IMPORTANCE Large case series suggest that patients with folliculotropic mycosis fungoides (FMF) have a worse prognosis than patients with classic mycosis fungoides (MF). However, recent studies described a subgroup of patients with FMF with a more favorable prognosis. Distinction between indolent and aggressive FMF may have important therapeutic consequences but is hampered by the inability of the current tumor-node-metastasis-blood (TNMB) staging system to classify patients with FMF in a clinically meaningful way. OBJECTIVE To differentiate between indolent and aggressive FMF using clinicopathological criteria and to define prognostic factors in patients with FMF. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this prospective cohort study, we followed 203 patients with FMF, included in the Dutch Cutaneous Lymphoma Registry between October 1985 and May 2014 at a tertiary referral center hosting the Dutch Cutaneous Lymphoma Registry. Overall, 220 patients with FMF had been registered, but 17 patients with incomplete follow-up data or a history of classic MF were excluded. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Main outcomes included clinical and histological characteristics, disease progression, and survival. Prognostic factors were investigated using Cox proportional hazard regression analysis. Distinction between early plaque-stage FMF and advanced plaque-stage FMF was made by a blinded review of skin biopsy specimens from patients presenting with plaques. RESULTS In a cohort of 147 men and 56 women (median [range] age, 59 [15-93] years), patients with histologically early plaque-stage FMF had a very similar overall survival (OS) rate to patients with only patches and/or follicular papules (10-year OS, 71% vs 80%), while the survival rate of patients with histologically advanced plaque-stage FMF was almost identical to that of patients presenting with tumors (10-year OS, 25% vs 27%). Subsequently, 3 clinical subgroups with significantly different survival data were distinguished: early skin-limited FMF (group A; n = 84; 5-year and 10-year OS, 92% and 72%); advanced skin-limited FMF (group B; n = 102; 5-year and 10-year OS, 55% and 28%); and FMF presenting with extracutaneous disease (group C; n = 17; 5-year and 10-year OS, 23% and 2%). Age at diagnosis, large cell transformation and secondary bacterial infection were independent risk factors for disease progression and/or poor survival. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The results of this study provide useful criteria to differentiate between indolent and aggressive FMF and confirm the existence of a subgroup of FMF with a favorable prognosis.

This meta-analysis showed that the risk of myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke was 1.6-fold increased in women using COCs . The risk was highest for pills with > 50 microgram estrogen. When combined with the results of studies on the risk of venous thrombosis in COC users, it seems that the COC pill containing levonorgestrel and 30 μg of estrogen is the safest oral form of hormonal contraception.

To cite this article: Roach REJ, Cannegieter SC, Lijfering WM. Differential risks in men and women for first and recurrent venous thrombosis: the role of genes and environment. J Thromb Haemost 2014; 12: 1593-600.Summary. Men have a higher risk of first and recurrent venous thrombosis than do women. However, the pathophysiology underlying this phenomenon is as yet unknown. In this review article, we assessed the prevalence and strength of genetic and acquired risk factors for venous thrombosis for men and women separately, because it is likely that either a difference in effect or distribution of a risk factor explains the risk difference between the sexes. We also summarized the sex-specific results of previous studies on the risk of first and recurrent venous thrombosis. Few explanations for the sex difference were found. The major factor, explaining about 20% difference in population-attributable fraction, was body height. No difference in prevalence or strength for other venous thrombosis risk factors was observed, such as plaster cast immobilization, hospitalization, surgery, trauma, malignancy, hyperhomocysteinemia, factor V Leiden, prothrombin G20210A, or blood group non-O. Alternative explanations for the sex difference are hypothesized in this review, including X-or Y-linked mutations or a mutation on a gene with a sex-specific effect. Future studies should focus on the sex-specific risk of venous thrombosis to unravel the pathophysiology and thereby improve sex-specific treatment and prevention strategies. Even so, male sex can be used as a tool through which individuals at increased risk of first or recurrent venous thrombosis may be identified.

