Pathogenic MAGEL2 variants result in the phenotypes of Chitayat‐Hall syndrome (CHS), Schaaf‐Yang syndrome (SYS) and Prader‐Willi syndrome (PWS). We present five patients with mutations in MAGEL2, including the first patient reported with a missense variant, adding to the limited literature. Further, we performed a systematic review of the CHS and SYS literature, assess the overlap between CHS, SYS and PWS, and analyze genotype‐phenotype correlations among them. We conclude that there is neither a clinical nor etiological difference between CHS and SYS, and propose that the two syndromes simply be referred to as MAGEL2‐related disorders.

Purpose: To document a case of actinic granuloma (AG) of the conjunctiva, provide an extensive histopathologic and immunohistochemical description, review previously reported cases, and supply a differential diagnosis. Methods: Both a retrospective chart review and comprehensive literature review were performed. The distinctive histopathologic pattern of the current case was defined with histochemical and immunohistochemical stains (CD163, p63, and a Verhoeff–Van Gieson elastic stain). Clinical follow up was obtained. Results: A granulomatous process composed of CD163-positive mononuclear epithelioid cells and multinucleated giant cells was characterized by displaced extracellular actinic-related elastic fibers to the base of the lesion. Small elastic fibers were phagocytosed in epithelioid cells. Pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia of the overlying squamous epithelium was present; p63 assisted in defining the squamous proliferation and highlighted its noninvasive nature. Conjunctival AGs, according to the literature review, occur almost exclusively in young females, clinically manifest as nodular foci with painless injection over the course of weeks, and histologically featured granulomatous inflammation and elastophagocytosis. The etiology of this entity is likely multifactorial, but its genesis revolves around actinic injury. Conclusion: AGs of the conjunctiva have likely been an underreported entity in the past. The authors’ review underscores the importance of including conjunctival AGs in the differential diagnosis of painless, subacute injected masses of the perilimbal conjunctiva. While it is benign, histopathologically separating AGs from neoplasia and other mimickers such pinguecula, foreign body granulomas, allergic, or rheumatoid nodules is essential for optimal management.

Purpose: To describe the frequency, clinical features, and histologic subtypes of biopsy proven lacrimal sac lymphomas, and to compare these results to the previously published literature. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed at a single institution from 2004 to 2017. Pathology reports, operative notes, and patients’ medical charts were reviewed. Results: Of 566 lacrimal sacs submitted for routine histopathologic evaluation, 16 cases of lymphoma were identified. All were low-grade, non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphomas, biopsied at an average age of 71 years. Thirteen patients (81.25%) had a pre-existing lymphoma diagnosis; the average interval between the diagnosis of systemic or nonocular adnexal lymphoma and lacrimal sac lymphoma was 7.9 years (range 2–26 years; median 5.5 years). Three cases of primary lacrimal sac lymphoma were identified. Histopathology showed 3 cases (18.75%) of follicular lymphoma, 3 (18.75%) of extranodal marginal zone lymphoma, and 10 (62.5%) of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma. Primary cases presented with epiphora and nasolacrimal duct obstruction, while secondary cases predominantly manifested as dacryocystitis. All lacrimal sac neoplasms were locally responsive (without local recurrence) to chemotherapy, radiation, or both. Conclusions: Lacrimal sac lymphoma is uncommon but should be suspected among patients with known lymphoma who develop dacryocystitis. In this series, primary lacrimal sac lymphoma most often presented as a mass or nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma was the most commonly identified cause of secondary lacrimal sac lymphoma. Distinguishing primary from secondary lacrimal sac lymphomas is important, as the extent of disease and histopathologic subtypes differ, which may affect patient management.

No abstract