Treatment of lymphangioleiomyomatosis

Daniel M. Goodenberger; Sandeep Dhand; Arn H. Eliasson; Yancy Y. Phillips; Michael F. Tenholder; Thomas Murphy Goodwin; Johannes Zahner; Mathias M. Borst; Heinrich Worth; Thomas A. Raffin; James R. Taylor; Jay Ryu; Thomas V. Colby

doi:10.1056/NEJM199107043250115

Treatment of lymphangioleiomyomatosis

Daniel M. Goodenberger, Sandeep Dhand, Arn H. Eliasson, Yancy Y. Phillips, Michael F. Tenholder, Thomas Murphy Goodwin, Johannes Zahner, Mathias M. Borst, Heinrich Worth, Thomas A. Raffin, James R. Taylor, Jay Ryu, Thomas V. Colby

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter › peer-review

3 Scopus citations

Abstract

To the Editor: The article on lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM) by Taylor et al. (Nov. 1 issue)* was a very useful addition to the limited literature on the disease. I take issue with one of their recommendations, however. Despite their own finding that oophorectomy is not associated with an observable clinical benefit, they continue to recommend it as second-line therapy because studies to date cannot exclude a possible benefit. Perhaps the following hypothetical encounter with a patient will illustrate my point. “Mr. Jones, your open-lung biopsy showed a form of interstitial lung disease about which we know very little. The natural history.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	63-64
Number of pages	2
Journal	New England Journal of Medicine
Volume	325
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199107043250115
State	Published - Jul 4 1991

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Medicine(all)

Access to Document

10.1056/NEJM199107043250115

Cite this

@article{bb6348a555614057be24e956cb0872b7,

title = "Treatment of lymphangioleiomyomatosis",

abstract = "To the Editor: The article on lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM) by Taylor et al. (Nov. 1 issue)* was a very useful addition to the limited literature on the disease. I take issue with one of their recommendations, however. Despite their own finding that oophorectomy is not associated with an observable clinical benefit, they continue to recommend it as second-line therapy because studies to date cannot exclude a possible benefit. Perhaps the following hypothetical encounter with a patient will illustrate my point. “Mr. Jones, your open-lung biopsy showed a form of interstitial lung disease about which we know very little. The natural history.",

author = "Goodenberger, {Daniel M.} and Sandeep Dhand and Eliasson, {Arn H.} and Phillips, {Yancy Y.} and Tenholder, {Michael F.} and Goodwin, {Thomas Murphy} and Johannes Zahner and Borst, {Mathias M.} and Heinrich Worth and Raffin, {Thomas A.} and Taylor, {James R.} and Jay Ryu and Colby, {Thomas V.}",

year = "1991",

month = jul,

day = "4",

doi = "10.1056/NEJM199107043250115",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "325",

pages = "63--64",

journal = "New England Journal of Medicine",

issn = "0028-4793",

publisher = "Massachussetts Medical Society",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Treatment of lymphangioleiomyomatosis

AU - Goodenberger, Daniel M.

AU - Dhand, Sandeep

AU - Eliasson, Arn H.

AU - Phillips, Yancy Y.

AU - Tenholder, Michael F.

AU - Goodwin, Thomas Murphy

AU - Zahner, Johannes

AU - Borst, Mathias M.

AU - Worth, Heinrich

AU - Raffin, Thomas A.

AU - Taylor, James R.

AU - Ryu, Jay

AU - Colby, Thomas V.

PY - 1991/7/4

Y1 - 1991/7/4

N2 - To the Editor: The article on lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM) by Taylor et al. (Nov. 1 issue)* was a very useful addition to the limited literature on the disease. I take issue with one of their recommendations, however. Despite their own finding that oophorectomy is not associated with an observable clinical benefit, they continue to recommend it as second-line therapy because studies to date cannot exclude a possible benefit. Perhaps the following hypothetical encounter with a patient will illustrate my point. “Mr. Jones, your open-lung biopsy showed a form of interstitial lung disease about which we know very little. The natural history.

AB - To the Editor: The article on lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM) by Taylor et al. (Nov. 1 issue)* was a very useful addition to the limited literature on the disease. I take issue with one of their recommendations, however. Despite their own finding that oophorectomy is not associated with an observable clinical benefit, they continue to recommend it as second-line therapy because studies to date cannot exclude a possible benefit. Perhaps the following hypothetical encounter with a patient will illustrate my point. “Mr. Jones, your open-lung biopsy showed a form of interstitial lung disease about which we know very little. The natural history.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025875452&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025875452&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1056/NEJM199107043250115

DO - 10.1056/NEJM199107043250115

M3 - Letter

C2 - 2046715

AN - SCOPUS:0025875452

SN - 0028-4793

VL - 325

SP - 63

EP - 64

JO - New England Journal of Medicine

JF - New England Journal of Medicine

IS - 1

ER -

Treatment of lymphangioleiomyomatosis

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this