Background-The risk of recurrent venous thrombosis is 2-fold higher in men than in women. In contrast, no such sex difference in the risk of first venous thrombosis has been reported. We hypothesized that, for a first event, a risk difference between the sexes is masked by female exposure to reproductive factors (oral contraception, pregnancy/puerperium, and postmenopausal hormone therapy). Methods and Results-From the Multiple Environmental and Genetic Assessment of Risk Factors for Venous Thrombosis (MEGA) study, a population-based case-control study on risk factors for venous thrombosis, 2915 patients with a first venous thrombosis and their partners as control subjects were included. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for first venous thrombosis were assessed in men compared with women without reproductive risk factors by use of conditional logistic regression. Analyses were stratified in 10-year age categories to account for the variation in exposure to reproductive risk factors over different age groups and adjusted for body mass index and smoking. Overall, men had a 2.1-fold (95% confidence interval, 1.9-2.4) increased risk of first venous thrombosis compared with women without reproductive risk factors. Similar results were found when 10-year age categories were viewed separately. Adjustment for body mass index and smoking and exclusion of cancer patients did not materially affect the results. Conclusions-When

To cite this article: Roach REJ, Lijfering WM, Helmerhorst FM, Cannegieter SC, Rosendaal FR, van Hylckama Vlieg A. The risk of venous thrombosis in women over 50 years old using oral contraception or postmenopausal hormone therapy. J Thromb Haemost 2013; 11: 124-31.Summary. Background: Oral contraception (OC) and postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) can be used to alleviate menopausal symptoms. However, the risk of venous thrombosis (VT) associated with OC use in women over 50 years old has never been assessed and the two preparations have not been directly compared. Objectives: To determine and compare the risk of VT associated with OC and HT use. Methods: From a large case-control study, 2550 women aged over 50 years old, 1082 patients with a first VT and 1468 controls, were included. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals for VT were calculated for OC-users (164 patients and 54 controls) and HT-users (88 patients and 102 controls) compared with non-hormone users (823 patients and 1304 controls). Results: OC-users had a 6.3-fold (4.6-9.8) increased risk of VT. This ranged from 5.4 (3.3-8.9) for preparations containing levonorgestrel to 10.2 (4.8-21.7) for desogestrel. The VT-risk associated with oral HT use was 4.0 (1.8-8.2) for conjugated equine estrogen combined with medroxyprogesterone acetate and 3.9 (1.5-10.7) for micronized estradiol combined with norethisterone acetate. Non-oral HT did not increase the risk of VT: OR 1.1 (0.6-1.8). Relative risk estimates were further increased in hormone users with factor V Leiden, prothrombin G20210A or blood group non-O and hormone users with a family history of VT. Conclusions: In this study, non-oral HT seemed to be the safest hormonal preparation in women over 50 years old. OC use increased the VT risk the most, especially in women with inherited thrombophilia or a family history of VT.

Combined oral contraceptives: the risk of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke.

Key Points• Patients with VT have an increased risk of subsequent CVD compared with control participants.• The increased risk of CVD in these patients can be explained by etiologic factors leading to both diseases.Patients with venous thrombosis (VT) have an increased risk of subsequent CVD (CVD), but the underlying pathophysiology is unclear. Using data from the Multiple Environmental and Genetic Assessment of risk factors for venous thrombosis follow-up study, 4480 patients with VT, 2926 partner control participants, and 2638 random digit dialing (RDD) control participants were followed-up between 1999 and 2008. Incidence rates and hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) of CVD (defined as myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke) were calculated for patients vs controls. Measurable confounders (age, sex, body mass index, smoking, chronic disease, malignancy, genetic thrombophilia, and procoagulant markers) were adjusted for when comparing patients with RDD controls. Unmeasured lifestyle-related factors were also considered by comparing patients with their partners. During a median follow-up time of 5 years, 124 CVD events occurred. Incidence of CVD per 1000 person-years was 3.2 (95% CI, 2.5-4.0) in patients, 2.2 (95% CI, 1.5-3.0) in partners, and 1.6 (95% CI, 0.9-2.6) in RDD controls. Crude hazard ratio was 2.2 (95% CI, 1.2-3.8) in patients compared with RDD controls and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.0-2.3) in patients compared with partners. After adjustment for all confounders, these risks attenuated to 1.8 (95% CI, 0.8-4.2) and 1.3 (95% CI, 0.7-2.5) for patients compared with RDD control participants and partners, respectively. In conclusion, individuals with VT had an increased risk of CVD. This could be explained by common etiologic factors. (Blood. 2013;121(24):4948-4954)

Key Points Superficial vein thrombosis combined with an acquired thrombotic risk factor increases the risk of venous thrombosis 10- to 100-fold. If confirmed, these findings have important implications for the future prevention of venous thrombosis.