Evidence for dual modulation of pepsinogen secretion using isoproterenol, carbachol, CCK-8, forskolin, 8 bromo-cAMP, and A23187 probes

The cellular mechanisms by which pepsinogen (PNG) secretion is controlled are not understood. The aim of this study was to explore whether modulation of PNG secretion is mediated by cAMP or calcium-calmodulin (C-C). PNG secretion in isolated rabbit gastric fundic glands (IGG) was tested, using agents believed to act via cAMP or C-C. IGG were stimulated for 30 minutes with histamine (H) 10(-5) M, isoproterenol (I) 10(-5) M, carbachol (C) 10(-5) M, cholecystokinin-octapeptide (CCK-8) 10(-7) M, forskolin (F) 10(-5) M, 8 bromo-cAMP (8B) 10(-3) M, and A23187 (A) 10(-6) M. PNG levels were determined by spectrophotometric assay of hemoglobin digestion products. PNG amounts secreted were (mean per cent above basal levels of total IGG PNG units +/- SEM): H, -0.02 +/- 0.30%; I, 3.5 +/- 0.9%; C, 5.1 +/- 2.2%; CCK-8, 5.3 +/- 1.5%; F, 10.6 +/- 3.8%; 8B, 13.8 +/- 4.5%; A, 2.1 +/- 1.1%. All secretagogues except H stimulated PNG release significantly above basal levels (p less than 0.05). A primary histaminergic mechanism for pepsinogen secretion is unlikely. Since two other adenylate cyclase activators, isoproterenol and forskolin and the 3':5'-cyclic adenosine monophosphate analog 8-bromo cAMP stimulated pepsinogen secretion, cAMP-dependence is probable. Since carbachol, CCK-8, and A23187, which are believed to act via calcium-calmodulin, also stimulated pepsinogen secretion, this system, too, presumably plays a substantial role. Thus the data support a dual 3':5'-cyclic adenosine monophosphate/calcium-calmodulin modulation of pepsinogen secretion.     

Retrospective review of pemetrexed with or without platinum in malignant mesothelioma: The Australian 'Special Access Scheme' experience

Background: Pemetrexed and cisplatin have recently been shown to significantly improve survival compared with cisplatin alone. However, there are only limited data reflecting teaching hospital experience outside a clinical trial. Pemetrexed has only been available in Australia on a restricted basis since 2002. We reviewed our experience of patients treated on the Australian ‘Special Access Scheme’ at three major thoracic oncology units. Methods: Charts were reviewed for all patients enrolled on the scheme. Data was extracted on age, World Health Organization (WHO) performance status, histology, prior therapy, time from diagnosis to starting pemetrexed, chemotherapy (pemetrexed alone or with a platinum), cycle number, response rate, actuarial progression‐free and overall survival. Doses were cisplatin 75 mg/m² or carboplatin AUC = 5 and pemetrexed 500 mg/m² every 21 days. Results: 52 patients (32 male and 20 female) were reviewed. Median age was 58 years and 88% were WHO 0–1. Histology included 54% epithelial, 17% biphasic (epithelial and sarcomatoid) and 21% undefined. The median time from diagnosis to administration of pemetrexed was 145 days. Sixty‐five percent had minimal surgical intervention with video assisted thoracoscopy, pleurodesis and biopsy, while 19% had received prior palliative radiation. Seventy‐one percent were chemotherapy naïve, the remaining 29% having received previous platinum and/or gemcitabine regimens. Twenty‐three percent had pemetrexed alone, 35% in combination with carboplatin and 42% with cisplatin. The median number of cycles was 4 (range 1–13). The response rate was 33%. No toxicity was observed in 20% grade 3–4 toxicity in 10% (majority nausea/vomiting). The median progression‐free and overall survival times from starting pemetrexed were 184 days and 298 days, respectively. Conclusions: Pemetrexed‐based regimens are safe and effective in a community setting in malignant mesothelioma.