Search Results (2)

We report on a 66-year-old man who presented with a right axillary lymphadenopathy approximately 10 days after receiving the third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. The lymphadenopathy gradually enlarged, and physical examination and ultrasound (US) revealed one right axillary 6.99 cm and one right supraclavicular 2.36 cm lymphadenopathy. Histologic examination of the right axillary nodule revealed anaplastic large-cell lymphoma that was ALK negative and CD30 positive. A total body computerized tomography (CT) scan, positron emission tomography (PET) and bone-marrow biopsy showed a stage-II non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The patient was treated with chemotherapy and a scheme of Brentuximab Vedotin, Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin and Prednisone (BV-CHP) for six cycles and is now well and in complete remission. The revision of the literature revealed eight additional cases of NHL developed shortly after COVID-vaccination. There were four cases of diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (one in a patient who was a heart transplant recipient and developed an Epstein–Bar-virus-positive DLBCL), one case of extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma, one patient with subcutaneous panniculitis-like T-cell lymphoma, one case of marginal zone B-cell lymphoma and one primary cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (PC-ALCL). In five cases, the lymphoma developed after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination, including one case after ChAdOx1 nCOV-19, one case after the adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vaccine and one after mRNA-1273/Spikevax (ModernaTX). We are aware that the link between COVID-19 vaccination and lymphoma most likely is a chance phenomenon, and that COVID-19 vaccines represent very efficient products for many people around the world. However, we believe that clinical events, even if only temporally associated with novel treatments or novel vaccines, should be reported for the benefit of the patients and the scientific community. Full article

Introduction: BRAF mutation involved 2–4% of lung adenocarcinoma. Differences in clinicopathologic features and patient outcome exist between V600E and non-V600E BRAF mutated NSCLC. Thus, we sought to assess the frequency and clinical relevance of BRAF mutations in a real-life population of advanced-NSCLC, investigating the potential prognostic significance of distinct genetic alterations. Materials and Methods: The present multicenter Italian retrospective study involved advanced BRAF mutant NSCLC. Complete clinicopathologic data were evaluated for BRAF V600E and non-V600E patients. Results: A total of 44 BRAF^mut NSCLC patients were included (V600E, n = 23; non-V600E, n = 21). No significant differences in survival outcome and treatment response were documented, according to V600E vs. non-V600E mutations, although a trend towards prolonged PFS was observed in the V600E subgroup (median PFS = 11.3 vs. 6.0 months in non-V600E). In the overall population, ECOG PS and age significantly impacted on OS, while bone lesions were associated with shorter PFS. Compared to immunotherapy, first-line chemotherapy was associated with longer OS in the overall population, and especially in the BRAF V600E subtype. Conclusions: Here, we report on real-life data from a retrospective cohort of advanced-NSCLC harboring BRAF alterations. Our study offers relevant clues on survival outcome, therapeutic response, and clinicopathologic correlations of BRAF-mutant NSCLC. Full article