Ocular adnexal (orbital) solitary fibrous tumor: nuclear STAT6 expression and literature review.

PURPOSE: To report the clinico-pathological features of solitary fibrous tumor occurring in the ocular adnexa (OA) in a single center. To assess the presence of NAB2-STAT6 genes fusion in OA solitary fibrous tumor detected by nuclear overexpression of STAT6. METHODS: Retrospective study including orbital and OA solitary fibrous tumors treated between 2006 and 2014 in our center. The clinical, radiological, and histopathological findings were evaluated. STAT6 expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Five patients were identified and presented with a chronic OA mass. The tumors were radiologically well delimited, highly vascularized and without bone erosion. All the patients underwent complete surgical excision. Pathological examination confirmed solitary fibrous tumor in all cases. All tumors demonstrated a nuclear expression of STAT6. There were no recurrences, with a mean follow-up of 5 years after surgery. Our review demonstrated that proptosis was the most common presentation occurring in 60 % of the cases. In the ocular adnexa, adverse histological criteria were found in 19.7 % of the tumors, and recurrences were observed in 48 % of these cases. Thirty-six percent of patients presented at least one local recurrence, and metastastic spread was found in 2.4 % of the cases. Tumor-related death was described in two cases. CONCLUSION: Ocular adnexal SFT are rare and usually present as a chronic orbital mass with proptosis. In the OA, solitary fibrous tumor demonstrates STAT6 nuclear expression, as documented in other locations. Recurrences are unusual and metastasis exceptional. Initial surgical resection should be complete in order to avoid recurrence.

Management of severe blunt hepatic injury in the era of computed tomography and transarterial embolization: A systematic review and critical appraisal of the literature.

BACKGROUND: During the last decade, the management of blunt hepatic injury has considerably changed. Three options are available as follows: nonoperative management (NOM), transarterial embolization (TAE), and surgery. We aimed to evaluate in a systematic review the current practice and outcomes in the management of Grade III to V blunt hepatic injury. METHOD: The MEDLINE database was searched using PubMed to identify English-language citations published after 2000 using the key words blunt, hepatic injury, severe, and grade III to V in different combinations. Liver injury was graded according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma classification on computed tomography (CT). Primary outcome analyzed was success rate in intention to treat. Critical appraisal of the literature was performed using the validated National Institute for Health and Care Excellence "Quality Assessment for Case Series" system. RESULTS: Twelve articles were selected for critical appraisal (n = 4,946 patients). The median quality score of articles was 4 of 8 (range, 2-6). Overall, the median Injury Severity Score (ISS) at admission was 26 (range, 0.6-75). A median of 66% (range, 0-100%) of patients was managed with NOM, with a success rate of 94% (range, 86-100%). TAE was used in only 3% of cases (range, 0-72%) owing to contrast extravasation on CT with a success rate of 93% (range, 81-100%); however, 9% to 30% of patients required a laparotomy. Thirty-one percent (range, 17-100%) of patients were managed with surgery owing to hemodynamic instability in most cases, with 12% to 28% requiring secondary TAE to control recurrent hepatic bleeding. Mortality was 5% (range, 0-8%) after NOM and 51% (range, 30-68%) after surgery. CONCLUSION: NOM of Grade III to V blunt hepatic injury is the first treatment option to manage hemodynamically stable patients. TAE and surgery are considered in a highly selective group of patients with contrast extravasation on CT or shock at admission, respectively. Additional standardization of the reports is necessary to allow accurate comparisons of the various management strategies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, level IV.