A novel hybridoma antibody (PASE/4LJ) to human prostatic acid phosphatase suitable for immunohistochemistry

A murine monoclonal antibody PASE/4LJ to prostatic acid phosphatase (PAP) was used to immunostain a wide variety of sections of benign and malignant tissues (654 blocks). Non-neoplastic adult and fetal prostatic glands, primary and metastatic prostatic carcinomas, and scattered cells in prostatic and penile urethra were positive. Rat, dog and rabbit prostates were negative. Nine of 400 tumours of non-prostatic origin showed some positivity: 6/36 carcinoids, 1/9 islet cell tumours, 1/55 ovarian adenocarcinomas (serous) and one carcinosarcoma of the lung (epithelial portion). Positive staining was seen in islet cells in 4/5 specimens of normal pancreas, and in 4/9 blocks of normal pancreas surrounding a pancreatic tumour. Loops of Henle, maculae densae, and distal tubules in 10/10 fetal and 2/9 adult kidneys were also positive, with proximal tubules and collecting ducts negative. All other 159 blocks of non-neoplastic adult and fetal tissues were negative. The antibody was also affinity purified from ascitic fluid, and shown not to inhibit the enzyme activity of prostatic acid phosphatase.     

Development of HPLC plasma assays for CAM 4515 and CAM 4750, two new nonpeptide tachykinin antagonists, and application to bioavailability studies

CAM 4515 and CAM 4750 are new nonpeptide tachykinin NK₁ receptor antagonists with different lipophilicities. Two separate, simple, and sensitive HPLC methods for the quantitation of these two compounds in plasma and the evaluation of their oral bioavailability in rats were developed and validated. Extraction of CAM 4515 from plasma involved protein precipitation with acetonitrile, while that for CAM 4750 involved a one-step liquid-liquid extraction with methylene chloride. The analytes in extracts were chromatographed on a C18 column using two different separation buffers, 47% 0.02 M sodium citrate (pH 3.5)-53% acetonitrile for CAM 4515 and 59% 0.02 M potassium phosphate dibasic (pH 7.0)-41% acetonitrile for CAM 4750, and both compounds were detected by fluorescence (excitation 278 nm; emission 342 nm). Stability profiles of both drugs at −20°C or room temperature in plasma and in reconstituted buffers were good. The limit of quantitation for both drugs was 5 ng ml⁻¹ with good linearity from 5 to 1000 ng ml⁻¹ using 100–200 μl of plasma. Excellent precision (relative standard deviation < 8.3%) and accuracy (relative error ± 9.2%) were observed for both CAM 4515 and CAM 4750. Oral bioavailability studies were conducted for each compound in rats receiving a p.o. dose of 20 mg kg⁻¹ and an i.v. dose of 5 mg kg⁻¹. The absolute oral bioavailability of CAM 4750 (80%) was estimated to be 40-fold greater than that of CAM 4515 (2%). The experimental results suggest that incorporation of a pyridine group into the structural backbone may greatly improve bioavailability.     

The tarsal pillar technique for narrowing and maintenance of the interpalpebral fissure.

We describe a tarsorrhaphy technique whereby an ipsilateral upper-eyelid tarsal pillar is sutured to a corresponding lower-eyelid recipient site. This technique allows maintenance of a narrowed interpalpebral fissure indefinitely, yet is easy to reverse without incurring lid-margin damage. Additionally, the procedure can be adjusted postoperatively to either narrow or widen the initial surgical result. We report our combined surgical experience in 35 consecutive procedures using this technique to treat eyes with exposure-related keratopathy of varied etiology, including facial nerve palsies, combined facial nerve palsy and trigeminal neuropathy with an anesthetic cornea, Graves' disease, congenital craniofacial anomalies, and severe keratitis sicca syndrome. The procedure was successful in improving exposure keratopathy symptoms in all 35 cases. Complications, reflecting the authors' learning curve with this new procedure, included intermarginal pyogenic granulomas, stretching of the tarsal pillar, minor lower-eyelid-margin eversion, and tarsal pillar dehiscence.     

