Desmoid fibromatosis is a rare but locally aggressive tumor comprised of myofibroblasts. Desmoids do not have the ability to metastasize but can cause significant morbidity and mortality by local invasion. These tumors may occur throughout the body, but are commonly found on the abdominal wall and within the intestinal mesentery. Desmoids in these areas may cause unique clinical problems for physicians and patients. Mutations in either the β-catenin or the APC genes are usually the cause for the development of these tumors with the former comprising the sporadic development of tumors and the latter being associated with familial adenomatous polyposis syndrome. Surgical resection with histologically negative margins has been the cornerstone of therapy for this disease, but this paradigm has begun to shift. It is now common to accept a microscopically positive margin after resection as recurrence rates may not be significantly affected. An even more radical evolution in management has been the recent movement towards “watchful waiting” when new desmoids are diagnosed. As the natural history of desmoids has become better understood, it is evident that some tumors will not grow and may even spontaneously regress sparing patients the morbidity of more aggressive therapy. Other modalities of treatment for desmoids include radiation and systemic therapy which both can be used adjuvantly or as definitive therapy and have shown durable response rates as single therapy regimens. The decision to use radiation and/or systemic therapies is often based on tumor biology, tumor location, surgical morbidity, and patient preference. Systemic therapy options have increased to include hormonal therapies, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and chemotherapy, as well as targeted therapies. Unfortunately, the rarity of this disease has resulted in a scarcity of randomized trials to evaluate any of these therapies emphasizing the need for this disease to be treated at high volume multidisciplinary institutions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40487-016-0017-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Now is an exciting era of development in immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors and their effect on the treatment of NPC. While the general prognosis of R/M disease is poor, immunotherapy offers some promise in a malignancy associated with EBV and characterized by a peritumoural immune infiltrate. Our study aims to review past and on‐going clinical trials of monoclonal antibody therapies against the checkpoint inhibitors (e.g. PD1 and CTLA‐4), in R/M NPC. All randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials involving immune checkpoint inhibitor interventions for treatment of NPC were included in the study. We utilized a validated “risk of bias” tool to assess study quality. Four separate Phase I–II trials report the potential of PD1 inhibitor treatment for patients with NPC. Within the observed groups, camrelizumab combined with chemotherapy achieved an objective response in 91% of patients as first‐line treatment for metastatic NPC (PFS 68% at 1‐year) but this was associated with a high rate of grade >3 adverse events (87%; CTCAE version 4.03). The remaining three studies focused on recurrent NPC disease in patients who had received at least one line of prior chemotherapy. Within this group, camrelizumab monotherapy achieved an objective response in 34% of patients (PFS 27% at 1‐year; range across all three studies 20.5–34%). No NPC trial has yet reported on specific outcomes for non‐PD1 checkpoint inhibitors but 11 on‐going studies include alternative targets (e.g. PD‐L1/CTLA‐4) as combination or monotherapy treatments. In considering checkpoint immunotherapies for NPC, initial results show promise for anti‐PD1 interventions. Further phase I–III trials are in progress to clarify clinical outcomes, fully determine safety profiles, and optimize drug combinations and administration schedules.

Case series description Eight invasive tracheal tumors were diagnosed between the years 1989 and 2014 at the University of Tennessee Veterinary Medical Center. Cats were excluded (n = 9/17) from this report if they did not have a definitive cytologic or histopathologic diagnosis, or if they had extraluminal tracheal masses without intraluminal invasion. Data collection included signalment, presenting complaint, physical examination findings, treatment, feline immunodeficiency virus/feline leukemia virus status, diagnostic results and outcomes. Descriptive analysis alone was performed owing to small sample size and inconsistent records, which precluded statistical analysis.

No abstract