The Relationship Between Serum Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Level and the Decision to Escalate Treatment of Sarcoidosis.

PURPOSE: We performed a retrospective analysis of a sarcoidosis cohort who had sACE obtained at their initial clinic visit, but the treating physician was blinded to the results. We examined the relationship between sACE and the treating physician's decision to escalate sarcoidosis treatment. METHODS: Treatment was considered escalated if the prednisone dose was increased or if the prednisone dose was not changed but an additional anti-sarcoidosis drug was added or the dose was increased. RESULTS: 561 sarcoidosis patients were analyzed. The most common target organ was the lung (84%). Using a cut-off of > 82 units/L for an elevated sACE, 31/82 (38%) with an elevated sACE had treatment escalation whereas 91/497 (18%) had treatment escalation with a normal sACE (p < 0.0001). For the need of treatment escalation, a sACE (cut-off of > 82) had sensitivity 0.25, specificity 0.89, positive predictive value 0.38, negative predictive value 0.81. These results were not appreciably different using other sACE cut-off values such as 70, 80, 90, or 100. A multivariable logistic regression model that included demographics, the target organ, spirometry results estimated that sACE level and lower FVC were significantly associated with the likelihood of treatment escalation. These findings held when sACE > 82 replaced sACE level in the multivariable logistic regression model. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was a strong correlation between sACE at the initial sarcoidosis clinic visit and subsequent treatment escalation of sarcoidosis, the predictive power was such that sACE is not adequately reliable to be used in isolation to make this determination.

Discordant Diagnostic Terminology and Pathologic Grading of Primary Appendiceal Mucinous Neoplasms Reviewed at a High-Volume Center.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic terminology and grading of primary appendiceal mucinous neoplasms lacks uniformity. We sought to identify discordance in pathologic reporting by reviewing pathology slides for cases referred to our institution. METHODS: Using guidelines from Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International (PSOGI) and American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition (AJCC8), we compared diagnostic terminology/grading of primary appendiceal mucinous neoplasms (n = 115) between pathology reports from referring institutions and review of slides by pathologists at our high-volume institution. RESULTS: There was discordance in pathologic terminology and grading of primary appendiceal mucinous neoplasms between referring institutions and our institution in 28% and 50% of patients, respectively. In particular, 24% of patients referred with mucinous adenocarcinoma (MACA) had LAMN on our review, and a higher grade MACA was found in 48% of patients referred with low-grade (G1) MACA and 16% of patients referred with high-grade (G2) MACA following our review. Discordance in tumor grade between primary and metastatic disease was seen in 19% of cases based on referred primary tumor grading compared with only 4% following our review. Systemic chemotherapy was unnecessarily administered to four cases of LAMN (6%) and inappropriately not administered to four cases of MACA (6%) before referral due to inaccurate diagnosis/grading by referring institutions. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant discordance in diagnostic terminology/grading of primary appendiceal mucinous neoplasms following review of referred cases. Inaccurate pathologic assessment was associated with overtreatment or undertreatment with chemotherapy. These data highlight the need for pathologic review of such rare cases at high-volume centers.