ABSTRACT
Objectives@#Since endoscopic findings of primary gastric lymphoma are ambiguous and diverse, it is not easy to distinguish them from gastric adenocarcinoma or secondary gastric lymphoma. The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in clinical and endoscopic features between primary gastric lymphoma and gastric involvement of lymphoma. @*Methods@#Forty-eight patients were enrolled in this retrospective study between June 2008 and February 2017. The patients were divided into primary gastric lymphoma group (primary group, n = 18) and gastric involvement group (secondary group, n = 30) based on whether or not they carried gastric lesions alone. Patients’ clinical characteristics, endoscopic findings and pathologic data were retrospectively reviewed based on electronic medical records. @*Results@#The mean age of patients was 63.3 ± 13.1 years and 29 patients were female (60.4%). Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma pathology (81.3%), gastric body involvement (47.9%) and ulceroinfiltrative morphology on endoscopy (43.8%) were common features. Regardless of the two groups, the initial endoscopic diagnosis was considered as lymphoma only in 41.7%. Compared with the primary group, fundus (P = 0.035) and regional lymph node (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with the secondary group. However, there was no significant difference in endoscopic findings including location, size, number, and morphology of lesion. @*Conclusions@#Endoscopic diagnosis of gastric lymphoma is a challenge. There is no difference in endoscopic findings between the primary and secondary groups even when confirmed separately. However, when the lesion is present in the fundus, we keep in mind the possibility of secondary gastric lymphoma.
ABSTRACT
Background/Aims@#Although the number of domestic adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported in Korea is rapidly increasing, the analysis of ADRs in cancer patients remains limited. We sought to investigate the clinical features of ADRs in cancer patients. @*Methods@#ADR data were collected from a spontaneous reporting system at single university hospital, between July 2010 and June 2015. ADR cases assessed to be “unlikely” or “unclassifiable” as per the criteria of the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Center were excluded. Additional medical information was retrospectively collected from chart reviews, and clinical features of ADRs were analyzed. @*Results@#In total, 1,455 cases were reported. Of these, 822 ADRs (52.1%) were observed in cancer patients. The mean age of cancer patients was 60.8 years (range, 17–90 years), and 45.9% were male. The most prevalent clinical features were gastrointestinal abnormalities (32.6%), such as nausea and vomiting, followed by skin (28.5%) and neurologic manifestations (26.0%). Fifty-one (6.2%) and 296 cases (36.0%) were classified as severe and moderate, respectively. The most common causative agents were parenteral nutrition (PN) supplements (40.4%), followed by antibiotics (17.8%), analgesics (16.7%), iodinated contrast media (ICM, 10.6%), and vitamins (3.9%). Antineoplastic agents were responsible for 2.9% of cases. PN supplements were commonly associated with severe reactions. @*Conclusion@#Although it is well known that antibiotics, ICM, and analgesics induce ADRs, PN supplements, vitamins, and antineoplastic agents should also be considered as common causes of ADRs in cancer patients. Further investigation and monitoring to determine the causality associated with these agents is required.
ABSTRACT
Objectives@#Since endoscopic findings of primary gastric lymphoma are ambiguous and diverse, it is not easy to distinguish them from gastric adenocarcinoma or secondary gastric lymphoma. The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in clinical and endoscopic features between primary gastric lymphoma and gastric involvement of lymphoma. @*Methods@#Forty-eight patients were enrolled in this retrospective study between June 2008 and February 2017. The patients were divided into primary gastric lymphoma group (primary group, n = 18) and gastric involvement group (secondary group, n = 30) based on whether or not they carried gastric lesions alone. Patients’ clinical characteristics, endoscopic findings and pathologic data were retrospectively reviewed based on electronic medical records. @*Results@#The mean age of patients was 63.3 ± 13.1 years and 29 patients were female (60.4%). Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma pathology (81.3%), gastric body involvement (47.9%) and ulceroinfiltrative morphology on endoscopy (43.8%) were common features. Regardless of the two groups, the initial endoscopic diagnosis was considered as lymphoma only in 41.7%. Compared with the primary group, fundus (P = 0.035) and regional lymph node (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with the secondary group. However, there was no significant difference in endoscopic findings including location, size, number, and morphology of lesion. @*Conclusions@#Endoscopic diagnosis of gastric lymphoma is a challenge. There is no difference in endoscopic findings between the primary and secondary groups even when confirmed separately. However, when the lesion is present in the fundus, we keep in mind the possibility of secondary gastric lymphoma.