scholarly journals Clinical characteristics and treatment outcome of Candida tracheobronchitis

Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 100 (6) ◽  
pp. e24606
Author(s):  
Hyun-Il Gil ◽  
Bumhee Yang ◽  
Taebum Lee ◽  
Min Yeong Kim ◽  
Hayoung Choi ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
pp. 70-76
Author(s):  
Ngoc Si Tran ◽  
Thanh Dang ◽  
Van Dung Phan ◽  
Thanh Thai Le

Objectives: To study clinical characteristics and treatment outcome of epistaxis in head and neck trauma. Methods: A prospective descriptive study of 71 cases of epistaxis managed at Hue Center Hospital and Hue Univesity Hospital from April 2015 to June 2016. Results: Most of bleeding times were at night (59.2%). Unilateral bleeding was seen in almost 72.9% cases. Anterior nasal bleeding was noted in majority of the patients (70.4%), anterior and posterior nasal was 18.3%, posterior nasal was 11.3%. There were three stage: mild (77.5%), moderate (15.5%), severe (7%). Anterior nasal packing (70.4%) were the most common methods, Posterior nasal packing were 25.4%, Local cauterization were 1.4%, Constriction of the blood vessels were 1.4%, Embolization procedure were 1.4%. Complication rate was 8.4% include: fever (5%), pressure necrosis (1.7%), scars (1.7%). The rate of good recovery after treatment was 91.7%, partial recovery was 8.3%. The overall mean of hospital stay was 6,33 ± 5,61 days (range 1 to 36 days). Key words: Epistaxis


2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (8) ◽  
pp. 1735-1740 ◽  
Author(s):  
Le-le Zhang ◽  
Xin-xin Cao ◽  
Kai-ni Shen ◽  
Hong-xiao Han ◽  
Cong-Li Zhang ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myung Eun Song ◽  
Sung-Ae Jung ◽  
Ki-Nam Shim ◽  
Eun Mi Song ◽  
Kyoung Joo Kwon ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 3432-3432
Author(s):  
Sergio Cortelazzo ◽  
Gianluca Gaidano ◽  
Michael Mian ◽  
Annarita Conconi ◽  
Andrea Rossi ◽  
...  

Abstract We compared clinical characteristics, prognostic factors and treatment outcome of primary thyroid DLBCL (PTL) with those of other locations of primary extranodal head and neck lymphomas (PEHNL) and we further analyzed somatic hypermutation in pts with PTL. From December 1990 to June 2004, 48 PTL out of 478 PEHNL patients (pts) (10%) were enrolled in this study, including 10 males and 38 females, with a median age of 73 years (range, 34–90 years). In comparison with other locations PTL cases had more frequently advanced age (>60 yrs), female sex, bulky disease, poor ECOG-PS, elevated LDH and >1 adverse factors according to stage-modified IPI (MIPI). The commonest treatment was a short course of anthracycline-based chemotherapy (CHT) ± involved field radiotherapy (IFRT). Forty-two percent of PTL pts also underwent surgery. Clonal IGHVDJ rearrangements were analyzed in 17/48 cases. The CR rate of PTL pts (85%) was comparable to those of other locations. After a median follow-up of 41 months (range 1–154.months), 5-yr OS, EFS and DFS were 51%, 46% and 86%, respectively. The OS compared unfavourably with other locations (75%), while the disease-specific survival rate was similar in both groups (80%). Moreover, MIPI was not predictive of survival, probably due to a high mortality unrelated to disease (19% Vs 7%). Regarding treatment PTL pts seem to benefit more from surgery in combination with chemotherapy and/or IFRT than from other treatments not including partial or complete thyroid resection (p=0.04). Somatic hypermutation of IGHV genes was observed in the majority of PTL cases, suggesting that they derive from germinal center experienced B-cell, while the unmutated status in a fraction of pts indicates a different histogenetic and pathogenetic pathway. The significant clustering of S and R mutations in CDRs and FRs in a fraction of cases with high homologous CDR3 suggests that antigen stimulation may have an important role in the pathogenesis of these lymphomas. In conclusion, in spite of more adverse features at presentation PTL pts showed a favorable disease-specific survival, comparable to that of other PEHN. Biological study in PTL pts suggests different histogenetic and pathogenetic pathway. The comparison of thyroid biological profile with that of other PEHNL could help to clarify the different clinical behaviour of this uncommon malignancy.


Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 5149-5149
Author(s):  
Elena N. Parovichnikova ◽  
Vera V. Troitskaya ◽  
Andrey N. Sokolov ◽  
Larisa A. Kuzmina ◽  
Sergey Bondarenko ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) and lymphoma (T-LBL) originate from the common T-cell precursors and are formally differentiated by bone marrow blast count with less than 25% considered as T-LBL. ALL treatment protocols are successfully applied with quite similar long-term results in both entities. Dose intense chemotherapy is proposed to be the best option. RALL is conducting a prospective multicenter trial in the treatment of Ph-negative adult ALL patients based on the opposite approach - non-intensive but non-interruptive treatment (NCT01193933). T-LBL pts were included in the study.So we decided to define whether the difference in response rate and long-term results exists in T-ALL and T-LBL patients treated according to RALL-2009 protocol. Patients and Methods The therapy was unified for all Ph-negative ALL pts, but in T-cell ALL/LBL autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) after non-myeloablative BEAM conditioning was scheduled as late intensification (+3-4 mo of CR) followed by prolonged 2 years maintenance. From Jan 2009, till Jul 2016, 30 centers enrolled 107 T-ALL/LBL pts. Median age was 28 years (15-54 y), 34 f / 73 m; early T-cell (TI/II) phenotype was verified in 56 (52.3%), mature (T-IV) - in 10 (9.4%), thymic (TIII, CD1a+) ALL - in 41 pts (38.3%). T-lymphoblastic lymphoma (T-LBL= <25% b/m blasts) was diagnosed in 22 pts (20,5%). We divided the analyzed population into 3 groups: < 5% b/m blasts, with 5-24%, ≥25%. Pts' characteristics according to the b/m involvement are depicted in Table 1. Autologous HSCT was performed in 35, allogeneic-in 7 pts. The analysis was performed in July 2016. Results As it's shown in Table 1 the patients with T-LBL disregarding the % of blasts cells (<5% or 5-24%) have much less initial WBC and LDH levels, more frequent mediastinum involvement, less frequent CNS disease in comparison with T-ALL patients. There were no patients with pro-T-subtype (T1) T-LBL comparing with 42% of patients with pro-T-ALL. Mature T-subtype was slightly more frequent (4/22 vs 6/85) (p=0,1) in T-LBL. Total CR rate in 97 available for analysis patients was 87,6% (n=85), induction death was registered in 5,1% (n=5), resistance-in 7,2% (n=7). All induction deaths occurred in T-ALL patients, resistant cases were registered much more frequently (p=0,01) in T-LBL with less than 5% of blast cells than in T-ALL (3/10 vs 4/85). Only 35 of 85 (41,2%) CR pts underwent autologous HSCT due to logistics problems and refusals. Auto-HSCT was done at a median time of 6 mo from CR and pts proceeded to further maintenance. We compared 5-y disease-free survival (DFS) and probability of relapse (RP) in transplanted pts and those who survived in CR ≥ 6 months (land-mark) receiving only chemotherapy. This analysis was carried out in 2 cohorts of patients: T-LBL (<5%; 5-24%) and T-ALL (≥25%). Land-mark analysis demonstrated the essential benefit of auto-HSCT only for T-ALL patients: DFS from time of transplantation was 95% and from land-mark for chemotherapy group - 61% (p=0,005), RP-5% vs 30% (p=0,02). But in T-LBL pts there were no benefit of autologous HSCT over chemotherapy (DFS -100% vs 86%, RP-0% vs 14%, p=0,3). At 5 years overall survival (OS) for the whole T-ALL/T-LBL group constituted-66%, DFS-76%. There were no differences in OS (77% vs 66%, p=0,8) and in DFS (87% vs 74%, p=0,7) in T-LBL and T-ALL. Conclusions Our data demonstrate that non-intensive, but non-interruptive treatment approach is effective as in T-ALL so in T-LBL. T-LBL patients had no induction mortality but more frequently were reported as having resistant disease on RALL-2009 protocol. Auto-HSCT after BEAM conditioning followed by maintenance provided substantial benefit only for patients with T-ALL, but not T-LBL. Table 1 Clinical characteristics and treatment outcome in T-ALL and T-LBL patients Table 1. Clinical characteristics and treatment outcome in T-ALL and T-LBL patients Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document