Acute Systemic Infection-Associated Russell Body Gastroesophagitis: A Case Report and Literature Review

Russell body esophagitis/gastritis (RBG) is a rare gastrointestinal inflammatory condition characterized by accumulation of plasma cells containing dense eosinophilic cytoplasmic inclusions, i.e., Russell bodies. Herein, we report a case of RBG in a patient with a systemic inflammation background. A 61-year-old female presented with oral infection. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy revealed patchy salmon-colored esophageal mucosa proximally to the gastroesophageal junction, suggestive of “Barrett’s esophagus”. Histologic examination of the biopsy tissue from the lower esophagus showed diffuse lymphoplasmacytic infiltration with abundant admixed enlarged plasma cells (Mott cells) containing bright eosinophilic, round, dense, homogenous inclusions (Russell bodies) in cytoplasm. Immunohistochemical study demonstrated membranous staining of CD138 in the Mott cells, while immunoglobulin light chain in situ hybridization revealed positivity of only kappa light chain, indicating kappa light chain restriction and clonality. A proton-pump inhibitor therapy was initiated, but the patient passed away due to generalized infection. Our case suggests that Russell body esophagitis/gastritis (RBG) can be a gastrointestinal presentation associated with acute systemic infection

Retroperitoneal cystic lymphangioma in an adult: A case report and review of the literature

Lymphangiomas are rare benign cystic tumors of the lymphatic system. Retroperitoneal lymphangiomas account for 1% of all lymphangiomas, and approximately 186 cases have been reported. They may clinically present as a palpable abdominal mass and can cause diagnostic dilemmas with other retroperitoneal cystic tumors, including those arising from the liver, kidney and pancreas. This report describes the rare case of a cystic retroperitoneal lymphangioma in a 54-year-old male patient. The lymphangioma had progressed to the point of inducing clinical symptoms of abdominal distention, abdominal pain, anorexia, fever, nausea and diarrhea. Radiological imaging revealed a large multiloculated cystic abdominal mass with enhancing septations involving the upper retroperitoneum and extending into the pelvis. Surgical removal of the cyst was accomplished without incident. A benign cystic retroperitoneal lymphangioma was diagnosed on histology and confirmed with immunohistochemical stains

Peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumor of the dura in a 51-year-old woman following intensive treatment for breast cancer.

PATIENT: Female, 51. FINAL DIAGNOSIS: Ewing sarcoma. SYMPTOMS: Visual disturbances. MEDICATION: -. CLINICAL PROCEDURE: -. SPECIALTY: Oncology. OBJECTIVE: Rare disease. BACKGROUND: Primitive neuroectodermal tumor/Ewing sarcoma (PNET/EWS) is a round blue cell sarcoma that shows varying degrees of neuroectodermal differentiation. PNET/EWS as a primary intracranial tumor is extremely uncommon. CASE REPORT: We report a unique case of peripheral PNET presenting as an intracranial mass in an adult following chemotherapy and radiotherapy for a solid tumor. A 51-year-old woman with previously treated left breast cancer was evaluated for a newly developed brain mass. She underwent craniotomy with resection. Surgical pathology was consistent with a peripheral PNET/EWS with Ewing sarcoma gene translocation. She was treated appropriately with vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin (later dactinomycin) alternating with ifosfamide and etoposide. CONCLUSIONS: Although development of PNET/EWS presenting along the CNS is exceedingly rare in adults, establishing the proper diagnosis of this small blue cell tumor is critical. The further distinction between central PNET and peripheral PNET can greatly impact both prognosis and treatment. Our case also highlights the importance of considering the impact of prior intensive therapies, including radiation and chemotherapy, on predisposing to future PNET/EWS

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health