0 cm in diameter.• Prognosis was analysed according to the era of diagnostics:(i) pre-computed tomography (CT) and pre-ultrasound (US), (ii) US era and (iii) CT era. Results• Small tumours became more common: in the pre-CT and pre-US era, only 4.4% of tumours were small; however, in the CT era 16% were small tumours.• More diagnostic methods were used in studying small tumours.• CT proved to be the most reliable method, although it was actually better at diagnosing large tumours.• Relapses occurred less frequently among patients with small tumours; more than half of the tumours that developed distant metastases (16.0%) already evinced them at the time of diagnosis. There were no relapses after 14 years of follow-up among small tumours, whereas large tumours relapsed within that time. RCC was the cause of death in 14.9% of patients with small tumours vs 50.7% with large tumours.• The best prognosis was among patients with small tumours diagnosed with CT. Conclusion• Among patients with small tumours, prognosis has improved along with better diagnostics, although some showed relapse during a surveillance period of up to 14 years.

The most important explanatory factors were stage, age and clinical presentation of the tumour. RCC patients showed diminishing overall survival in the follow-up, with no plateau; almost 57% of patients developed local recurrence or distant metastases even after a very long disease-free interval.

of 970 patients with 982 RCC tumours were analysed. Primary symptoms were recorded and changes were analysed in three groups, i.e. diagnoses made before 1980, in the 1980s and in the 1990s. Symptoms were also analysed according to stage, tumour class, gender and age. RESULTSThe incidence of haematuria ( P < 0.01) and an increased erythrocyte sedimentation rate ( P < 0.001) decreased, but there was no change in other symptoms. Incidental diagnoses increased from 12% to 19% ( P < 0.01). Less chronic or systemic symptoms were noted more recently. Stage and tumour class were highly correlated with symptoms: systemic symptoms increased (24% in stage I to 72% in stage IV, a highly statistically significant increase) and asymptomatic tumours became rarer (27% in stage I to 8% in stage IV, again a highly significant increase) with increasing stage. Haematuria was more common in male patients, anaemia and flank pain in women. Elderly patients were more often asymptomatic than younger patients, with 70-79-year-olds being the least symptomatic. CONCLUSIONSIncidental cases of RCC have recently become more common. Haematuria, hypersedimentation, chronic and systemic symptoms have decreased. Stage, tumour class, gender and age are correlated with symptoms.

Compared with high BCL-2 expression in combination with low or high MIB-1, VEGFR3, or CD31 expression, low BCL-2 expression in combination with low or high MIB-1, VEGFR3, or CD31 expression has poorer survival in the long-term follow-up of patients with RCC. Analysis of MIB-1, BCL-2, VEGFR3, and CD31 expression might be a useful additional marker to tailor the follow-up of RCC patients.

No abstract