Does a high Mandard score really define a poor response to chemotherapy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma?

Background A high Mandard score implies a non-response to chemotherapy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma. However, some patients exhibit tumour volume reduction and a nodal response despite a high score. This study examines survival and recurrence patterns in these patients.Methods Clinicopathological factors were analysed using multivariable Cox regression assessing time to death and recurrence. Computed tomography-estimated tumour volume change was examined in a subgroup of consecutive patients.Results Five hundred and fifty-five patients were included. Median survival was 55 months (Mandard 1–3) and 21 months (Mandard 4 and 5). In the Mandard 4 and 5 group (332 patients), comparison between complete nodal responders and persistent nodal disease showed improved survival (90 vs 18 months), recurrence rates (locoregional 14.75 vs 28.74%, systemic 24.59 vs 48.42%) and circumferential resection margin positivity (22.95 vs 68.11%). Complete nodal response independently predicted improved survival (hazard ratio 0.34 (0.16–0.74). Post-chemotherapy tumour volume reduction was greater in patients with a complete nodal response (−16.3 vs −7.7 cm³, p = 0.033) with no significant difference between Mandard groups.Conclusion Patients with a complete nodal response to chemotherapy have significantly improved outcomes despite a poor Mandard score. High Mandard score does not correspond with a non-response to chemotherapy in all cases and patients with nodal downstaging may still benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.Subject terms: Oesophageal cancer, Surgical oncology     

Anti-goat antibodies as a rare cause of high gonadotropin levels during menopausal transition

Abstract

Objective: To understand the origin of extremely high gonadotropin levels in a perimenopausal woman.

Methods: A 52-year-old woman with a 2?months of amenorrhea followed spontaneous menstrual cycles recovery was referred to our outpatient clinic with elevated follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH, 483 mUI/ml), luteinizing hormone (LH, 475 mUI/ml) and prolactin (PRL, 173?ng/ml). She was known to take levosulpiride. The gonadotropin levels did not fit with the clinical features.

Results: A gonadotroph tumor was ruled out. Further analysis confirmed constantly high FSH, LH and PRL levels. The measurements were repeated using different analytical platforms with different results. After serial dilutions, nonlinearity was present suggesting an immunoassay interference. After post-polyethylene glycol recovery, hormone levels appeared in the normal range. Anti-goat antibodies were recognized in the serum of the patient.

Conclusions: This case report shows a case of falsely abnormal high gonadotropin and PRL levels in a woman during menopause transition. In the clinical practice the evaluation of gonadotropin profile is not recommended at this age, but the abnormal levels stimulated further evaluation. An interference in the assay due to anti-goat antibodies resulted in abnormally high level of FSH and LH. A strict collaboration between clinicians and the laboratory is needed, when laboratory findings do not correspond to clinical findings.