Subject(s)
Hair Diseases/pathology , Hair Follicle/pathology , Nevus, Pigmented/pathology , Skin Neoplasms/pathology , Adult , Female , HumansSubject(s)
Antinematodal Agents/adverse effects , Leukemia, Lymphoid/drug therapy , Panniculitis/chemically induced , Protein Kinase Inhibitors/adverse effects , Protein-Tyrosine Kinases/antagonists & inhibitors , Pyrazoles/adverse effects , Pyrimidines/adverse effects , Adenine/analogs & derivatives , Adult , Agammaglobulinaemia Tyrosine Kinase , Aged , Female , Humans , Leukemia, Lymphoid/diagnosis , Leukemia, Lymphoid/enzymology , Male , Middle Aged , Panniculitis/diagnosis , Piperidines , Protein-Tyrosine Kinases/metabolism , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
IMPORTANCE: Wells syndrome (WS) (eosinophilic cellulitis) is an uncommon eosinophilic dermatitis that has been rarely described in association with, but distinct from, hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES). OBSERVATIONS: We report a case of an eosinophilic dermatosis with flame figures in association with idiopathic HES, manifested by inflammatory myocarditis, asthma, and peripheral blood eosinophilia. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The diagnoses of WS and HES, rather than being distinct findings, may represent 2 entities on a spectrum of hypereosinophilic diseases. The diagnosis of WS should be made with caution and should prompt a thorough investigation that includes a work-up for a systemic eosinophilic disorder.
Subject(s)
Cellulitis/complications , Cellulitis/pathology , Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease/epidemiology , Eosinophilia/complications , Eosinophilia/pathology , Hypereosinophilic Syndrome/complications , Hypereosinophilic Syndrome/pathology , Adult , Asthma/epidemiology , Cellulitis/physiopathology , Comorbidity , Eosinophilia/physiopathology , Female , Humans , Hypereosinophilic Syndrome/physiopathology , Substance-Related Disorders/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Adverse dermatologic reactions to tapes are a common problem in the medical field and can delay or alter patient care, but their prevalence, etiology, and management are poorly defined. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to make a distinction between true allergy and nonallergic tape reactions (NATRs) to medical tapes and to make recommendations for dermatologists in the approach to each. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the electronic medical record database at a large hospital system and a review of literature. CONCLUSIONS: Although tape allergy is reported by 0.3% of patients, true tape allergies are rare. More commonly, patients experience NATRs. True tape allergy and NATR are mechanistically distinct and can be distinguished from each other based on history. The approach to management of each is distinct.
Subject(s)
Adhesives/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Irritant/epidemiology , Surgical Tape/adverse effects , Cross-Sectional Studies , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Irritant/diagnosis , Electronic Health Records , Humans , Ohio/epidemiology , PrevalenceABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is a well-established imaging modality for a wide variety of solid malignancies. Currently, only limited data exists regarding the utility of PET/CT imaging at very extended injection-to-scan acquisition times. The current retrospective data analysis assessed the feasibility and quantification of diagnostic (18)F-FDG PET/CT oncologic imaging at extended injection-to-scan acquisition time intervals. METHODS: (18)F-FDG-avid lesions (not surgically manipulated or altered during (18)F-FDG-directed surgery, and visualized both on preoperative and postoperative (18)F-FDG PET/CT imaging) and corresponding background tissues were assessed for (18)F-FDG accumulation on same-day preoperative and postoperative (18)F-FDG PET/CT imaging. Multiple patient variables and (18)F-FDG-avid lesion variables were examined. RESULTS: For the 32 (18)F-FDG-avid lesions making up the final (18)F-FDG-avid lesion data set (from among 7 patients), the mean injection-to-scan times of the preoperative and postoperative (18)F-FDG PET/CT scans were 73 (± 3, 70-78) and 530 (± 79, 413-739) minutes, respectively (P < 0.001). The preoperative and postoperative mean (18)F-FDG-avid lesion SUV(max) values were 7.7 (± 4.0, 3.6-19.5) and 11.3 (± 6.0, 4.1-29.2), respectively (P < 0.001). The preoperative and postoperative mean background SUV(max) values were 2.3 (± 0.6, 1.0-3.2) and 2.1 (± 0.6, 1.0-3.3), respectively (P = 0.017). The preoperative and postoperative mean lesion-to-background SUV(max) ratios were 3.7 (± 2.3, 1.5-9.8) and 5.8 (± 3.6, 1.6-16.2), respectively, (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: (18)F-FDG PET/CT oncologic imaging can be successfully performed at extended injection-to-scan acquisition time intervals of up to approximately 5 half-lives for (18)F-FDG while maintaining good/adequate diagnostic image quality. The resultant increase in the (18)F-FDG-avid lesion SUV(max) values, decreased background SUV(max) values, and increased lesion-to-background SUV(max) ratios seen from preoperative to postoperative (18)F-FDG PET/CT imaging have great potential for allowing for the integrated, real-time use of (18)F-FDG PET/CT imaging in conjunction with (18)F-FDG-directed interventional radiology biopsy and ablation procedures and (18)F-FDG-directed surgical procedures, as well as have far-reaching impact on potentially re-shaping future thinking regarding the "most optimal" injection-to-scan acquisition time interval for all routine diagnostic (18)F-FDG PET/CT oncologic imaging.
