We describe herein a case report of a patient affected by pulmonary asbestosis who developed a non-Hodgkin lymphoma originating in the pleura. The case is unusual for the uncommon site and because the chronic antigenic stimulation by asbestos bodies may have locally promoted an immunologic derangement.

No abstract

14596 Background: FOLFOX is usually employed as first line treatment of MCC. Some patients (pts), for both clinical reasons and poor compliance, are not eligible for CVD insertion. At the moment, it is not clear if FUFOX (with 5-FU bolus) is less active than FOLFOX (with 5-FU infusion). We evaluated the outcome of MCC pts treated, as first line, with FUFOX. Primary end-point is efficacy. Secondary endpoints are time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS). Toxicity is also reported. Materials and Methods: We analysed all consecutive MCC patients who referred to our centre, without CVD, treated with the Hochster regimen: Oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 days 1, 15; Leucovorin 20 mg/m2 and 5-FU 500 mg/m2 bolus days 1, 8, 15 - every 28 days. Response rate was evaluated with RECIST criteria. TTP and OS were analysed with Kaplan-Meier methods. Results: From July 2003 to October 2006 we treated 25 MCC pts. Main characteristics were: median age 71 years (range 46–79), 12 males, 13 females; PS 0–1; metastatic sites: liver 15 pts; lung 6; abdominal 10. 2 pts are early. A total of 128 courses were administered (5,4 median courses/pt, range 3–9). 5/23 pts (21.7% 90%CI: 9.0%-40.4%) had a PR and 2 achieved a secondary complete surgery. 15/23 pts (65.2%: 90%CI: 46.0%-81.4%) had a SD and 3 pts (13.0%: 90%CI: 3.7%- 30.4%) had a PD. At the moment of analysis 14 pts are still alive with a median follow up of 25 months; the median time to progression is 7.2 months. This combination was well tolerated with no grade 3–4 toxicities observed. G1-G2 peripheral neurotoxicity is reported in 15/25 pts (60%). Other common toxicities are: G1–2 haematological in 10 pts (40%); G1–2 gastrointestinal in 7 pts (28%); asthenia 5 pts (20%). Conclusions: We observed a low response rate, but high number of stable disease. Toxicity was acceptable. Although this is a not controlled study, this regimen seems to be less effective than infusional regimens but, due to the high control rate of disease (86.9%) we can consider it an alternative choice for patients that refuse or cannot receive continuous infusion. No significant financial relationships to disclose.