Marginal zone lymphoma of the breast-A diminished role for surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Primary breast lymphoma by definition is localized to one or both the breasts with or without involvement of regional lymph nodes with no other extra mammary site involvement. Role of surgery in the treatment armamentarium is less well defined. PRESENTATION OF CASE: A 62year old post-menopausal lady was found to have 1.2×1.2×0.6cm mass in the left breast on diagnostic mammography. Core needle biopsy reveals marginal zone lymphoma. Complete staging work-up was performed which was negative for regional spread and metastatic foci. She was diagnosed to have a localized stage IE extra nodal low grade marginal zone lymphoma of the MALT type involving breast. She received radiotherapy to the breast and is in remission at follow up after one year. DISCUSSION: Accurate diagnosis requires adequate tissue biopsy either by a core needle or a surgical biopsy for histopathologic evaluation and immunophenotyping. Immunohistochemically the tumors are positive for pan B-cell markers (CD 19, CD 20, CD22, and CD 79a) and lack T cell markers. For stage IE Marginal zone lymphoma radiotherapy alone and for stage IIE combined chemo-radiation offers the best possible control of the disease. Progression free survival for MZL is better than diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. CONCLUSION: At present the best evidence support radiotherapy in localized disease and combined chemo-radiation in advanced disease. Role of surgery is minimal and is seen in case of diagnostic dilemma. Rarity of the diagnosis precludes large scale prospective studies making therapeutic decisions difficult and challenging.

The use of a surgery-specific written examination in the selection process of surgical residents.

OBJECTIVE: Selection of surgical residents is a difficult task, and program directors are interested in identifying the best candidates. Among the qualities being sought after is the ability to acquire surgical knowledge, and eventually do well on their board examinations. During the interview process, many programs use results from the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) to identify residents they think will do well academically. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a different method of identifying such residents, through the use of a surgery-specific written exam (SSWE). DESIGN: A retrospective review of residents in our program between 2004 and 2012 was done. A 50-question SSWE was designed and administered to candidates on the day of their interview. Scores on the SSWE and the USMLE were compared with results on the American Board of Surgery In-Training Exam (ABSITE). Correlation coefficients were calculated and compared. SETTING: Community based General Surgery residency program. PARTICIPANTS: Resident applicants. RESULTS: Forty-three residents had scores available from the SSWE, USMLE Part 1 (USMLE-1), and Part 2 (USMLE-2). There were ABSITE scores available for 38 in postgraduate year (PGY) 1. USMLE-1 had a statistically significant correlation (r = 0.327, p = 0.045) with the ABSITE score in PGY-1 (ABSITE-1), while with USMLE-2 had slightly less correlation (r = 0.314, p = 0.055) with ABSITE-1. However, the SSWE had a much stronger correlation (r = 0.656, p < 0.001) than either of them. CONCLUSIONS: An SSWE is a good method to identify residents who will later do well on the ABSITE. It is a better method than using the more general USMLE. Since the ABSITE has been shown to correlate with performance on board examinations, residency programs interested in identifying candidates that will do well on their board examinations, should consider incorporating an SSWE into their application process.

Delaying an appendectomy: is it safe?

Appendicitis has always been an indication for an urgent operation, as delay is thought to lead to disease progression and therefore worse outcomes. Recent studies suggest that appendectomy can be delayed slightly without worse outcomes, however the literature is contradictory. The goal of our study was to examine the relationship between this delay to surgery and patient outcomes. We reviewed all patients that underwent an appendectomy in our institution from January 2009 to December 2010. We recorded the time of surgical diagnosis from when both the surgical consult and the CT scan (if done) were completed. The delay from surgical diagnosis to incision was measured, and patients were divided into two groups: early (≤6 hours delay) and late (>6 hours delay). Outcome measures were 30-day complication rate, length of stay, perforation rate, and laparoscopic to open conversion rate. Three hundred and seventy-seven patients had appendectomies in the study period, and 35 patients were excluded as per the exclusion criteria leaving 342 in the study: 269 (78.7%) in the early group and 73 (21.3%) in the late group. Complications occurred in 21 patients (6.1%) with no difference between the groups: 16/253 (5.9%) in the early group and 5/73 (6.8%) in the late group (P = 0.93, χ(2)). The mean (± standard deviation) length of stay was 86.1 ± 67.1 hours in the early group, and 95.9 ± 73.0 hours in the late group. This difference was not significant (P = 0.22). Delaying an appendectomy more than 6 hours, but less than 24 hours from diagnosis is safe and does not lead to worse outcomes. This can help limit the disruption to the schedules of both the surgeon and the operating room.

Appendicitis, is it an emergency?

Prompt appendectomy has always been a standard of care because of the risk of progression in pathology. This time honored practice has been recently challenged by studies, suggesting that appendicitis can be operated on electively. The aim of this study is to examine whether delayed intervention in acute appendicitis is safe by correlating the interval from presentation to operation with the operative and postoperative complications. Retrospective review of patients who underwent appendectomy for acute appendicitis in 2009 was done. The following parameters were recorded: demographics, duration from presentation to evaluation by emergency room attending, performing CT scan, surgical consult, and operation. The pathology, post operative complications, and length of stay were also recorded. Patients were divided into two groups: incision time < 10 hours (early group) and incision time > 10 hours (delayed group). The end points chosen for comparison were: 1) laparoscopic to open conversion rate, 2) complications, 3) readmissions, and 4) length of stay. Number of cases totaled 201, with 76 in the < 10 hours group and 125 in the > 10 hours group. The male to female ratio for the < 10 hours group was 54:22 and for the > 10 hours group was 59:66 (P < 0.001). Length of stay for the early group was 75.52 hours and for the delayed group, 89.15 hours (P = 0.04). There was one intra-abdominal abscess in the early group and 10 in the delayed group (P = 0.04). The early group had 0.2 (2.6%) open conversions, and the delayed group had five (4.1%) conversions (P = 0.58). There were six (4.8%) readmissions in the delayed group and none in the early group (P = 0.05). Our study reveals that the complication rate, length of stay, and readmissions are more in the delayed group. Conversion rate was more in the delayed group, but the difference was not significant. We conclude that early surgical intervention is beneficial in acute appendicitis.