Citations

AbstractPotentially curative surgery for cancer of the rectum and rectosigmoid is associated with frequent recurrence of the tumor in the pelvis. Data suggest that perioperative radiation therapy can considerably reduce the local failure rate. Pathological risk factors for local recurrence are described. Preoperative and postoperative adjuvant radiation therapy both appear to be effective. Postoperative radiation allows more accurate case selection based on operative findings and pathological staging. Patients with transmural tumor penetration and/or lymph node metastases appear to benefit from adjuvant radiation.

Abstract The present study examines the thesis that pulsatile GH secretion is controlled simultaneously by three principal signals; viz., GHRH, GH-releasing peptide (GHRP, ghrelin), and somatostatin (SS). According to this ensemble notion, no single regulatory peptide acts alone or can be interpreted in isolation. Therefore, to investigate gender-specific control of pulsatile GH secretion, we designed dual-effector stimulation paradigms in eight young men and six women as follows: 1) l-arginine/GHRH (to clamp low SS and high GHRH input); 2) l-arginine/GHRP-2 (to clamp low SS and high GHRP drive); 3) GHRH/GHRP-2 (to clamp high GHRH and high GHRP feedforward); vs. 4) saline (unclamped). Statistical comparisons revealed that: 1) fasting pulsatile GH secretion was 7.6-fold higher in women than men (P < 0.001); 2) l-arginine/GHRH and l-arginine/GHRP-2 evoked, respectively, 4.6- and 2.2-fold greater burst-like GH release in women than men (P < 0.001 and P = 0.015); and 3) GHRH/GHRP-2 elicited comparable GH secretion by gender. In the combined cohorts, estradiol concentrations positively predicted responses to l-arginine/GHRP-2 (r2 = 0.49, P = 0.005), whereas testosterone negatively predicted those to l-arginine/GHRH (r2 = 0.56, P = 0.002). Based upon a simplified biomathematical model of three-peptide control, the current outcomes suggest that women maintain greater GHRH potency, GHRP efficacy, and opposing SS outflow than men. This inference upholds recent clinical precedence and yields valid predictions of sex differences in self-renewable GH pulsatility.

AbstractBackground: Exposure to drugs and toxins is a major cause for patients’ visits to the emergency department (ED).Methods: Recommendations for the use of clinical laboratory tests were prepared by an expert panel of analytical toxicologists and ED physicians specializing in clinical toxicology. These recommendations were posted on the world wide web and presented in open forum at several clinical chemistry and clinical toxicology meetings.Results: A menu of important stat serum and urine toxicology tests was prepared for clinical laboratories who provide clinical toxicology services. For drugs-of-abuse intoxication, most ED physicians do not rely on results of urine drug testing for emergent management decisions. This is in part because immunoassays, although rapid, have limitations in sensitivity and specificity and chromatographic assays, which are more definitive, are more labor-intensive. Ethyl alcohol is widely tested in the ED, and breath testing is a convenient procedure. Determinations made within the ED, however, require oversight by the clinical laboratory. Testing for toxic alcohols is needed, but rapid commercial assays are not available. The laboratory must provide stat assays for acetaminophen, salicylates, co-oximetry, cholinesterase, iron, and some therapeutic drugs, such as lithium and digoxin. Exposure to other heavy metals requires laboratory support for specimen collection but not for emergent testing.Conclusions:Improvements are needed for immunoassays, particularly for amphetamines, benzodiazepines, opioids, and tricyclic antidepressants. Assays for new drugs of abuse must also be developed to meet changing abuse patterns. As no clinical laboratory can provide services to meet all needs, the National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Committee recommends establishment of regional centers for specialized toxicology testing.

Purpose Few options are available for pain relief in patients with bone metastases who fail standard treatments. We sought to determine the benefit of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in providing pain relief for patients with refractory pain secondary to metastases involving bone. Patients and Methods Thirty-one US and 12 European patients with painful osteolytic metastases involving bone were treated with image-guided RFA using a multitip needle. Treated patients had ≥ 4/10 pain and had either failed or were poor candidates for standard treatments such as radiation or opioid analgesics. Using the Brief Pain Inventory–Short Form, worst pain intensity was the primary end point, with a 2-unit drop considered clinically significant. Results Forty-three patients were treated (median follow-up, 16 weeks). Before RFA, the mean score for worst pain was 7.9 (range, 4/10 to 10/10). Four, 12, and 24 weeks following treatment, worst pain decreased to 4.5 (P < .0001), 3.0 (P < .0001), and 1.4 (P = .0005), respectively. Ninety-five percent (41 of 43 patients) experienced a decrease in pain that was considered clinically significant. Opioid usage significantly decreased at weeks 8 and 12. Adverse events were seen in 3 patients and included (1) a second-degree skin burn at the grounding pad site, (2) transient bowel and bladder incontinence following treatment of a metastasis involving the sacrum, and (3) a fracture of the acetabulum following RFA of an acetabular lesion. Conclusion RFA of painful osteolytic metastases provides significant pain relief for cancer patients who have failed standard treatments.