Pulsatility of insulin release – a clinically important phenomenon

The mechanisms and clinical importance of pulsatile insulin release are presented against the background of more than half a century of companionship with the islets of Langerhans. The insulin-secreting β-cells are oscillators with intrinsic variations of cytoplasmic ATP and Ca2+. Within the islets the β-cells are mutually entrained into a common rhythm by gap junctions and diffusible factors (ATP). Synchronization of the different islets in the pancreas is supposed to be due to adjustment of the oscillations to the same phase by neural output of acetylcholine and ATP. Studies of hormone secretion from the perfused pancreas of rats and mice revealed that glucose induces pulses of glucagon anti-synchronous with pulses of insulin and somatostatin. The anti-synchrony may result from a paracrine action of somatostatin on the glucagon-producing α-cells. Purinoceptors have a key function for pulsatile release of islet hormones. It was possible to remove the glucagon and somatostatin pulses with maintenance of those of insulin with an inhibitor of the P2Y1 receptors. Knock-out of the adenosine A1 receptor prolonged the pulses of glucagon and somatostatin without affecting the duration of the insulin pulses. Studies of isolated human islets indicate similar relations between pulses of insulin, glucagon, and somatostatin as found during perfusion of the rodent pancreas. The observation of reversed cycles of insulin and glucagon adds to the understanding how the islets regulate hepatic glucose production. Current protocols for pulsatile intravenous infusion therapy (PIVIT) should be modified to mimic the anti-synchrony between insulin and glucagon normally seen in the portal blood

Contemporary update on neoadjuvant therapy for bladder cancer.

Administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy preceding radical cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer remains a matter of debate. Results of prospective, randomized studies have demonstrated an overall absolute survival benefit of 5% at 5 years, provided cisplatin-based combination regimens are used. Owing to the perception of a modest survival benefit, the medical community has been slow to adopt the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Other reasons for the underuse of neoadjuvant chemotherapy range from patient ineligibility to fear of delaying potentially curative surgery in nonresponders. Instead, several institutions have adopted an individualized, risk-adapted approach, in which the decision to administer chemotherapy is based on clinical stage and patient comorbidity profile. The development of new cytotoxic and targeted therapies, in particular immune checkpoint inhibitors, warrants well-designed prospective studies to test their efficacy alone or in combination in the neoadjuvant setting. Moving forward, genomic characterization of muscle-invasive bladder cancer could offer information that aids clinicians in selecting the appropriate chemotherapy regimen. Following neoadjuvant therapy, every effort should be made to ensure optimal surgery, as surgical margins and the number of removed lymph nodes are prognostic factors; thus, radical cystectomy and a meticulous extended pelvic lymph node dissection should be performed by expert surgeons