Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy with Sodium Phosphate Solution versus Polyethylene Glycol-Based Lavage: A Multicenter Trial

Background: Adequate bowel preparation is essential for accurate colonoscopy. Both oral sodium phosphate (NaP) and polyethylene glycol-based lavage (PEG-ELS) are used predominantly as bowel cleansing modalities. NaP has gained popularity due to low drinking volume and lower costs. The purpose of this randomized multicenter observer blinded study was to compare three groups of cleansing (NaP, NaP + sennosides, PEG-ELS + sennosides) in reference to tolerability, acceptance, and cleanliness. Patient and Methods: 355 outpatients between 18 and 75 years were randomized into three groups (A, B, C) receiving NaP = A, NaP, and sennosides = B or PEG-ELS and sennosides = C. Gastroenterologists performing colonoscopies were blinded to the type of preparation. All patients documented tolerance and adverse events. Vital signs, premedication, completeness, discomfort, and complications were recorded. A quality score (0–4) of cleanliness was generated. Results: The three groups were similar with regard to age, sex, BMI, indication for colonoscopy, and comorbidity. Drinking volumes (L) (A = 4.33 + 1.2, B = 4.56 + 1.18, C = 4.93 + 1.71) were in favor of NaP (P = .005). Discomfort from ingested fluid was recorded in A = 39.8% (versus C: P = .015), B = 46.6% (versus C: P = .147), and C = 54.6%. Differences in tolerability and acceptance between the three groups were statistically not significant. No differences in adverse events and the cleanliness effects occurred in the three groups (P = .113). The cleanliness quality scores 0–2 were calculated in A: 77.7%, B: 86.7%, and C: 85.2%. Conclusions: These data fail to demonstrate significant differences in tolerability, acceptance, and preparation quality between the three types of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Cleansing with NaP was not superior to PEG-ELS

Deficient activation of CD95 (APO-1/ Fas)-mediated apoptosis: a potential factor of multidrug resistance in human renal cell carcinoma

The pronounced resistance of human renal cell carcinoma (RCC) to anticancer-induced apoptosis has primarily been related to the expression of P-glycoprotein and effective drug detoxification mechanisms. Because the CD95 system has recently been identified as a key mediator of anticancer drug-induced apoptosis, we analysed the contribution of the CD95 system to chemotherapy-induced apoptosis in four newly established RCC cell lines. Here, we demonstrate that all RCC cell lines expressed CD95-receptor and -ligand. Exposure to agonistic anti-CD95 antibodies resulted in induction of apoptosis and significant (P< 0.05) reduction of cell number in three out of four cell lines, indicating that the essential components for CD95-mediated apoptosis were present and functionally intact in the majority of these RCC cell lines. Moreover, treatment of cultures with bleomycin or topotecan, a novel topoisomerase I inhibitor with little substrate affinity for P-glycoprotein, led to induction of apoptosis and significant (P< 0.05) dose-dependent reduction of cell number in all RCC cell lines. Both anticancer drugs also induced upregulation of CD95 ligand expression in all cell lines. Additionally, augmentation of CD95 receptor expression was found in three RCC cell lines, including one p53-mutated cell line, whereas another p53-mutated cell line showed no or only a weak CD95 receptor upregulation after exposure to topotecan or bleomycin, respectively. Despite this upregulation of CD95 receptor and ligand, antagonistic antibodies directed against CD95 receptors or ligands could not inhibit induction of apoptosis by topotecan and bleomycin in any cell line. Thus, although a functionally intact CD95 signalling cascade is present in most RCC cell lines, the anticancer drugs topotecan and bleomycin that induce upregulation of CD95 receptor and ligand fail to effectively activate CD95-mediated apoptosis. This deficient activation of CD95-mediated apoptosis might be an important additional factor for the multidrug resistance phenotype of human RCCs. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaig

Budesonide foam vs. hydrocortisone acetate foam in the treatment of active ulcerative proctosigmoiditis

Rectal administration of corticosteroids is advocated in patients with proctosigmoiditis who have failed therapy with mesalamine enema. Foam offers patients better tolerability than an enema. In this study the efficacy and adverse effects of a new budesonide foam are compared with the presently available hydrocortisone foam. METHODS: Two hundred fifty-one patients with proctosigmoiditis were randomly assigned to receive either budesonide foam or hydrocortisone foam for eight weeks. RESULTS: Remission rates were comparable in the budesonide and hydrocortisone groups, 53 and 52 percent, respectively. The mean disease activity index for the two groups decreased to a similar extent, from 7.2 +/- 1.9 and 7 +/- 2 to 3.6 +/- 3.1 and 3.9 +/- 3.4 in the budesonide and hydrocortisone groups, respectively. In a subgroup of patients who had not responded to rectal administration of mesalamine, 23 of 44 (52 percent) patients who received budesonide responded favorably to the foam, as compared with 14 of 38 (37 percent) patients who received hydrocortisone (P = not significant). Low plasma cortisol occurred in 3 percent of the budesonide group and in none of the hydrocortisone patients. CONCLUSIONS: This trial demonstrates a similar efficacy and safety of the two foams in patients with proctosigmoiditis

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Clinical data, new treatment options and therapy monitoring

Therapies currently available in Germany for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) include docetaxel, cabazitaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide and radium-223, all of which offer a potential survival benefit that adds up in their sequential application to a significant overall survival benefit. However, the optimal sequencing of these agents is still unclear. In the absence of evidence, treatment selection is based on the particular situation and on comorbid conditions of each individual patient. Furthermore, predictive markers to facilitate the selection of patients for a specific therapy or sequence of therapies remain an unmet need. However, with the recently discovered androgen receptor splice variant V7, which mediates (cross)resistance to or between abiraterone and enzalutamide, the first such marker has been identified. It is critical to monitor the response to treatments at prespecified intervals in order to optimize treatment sequencing so that the patient does not miss a valuable therapeutic window to receive alternative treatment that may prolong his life along with good symptom control and preservation of quality of life

Budesonide foam vs. hydrocortisone acetate foam in the treatment of active ulcerative proctosigmoiditis

INTRODUCI'ION: Rectal administration of corticosteroids is advocated in patients with proctosigmoiditis who have failed therapy with mesalamine enema. Foam offers patients better tolerability than an enema. In this study the efficacy and adverse effects of a new budesonide foam are compared with the presently available hydrocortisone foam. METHODS: Two hundred fifty-one patients with proctosigmoiditis were randomly assigned to receive either budesonide foam or hydrocortisone foam for eight weeks. RESULTS: Remission rates were comparable in the budesonide and hydrocortisone groups, 53 and 52 percent, respectively. The mean disease activity index for the two groups decreased to a similar extent, from 7.2 +/- 1.9 and 7 +/- 2 to 3.6 +/- 3.1 and 3.9 +/- 3.4 in the budesonide and hydrocortisone groups, respectively. In a subgroup of patients who had not responded to rectal administration of mesalamine, 23 of 44 (52 percent) patients who received budesonide responded favorably to the foam, as compared with 14 of 38 (37 percent) patients who received hydrocortisone (P = not significant). Low plasma cortisol occurred in 3 percent of the budesonide group and in none of the hydrocortisone patients. CONCLUSIONS: This trial demonstrates a similar efficacy and safety of the two foams in patients with proctosigmoiditis