Diagnostic challenge for ovarian malignant melanoma in premenopausal women: Primary or metastatic?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the ovary, metastatic malignant melanoma may be confused with primary malignant melanoma and presents a diagnosis challenge. Most cases are associated with disseminated diseases and poor prognosis. We present this case report of a metastatic ovarian malignant melanoma simulating primary ovarian cancer.</p> <p>Case report</p> <p>A 45-year-old premenopausal woman was incidentally found to have an abdominal mass, 3 years after removal of a cutaneous melanoma lesion. Ultrasound and CT scan revealed left two solid masses, which were found to be an ovarian tumor at laparotomy. Left oophorectomy was performed. Histopathology and immunohistochemistry showed melanoma metastasis to the ovary. Nine months later, the patient developed epilepsy and confusion. Magnetic Resonance Imaging showed unique Wright frontal lobe lesion. She underwent stereotactic radio surgery and dacarbazine monotherapy. For months later, the patient is died from disseminate disease progression.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Ovarian metastasis is an unusual presentation of cutaneous melanoma and the prognosis was dismal. As illustrated by this case report, a differential diagnosis of a metastatic malignant melanoma must be considered.</p

The Changing Landscape for Stroke\ua0Prevention in AF: Findings From the GLORIA-AF Registry Phase 2

Background GLORIA-AF (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) is a prospective, global registry program describing antithrombotic treatment patterns in patients with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke. Phase 2 began when dabigatran, the first non\u2013vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), became available. Objectives This study sought to describe phase 2 baseline data and compare these with the pre-NOAC era collected during phase&nbsp;1. Methods During phase 2, 15,641 consenting patients were enrolled (November 2011 to December 2014); 15,092 were eligible. This pre-specified cross-sectional analysis describes eligible patients\u2019 baseline characteristics. Atrial fibrillation&nbsp;disease characteristics, medical outcomes, and concomitant diseases and medications were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results Of the total patients, 45.5% were female; median age was 71 (interquartile range: 64, 78) years. Patients were from Europe (47.1%), North America (22.5%), Asia (20.3%), Latin America (6.0%), and the Middle East/Africa (4.0%). Most had high stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc [Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age&nbsp; 6575 years, Diabetes mellitus, previous Stroke, Vascular disease, Age 65 to 74 years, Sex category] score&nbsp; 652; 86.1%); 13.9% had moderate risk (CHA2DS2-VASc&nbsp;= 1). Overall, 79.9% received oral anticoagulants, of whom 47.6% received NOAC and 32.3% vitamin K antagonists (VKA); 12.1% received antiplatelet agents; 7.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. For comparison, the proportion of phase 1 patients (of N&nbsp;= 1,063 all eligible) prescribed VKA was 32.8%, acetylsalicylic acid 41.7%, and no therapy 20.2%. In Europe in phase 2, treatment with NOAC was more common than VKA (52.3% and 37.8%, respectively); 6.0% of patients received antiplatelet treatment; and 3.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. In North America, 52.1%, 26.2%, and 14.0% of patients received NOAC, VKA, and antiplatelet drugs, respectively; 7.5% received no antithrombotic treatment. NOAC use was less common in Asia (27.7%), where 27.5% of patients received VKA, 25.0% antiplatelet drugs, and 19.8% no antithrombotic treatment. Conclusions The baseline data from GLORIA-AF phase 2 demonstrate that in newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients, NOAC have been highly adopted into practice, becoming more frequently prescribed than VKA in&nbsp;Europe and North America. Worldwide, however, a large proportion of patients remain undertreated, particularly in&nbsp;Asia&nbsp;and North America. (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [GLORIA-AF]; NCT01468701

Cancer treatment delays among cancer patients living with HIV during the COVID‐19 pandemic in the United States

Abstract Background The COVID‐19 pandemic led to care disruptions across the cancer continuum. It is unknown if immunosuppressed patients with cancer, who may be at higher risk for complications of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, are disproportionately impacted. Thus, we aimed to compare delays in cancer treatment initiation between people living with HIV (PLWH) and cancer, the general cancer population (GCP), and patients with cancer and a history of solid organ transplant (SOT). Comparisons were made across the period 2 years preceding the pandemic versus the first year of the pandemic. Methods We used data from a real‐world electronic health record‐derived de‐identified database (2018–2021) comprised of US patients with cancer from 800 sites of care across the country. We included patients with 19 different cancer types. We calculated time to cancer treatment initiation (TTI) as the difference between the date of cancer diagnosis and the earliest date that cancer treatment was recorded. Results The sample included 181 PLWH, 65,073 GCP patients, and 195 patients with a SOT. Difference‐in‐difference regression models adjusted for age, sex, and presence of metastatic disease at cancer diagnosis revealed a significant increase in delayed TTI among PLWH compared to the GCP during COVID‐19 versus prior to COVID‐19, with delays increasing by approximately 1 month during the pandemic (DID: 32.6 days [8.9–56.3]; p = 0.007). The increase in TTI for PLWH was observed across treatment modalities, including surgery (DID: 55.1 [28.8–81.3], p < 0.001) and systemic therapy (DID: 30.4 [4.6–56.3], p = 0.021). Conclusions/Relevance PLWH experienced significant delays in cancer treatment initiation after diagnosis during the first year of COVID‐19, delays that may negatively impact cancer outcomes. These data warrant patient and provider attention as the pandemic continues to impact the US healthcare system

The cervix cancer research network: increasing access to cancer clinical trials in low- and middle-income countries.

Introduction: The burden of cervical cancer is large and growing in developing countries, due in large part to limited access to screening services and lack of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. In spite of modern advances in diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, outcomes from cervical cancer have not markedly improved in recent years. Novel clinical trials are urgently needed to improve outcomes from cervical cancer worldwide. Methods: The Cervix Cancer Research Network (CCRN), a subsidiary of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG), is a multi-national, multi-institutional consortium of physicians and scientists focused on improving cervical cancer outcomes worldwide by making cancer clinical trials available in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. Standard operating procedures for participation in CCRN include a pre-qualifying questionnaire to evaluate clinical activities and research infrastructure, followed by a site visit. Once a site is approved, they may choose to participate in one of four currently accruing clinical trials.Results: To date, 13 different CCRN site visits have been performed. Of these 13 sites visited, 10 have been approved as CCRN sites including Tata Memorial Hospital, India; Bangalore, India; Trivandrum, India; Ramathibodi, Thailand; Siriaj, Thailand; Pramongkutklao, Thailand; Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam; Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center; the Hertzen Moscow Cancer Research Institute; and the Russian Scientific Center of Roentgenoradiology. The four currently accruing clinical trials are TACO, OUTBACK, INTERLACE, and SHAPE.Discussion: The CCRN has successfully enrolled 10 sites in developing countries to participate in four randomized clinical trials. The primary objectives are to provide novel therapeutics to regions with the greatest need and to improve the validity and generalizability of clinical trial results by enrolling a diverse sample of patients