Perianal dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans: a case report.

A 67-year-old man presented with a perianal lump that had increased in size. On examination he had a 3-cm irregular, mobile, elevated, red, polypoid lump at the edge of the anus at the 8-o'clock position. Biopsy results unexpectedly revealed a spindle cell lesion extending deep into the subcutaneous tissue with occasional mitoses. The lesion was positive for CD34 and negative for epithelial markers, consistent with dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP). Magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis showed the mass extending deep into the ischiorectal space with no involvement of the external or internal anal sphincter. He underwent excision of the lesion with circumferential margins of 1 cm and formation of a skin rotation flap to achieve primary closure. Histology confirmed DFSP. Both the deep and lateral resection margins were involved. He proceeded to have a wider excision of margins, which was free of any remaining tumor. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans is a rare lesion. It most commonly occurs on the trunk; the perianal presentation in this case is unique. Surgical excision and preservation of functionality with cosmesis was an issue in this case, as DFSP is a locally aggressive tumor with a high recurrence rate.

Magnetic resonance enteroclysis compared with conventional enteroclysis and computed tomography enteroclysis: a critically appraised topic.

Recent advances in CT and MR technology, particularly the advent of multidetector CT (MDCT), the advent of rapidly changing gradients in industry standard MRI scanners, enabling ultrafast sequences, have led to an expansion in the role of cross sectional imaging in the investigation of small bowel disorders. We conducted an evidence-based review of MR enteroclysis (MRE) and how it performs in comparison to CT enteroclysis (CTE) and the gold standard of conventional enteroclysis (CE) for diagnosis of small bowel Crohn's disease and small bowel neoplasia. We used the standard 5 step evidence-based medicine method of ask, search, appraise, apply and evaluate. We found 3 relevant level 1B studies, and one level 3B study. No studies evaluating MRE in small bowel neoplasia were found. MRE does not perform as well as CE in evaluation of fine mucosal detail, but the additional extraluminal detail, and absence of ionising radiation enhances its overall performance. It was not possible to establish the relative diagnostic performances of MRE and CTE from existing literature. CTE does involve patient irradiation. For patients in whom jejunal intubation and enteroclysis is considered to evaluate the small bowel, MRE should be considered the first-line investigation, local resources and expertise permitting.