Finding a place for needle exchange programs

Using the concepts of stigma, NIMBY and place, this paper examines the difficulties of finding a place for needle exchange programs (NEPs). Data were drawn from semi-structured interviews with NEP staff (Ontario, Canada) that focused on operational policies and routines. An iterative, inductive analytic process was used. NEPs, their staff and clients are not always welcome additions to organizations or communities because of concerns about the ‘dangerousness’ of clients and the potential contamination of communities and workplaces by stigmatized individuals and their artefacts (e.g. contaminated injection equipment). Public parks where a lot of drug ‘action’ takes place are good destinations for outreach workers but these places are contentious sites for NEP activities, particularly when residents do not perceive a need for the program and/or want to redefine their neighbourhoods. Issues of ‘place’ are further complicated when service delivery is mobile. Finding a place within organizations is difficult for NEPs because of concerns about the diversion of limited financial and spatial resources to ‘non-core’ activities and ‘undesirable’ clients. Workers respond to these challenges by contesting the social and spatial boundaries of who is an acceptable client or neighbour and refuting the perceived ‘differentness’ of injection drug users. Implementation of an unpopular service involves a delicate balancing act of interests, understanding of the dynamics of particular communities and a willingness to reinvent and redefine programs. The sociospatial stigmatization of injection drug use has had a negative impact on NEPs, and perhaps limits HIV prevention efforts.     

Myeloablative 131I-tositumomab radioimmunotherapy in treating non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: comparison of dosimetry based on whole-body retention and dose to critical organ receiving the highest dose.

Myeloablative radioimmunotherapy using (131)I-tositumomab (anti-CD20) monoclonal antibodies is an effective therapy for B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The amount of radioactivity for radioimmunotherapy may be determined by several methods, including those based on whole-body retention and on dose to a limiting normal organ. The goal of each approach is to deliver maximal myeloablative amounts of radioactivity within the tolerance of critical normal organs. METHODS: Records of 100 consecutive patients who underwent biodistribution and dosimetry evaluation after tracer infusion of (131)I-tositumomab before radioimmunotherapy were reviewed. We assessed organ and tissue activities over time by serial gamma-camera imaging to calculate radiation-absorbed doses. Organ volumes were determined from CT scans for organ-specific dosimetry. These dose estimates helped us to determine therapy on the basis of projected dose to the critical normal organ receiving a maximum tolerable radiation dose. We compared organ-specific dosimetry for treatment planning with the whole-body dose-assessment method by retrospectively analyzing the differences in projected organ-absorbed doses and their ratios. RESULTS: Mean organ doses per unit of administered activity (mGy/MBq) estimated by both methods were 0.33 for liver and 0.33 for lungs by the whole-body method and 1.52 for liver and 1.74 for lungs by the organ-specific method (P=0.0001). The median differences between methods were 0.92 mGy/MBq (range, 0.36-2.2 mGy/MBq) for lungs, 0.82 mGy/MBq (range, 0.28-1.67 mGy/MBq) for liver, and -0.01 mGy/MBq (range, -0.18-0.16 mGy/MBq) for whole body. The median ratios of the treatment activities based on limiting normal-organ dose were 5.12 (range, 2.33-10.01) for lungs, 4.14 (range, 2.16-6.67) for liver, and 0.94 (range, 0.79-1.22) for whole body. We found substantial differences between the dose estimated by the 2 methods for liver and lungs (P=0.0001). CONCLUSION: Dosimetry based on whole-body retention will underestimate the organ doses, and a preferable approach is to evaluate organ-specific doses by accounting for actual radionuclide biodistribution. Myeloablative treatments based on the latter approach allow administration of the maximum amount of radioactivity while minimizing toxicity.