The difficulty with measuring the largest melanoma tumour diameter in sentinel lymph nodes

Identification of sentinel node (SN) metastases can set the adjuvant systemic therapy indication for stage III melanoma patients. For stage IIIA patients, a 1.0 mm threshold for the largest SN tumour diameter is used. Therefore, uniform reproducible measurement of its size is crucial. At present, the number of deposits or their microanatomical sites are not part of the inclusion criteria for adjuvant treatment. The goal of the current study was to show examples of the difficulty of measuring SN melanoma tumour diameter and teach how it should be measured. Histopathological slides of SN-positive melanoma patients were retrieved using the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA). Fourteen samples with the largest SN metastasis around 1.0 mm were uploaded via tele-pathology and digitally measured by 12 pathologists to reflect current practice of measurements in challenging cases. Recommendations as educational examples were provided. Microanatomical location of melanoma metastases was 1 subcapsular, 2 parenchymal and 11 combined. The smallest and largest difference in measurements were 0.24 mm and 4.81 mm, respectively. 11/14 cases (78.6%) showed no agreement regarding the 1.0 mm cut-off. The median discrepancy for cases ≤5 deposits was 0.5 mm (range 0.24-0.60, n=3) and 2.51 mm (range 0.71-4.81, n=11) for cases with ≥6 deposits. Disconcordance in measuring SN tumour burden is correlated with the number of deposits. Awareness of this discordance in challenging cases, for example, cases with multiple small deposits, is important for clinical management. Illustrating cases to reduce differences in size measurement are provided.

[Pancreatic panniculitis with polyarthritis: PPP syndrome]

BACKGROUND

Diseases of the pancreas may present with extrapancreatic symptoms, such as (poly)arthritis or necrosis of subcutaneous fat. A combination of pancreatitis, panniculitis and (poly)arthritis is referred to as the PPP syndrome, which is associated with acute and chronic pancreatitis, as well as pancreatic malignancies.

CASE DESCRIPTION

This article describes a patient which was admitted to our hospital with severe polyarthritis and panniculitis. A meticulous work-up revealed an underlying focal alcoholic pancreatitis. The clinical course in our patient illustrates the severity of the PPP syndrome and emphasizes the need of a multidisciplinary approach.

CONCLUSION

Panniculitis and/or (poly)arthritis may be the first symptom of underlying pancreatic disease. Timely recognition and diagnosis is imperative for successful treatment and outcome. The multi-organ involvement in the PPP syndrome requires close collaboration across different medical departments.

Methylphenidate significantly improves driving performance of adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomized crossover trial

Although patients with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have reported improved driving performance on methylphenidate, limited evidence exists to support an effect of treatment on driving performance and some regions prohibit driving on methylphenidate. A randomized, crossover trial examining the effects of methylphenidate versus placebo on highway driving in 18 adults with ADHD was carried out. After three days of no treatment, patients received either their usual methylphenidate dose (mean: 14.7 mg; range: 10-30 mg) or placebo and then the opposite treatment after a six to seven days washout period. Patients performed a 100 km driving test during normal traffic, 1.5 h after treatment administration. Standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP), the weaving of the car, was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measurements included the standard deviation of speed and patient reports of driving performance. Driving performance was significantly better in the methylphenidate than in the placebo condition, as reflected by the SDLP difference (2.3 cm, 95% CI = 0.8-3.8, P = 0.004). Variation in speed was similar on treatment and on placebo (-0.05 km/h, 95% CI = -0.4 to 0.2, P = 0.70). Among adults with ADHD, with a history of a positive clinical response to methylphenidate, methylphenidate significantly improves driving performance.

Driving ability after acute and sub-chronic administration of levocetirizine and diphenhydramine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

RATIONALE

Sedation following antihistamine use poses a danger to ambulant patients involved in daily activities such as driving.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate effects of levocetirizine (5 mg), diphenhydramine (50 mg), and placebo on driving ability during normal traffic.

METHODS

Forty-eight healthy volunteers participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Treatments were administrated on days 1, 2, 3 and 4, exactly 1.5 h before the start of the standardized driving test (performed on day 1 and day 4). In the standardized driving test, subjects were instructed to drive with a steady lateral position, while maintaining a constant speed (95 km/h). Primary parameter was the standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP; cm). Statistical analyses were performed separately for day 1 and day 4, using analysis of variance and an equivalence test. Equivalence to placebo was evidenced if the 95% confidence interval lay between -2.6 cm and +2.6 cm.

RESULTS

SDLP after levocetirizine was equivalent to placebo on both day 1 (-0.66 cm; +1.12 cm) and day 4 (-0.37 cm; +1.28 cm). In contrast, SDLP after diphenhydramine differed significantly from placebo on both day 1 ( P<0.0001) and day 4 ( P<0.0003). On day 1, the 95% confidence interval of diphenhydramine (+1.85 cm; +3.63 cm) was partially above the upper equivalence limit (+2.6 cm), indicating clinically relevant driving impairment. On day 4, however, the 95% confidence interval of diphenhydramine (+0.74 cm; +2.38 cm) was contained within the acceptance range.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to diphenhydramine, driving performance was not significantly affected while using 5 mg levocetirizine once daily.

