MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2013230705 · doi:10.1111/bjh.12248

Multiple osteochondromas following irradiation‐containing conditioning in severe combined immunodeficiency

2013· letter· en· W2013230705 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Eyal Grunebaum, Alan Daneman, Luis Murguía-Favela, David Manson, Vy Hong-Diep Kim, Chaim M. Roifman, Michael F. Grunebaum

Notice bibliographique

RevueBritish Journal of Haematology · 2013
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBone Tumor Diagnosis and Treatments
Établissements canadiensSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineImmune dysregulationTotal body irradiationSevere combined immunodeficiencyImmunodeficiencyWiskott–Aldrich syndromePopulationFailure to thriveBone marrowPathologyImmunologyInternal medicineImmune systemChemotherapyCyclophosphamide

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Osteochondroma (exostosis) is identified in 1–3% of the population as a slow-growing solitary cartilage-capped bony protuberance, typically arising from long bone diametaphysis (Kitsoulis et al, 2008). Multiple osteochondromas are found in some families as a hereditary autosomal dominant condition. Irradiation for malignancies or total body irradiation (TBI) prior to bone marrow transplantation (BMT) are associated with neurological dysfunction, cataracts, growth and dental abnormalities, pulmonary disease, hypothyroidism, gonadal dysfunction and secondary malignancies or benign tumours, including osteochondromas (Faraci et al, 2005; Shido et al, 2012). Severe combined immune deficiency (SCID) is a heterogeneous group of inherited profound T lineage defects resulting in increased susceptibility to infections or immune dysregulation. SCID often leads to death in infancy unless treated by allogeneic BMT. Various conditioning regimens, with or without TBI have been given to patients with SCID to facilitate donor engraftment (Filipovich et al, 1992; Dror et al, 1993; Grunebaum et al, 2006). Recently, the European Blood and Marrow Transplantation group also suggested TBI for reduced intensity transplantations (Bacigalupo, 2004). There has been a single report of osteochondromas developing in four SCID patients, which lacked detailed radiological and long-term outcome descriptions (Chou et al, 1996), hence it is not known whether SCID patients are also prone to the development of osteochondromas. Here we describe two additional SCID patients who developed multiple osteochondromas after TBI conditioning. Patient 1 presented with exfoliative dermatitis, lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, failure to thrive and Pneumocystis Jiroveci pneumonia. He was diagnosed with SCID and Omenn syndrome. There were no mutations in genes known to cause SCID associated with increased irradiation sensitivity. The patient received BMT at 13 months of age following busulfan and cyclophosphamide conditioning. He required a second BMT 3 months later, which was accomplished with stored bone marrow from the original donor following cyclophosphamide and TBI (200 cGy × 2/d for 3 consecutive d). A skeletal survey, performed 9 years after BMT for short stature (<3rd percentile), revealed multiple bony outgrowths of the right iliac bone, proximal and distal femurs, fibula (not shown), proximal metaphysis of the right humerus (Fig 1A) and distal metaphysis of the radius (Fig 1B). There were also irregularities and linear sclerosis of the tibial, metatarsal, radial and ulnar metaphyses. A repeat skeletal survey 12 years after BMT showed continued growth of the bony lesions as well as a new osteochondroma at the left iliac crest (Fig 1C). Patient 2 presented with progressive respiratory difficulties, oral thrush, failure to thrive and Pneumocystis Jiroveci pneumonia. He was diagnosed at 8 months of age as suffering from SCID due to an IL2RG defect. Four months later, the patient received BMT following busulfan and cyclophosphamide conditioning. Because of engraftment failure the patient received a second BMT at 19 months of age with stored bone marrow from the original donor following cyclophosphamide and TBI conditioning. A right distal ulnar bone growth was noticed 7 years after the second BMT, which caused significant parental and patient anxiety. Radiograph demonstrated an osteochondroma arising from the anteromedial aspect of the distal right ulnar diametaphysis (Fig 2A), which was not present in a radiograph of the ulna performed at 2 years of age. There was also shortening of the ulna with broadening and down-sloping of the distal articular surface as well as enlargement of the distal epiphysis. Computerised tomography scan of the chest performed 1 year later revealed another osteochondroma at the superior-medial aspect of the scapula (Fig 2B). A year later, radiographs identified additional small osteochondromas at the distal metaphysis of the 2nd metacarpal as well as the 2nd and 3rd proximal phalanges of the right hand (not shown). The patient and family continue to be concerned about the aesthetic implications of the bone growths. Both patients are clinically well, have complete donor engraftment and normal immune function. Osteochondromas were not detected in other patient's family members, nor were they found in additional 26 patients with SCID who received BMT following similar busulphan and cyclophosphamide conditioning but without TBI at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario (Fisher's exact test; P = 0·003). In contrast to previous reports of osteochondromas in patients who typically had multiple courses of chemo- and radio- therapy (Faraci et al, 2009; Shido et al, 2012), the patients described here received 400 mg/kg cyclophosphamide and 16 mg/kg busulfan. Also, while the former patients often suffered from abnormalities in genes responsible for uncontrolled cell growth, this is not the case in our patients. Moreover, our patients had no other known factors predisposing for bone overgrowth, such as familial osteochondromas or mutations in genes associated with irradiation sensitivity. Taken together, our findings implicate TBI as a major cause for osteochondromas development in SCID patients, possibly because of damage to the periosteal bone cuff that surrounds the epiphyseal plate during early life (Bovée et al, 2010). The optimal skeletal surveillance of children who receive TBI at early age for SCID or other indications is not known. The osteochondromas in our patients were first identified 7 and 9 years after TBI and new tumours were detected during subsequent years. Our patients were managed conservatively with thorough evaluations for pain, neurovascular damage and articular malfunction as well as a repeat of skeletal survey in one patient. Yet, there are significant aesthetic and potential functional implications arising from osteochondromas. Moreover, malignant transformations have been reported in 1–5% of osteochondromas (Bovée et al, 2010). Thus, studies with larger number and longer follow-up of patients SCID and possibly other non-malignant conditions who receive TBI are required to determine the role of preemptive skeletal imaging and/or lesion biopsies. In the meantime it is important to counsel families of infants receiving TBI prior to BMT regarding the potential development of multiple osteochondromas. In conclusion, our study shows that immature bones of SCID patients who receive TBI prior to BMT are prone to the development of osteochondromas. Our observation also suggests the need to revise TBI-containing protocols for patients with SCID and possibly other infants with malignant and non-malignant conditions. This work was supported in part by the Jeffrey Modell Foundation, by the Canadian Centre for Primary Immunodeficiency, and by the Donald and Audrey Campbell Chair of Immunology (CMR). EG, CMR and MG made substantial contributions to conception and design of the study. EG, CMR, AD, DM, VHDK, LMF and MG performed the study. EG, CMR and MG analysed the data. All authors contributed to writing and reviewing the manuscript.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Étude de cas · Signal consensuel: Étude de cas
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,006

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,246
Écart entre enseignants0,233 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeÉtude de cas
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2013
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBritish Journal of HaematologyMême sujetBone Tumor Diagnosis and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207