8p11 myeloproliferative syndrome (EMS) is a rare disease characterized by myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) associated with eosinophilia and T or B lymphoblastic lymphoma/leukemia. EMS is defined by molecular disruption of the FGFR1 gene at the 8p11-12 chromosome locus, and various partner genes are associated with FGFR1 gene translocation or insertion. The different partner-FGFR1 fusion genes are associated with slightly different disease phenotypes. The present patient showed T lymphoblastic lymphoma in a cervical lymph node, involvement of malignant lymphoma in the skin, and MPN bone marrow morphology with peripheral monocytosis. Chromosome analysis of the patient showed t(1;8)(q25;p11.2). To our knowledge, only 2 cases of EMS with translocation of t(1;8)(q25;p11.2) have been previously reported. Including this case, all 3 cases with EMS with t(1;8)(q25;p11.2) showed MPN bone marrow morphology and peripheral monocytosis. These findings support that t(1;8)(q25;p11.2) is associated with peripheral monocytosis in EMS patients. Of the 2 cases of EMS with t(1;8)(q25;p11.2) which were previously reported, FGFR1 rearrangement was not confirmed in 1 case. Similarly, FGFR1 rearrangement in the present case was not detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization or reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Further study is needed to identify other techniques that could be used to demonstrate FGFR1 rearrangement.

Recently, the consumption of dietary supplements has increased because of people's greater interest in health. Unfortunately, the sales of dietary supplements containing unauthorized substances such as drugs have also increased. We developed a rapid, accurate method for the simultaneous determination of antihistamines using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry with a multiple reaction monitoring mode. The limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ) of the instrument used in this method were in the ranges 0.0003-0.3 and 0.0009-0.6 µg mL −1 , respectively. The linearity of the method was > 0.99. The precision levels of the method were 0.1-9.8% (intra-day) and 0.3-9.6% (inter-day), and the levels of accuracy of the method were 82.7-115.0% (intra-day) and 84.3-113.0% (inter-day). The mean of recovery of the method was in the range of 83.9-117.9% and the RSD of the stability was less than 5.9%.

No abstract