Acute and subchronic effects of levocetirizine and diphenhydramine on memory functioning, psychomotor performance, and mood

BACKGROUND

Central nervous system adverse effects, such as sedation, often accompany the use of first-generation antihistamines. These effects might interfere with memory functioning and psychomotor performance. Levocetirizine was recently introduced as a new antihistamine said to be free from sedative effects.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to investigate the effects of levocetirizine (5 mg), diphenhydramine (50 mg), and placebo on memory and psychomotor performance after acute (day 1) and subchronic (day 4) daily administration in 48 healthy volunteers (24 men and 24 women).

METHODS

This study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Treatments were administrated on days 1, 2, 3, and 4, 3 hours before the start of the laboratory test battery (performed on days 1 and 4), comprising a word-learning test, the Sternberg Memory Scanning Test, a tracking test (easy and hard version), and a divided attention test (tracking and memory scanning simultaneously). Statistical analyses were performed separately for days 1 and 4 by using analysis of variance.

RESULTS

On day 1, diphenhydramine significantly impaired tracking performance (easy: F(1,90) = 25.9, P <.0001; hard: F(1,90) = 20.5, P <.0001) and divided attention (tracking: F(1,90) = 23.8, P <.0001; memory scanning: F(1,90) = 22.0, P <.0001). Results on word-learning tests and Sternberg Memory Scanning Tests were not significantly impaired. On day 4, the effects of diphenhydramine did not reach significance. In contrast, on both days 1 and 4, levocetirizine did not significantly impair laboratory test performance.

CONCLUSION

The results show that memory, attention, and tracking performance are unaffected after acute and subchronic administration of levocetirizine (5 mg), whereas diphenhydramine (50 mg) significantly affected divided attention and tracking after acute administration.

Residual effects of middle-of-the-night administration of zaleplon and zolpidem on driving ability, memory functions, and psychomotor performance

Thirty healthy volunteers participated in this two-part study. Part 1 was a single-blind, two-period crossover design to determine the effects of a single dose of ethanol (0.03% < BAC < 0.05%) or ethanol-placebo on driving ability, memory, and psychomotor performance. Part 2 was a double-blind, five-period crossover design to measure the effects of a middle-of-the-night administration of zaleplon 10 or 20 mg, zolpidem 10 or 20 mg, or placebo on driving ability 4 hours after administration and memory and psychomotor performance 6 hours after administration. The on-the-road driving test consisted of operating an instrumented automobile over a 100-km highway circuit at a constant speed (95 km/h) while maintaining a steady lateral position between the right lane boundaries. The standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP) was the primary performance parameter of the driving test. The psychomotor and memory test battery consisted of the Word Learning Test, the Critical Tracking Test, the Divided Attention Test, and the Digit Symbol Substitution Test. Data for each part were analyzed separately using ANOVA for crossover designs. Zaleplon 10 and 20 mg did not significantly impair driving ability 4 hours after middle-of-the-night administration. Relative to placebo, after zolpidem 10 mg, SDLP was significantly elevated, but the magnitude of the difference was small and not likely to be of clinical importance. Memory and psychomotor test performance was unaffected after both doses of zaleplon and zolpidem 10 mg. In contrast, zolpidem 20 mg significantly increased SDLP and speed variability. Further, zolpidem 20 mg significantly impaired performance on all psychomotor and memory tests. Finally, driving performance, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, Divided Attention Test, and immediate and delayed free recall of the Word Learning Test were significantly impaired after ethanol. The results show that zaleplon (10 and 20 mg) is a safe hypnotic devoid of next-morning residual impairment when used in the middle of the night.

p53 mutation analysis for definite diagnosis of multiple primary lung carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The detection of a second tumor in patients with lung carcinoma raises the question whether this lesion is a metastasis or a second primary lung carcinoma. Patients cannot always be categorized satisfactorily according the criteria of multiple lung carcinoma proposed by Martini and Melamed. This may result in an inadequate treatment schedule in individual patients. Because p53 mutations can be used as clonal marker, the authors investigated whether p53 mutation analysis can differentiate between primary lung carcinomas and metastatic disease.

METHODS

Sixty-four tumors in 31 patients with synchronous and metachronous lung tumors were investigated by p53 mutation analysis.

RESULTS

In 21 patients, the tumors showed different p53 mutations, and therefore a definite diagnosis of multiple primary lung carcinoma was made. One of these patients did not meet the criteria of Martini and Melamed. In two other patients not matching these criteria, identical mutations were demonstrated in both tumors, indicating the presence of metastatic disease. In eight patients, analysis was not conclusive or possible.

CONCLUSIONS

p53 mutation analysis can be a useful tool to confirm or rule out multiple primary lung carcinoma, and the results confirm the criteria of Martini and Melamed. However, in patients not meeting these criteria, the diagnosis of multiple lung carcinoma still has to be considered, and metastatic disease has to be ruled out. P53 mutation analysis can be helpful for this purpose.