RESUMEN
Pancreatic secretory granule membrane major glycoprotein 2 (GP2) is a membrane component of zymogen granules which is abundantly secreted by pancreatic acinar cells. Because RNA based analyses suggest a strict limitation of GP2 expression to the pancreas in normal tissues, and a strong preference to pancreatic cancer among tumors, GP2 expression analysis might have diagnostic utility. To better understand the role of GP2 protein expression, GP2 was successfully analyzed in 27,965 tumor samples from 132 different tumor types and subtypes as well as 8 samples each of 76 different normal tissue types by immunohistochemistry in a tissue microarray format (TMA). GP2 immunostaining was seen in 14 of 16 (87.5 %) acinar cell carcinomas, 6 of 507 (1.2 %) ductal adenocarcinomas, and 3 of 99 neuroendocrine neoplasms of the pancreas (3.0 %). GP2 was also found in 23 extra-pancreatic tumor entities including several types of neuroendocrine neoplasms (14.3-58.8 %), prostatic adenocarcinomas (8.2-18.8 %), various other adenocarcinomas (0.1-7.7 %), and several categories of benign and malignant salivary gland tumors (2.3-3.1 %). A strong GP2 positivity was only seen in 6 tumor categories including 50 % of 16 pancreatic acinus cell carcinomas, 11.8 % of 17 neuroendocrine tumors of the lung, 1.3 % of 80 primary Gleason 4 + 4 % and 0.6 % of 181 recurrent prostate cancers, as well as 0.8 % of 133 adenocarcinomas of the lung. In a cohort of 14,747 prostate cancers with follow up data, GP2 immunostaining was strongly linked to advanced pT stage, high Gleason grade, lymph node metastasis, and recurrence free survival (p < 0.0001 each). The prognostic impact of GP2 positivity was independent of established parameters in TMPRSS2:ERG fusion-negative cancers (p < 0.0001). In summary, our data show that GP2 is preferentially expressed in acinar cell carcinomas of the pancreas but the glycoprotein can - rarely - also be expressed in a variety of other tumor entities.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Traditional evaluation for suspicion of gallstone or gallbladder-related disease includes evaluation with a formal technician-performed ultrasound. However, the use of point-of-care bedside ultrasounds (Bedside US) has been shown to be a viable alternative for the diagnosis of gallstones and gallbladder-related diseases. Purpose Statement: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of Bedside US use in gallbladder evaluation on key patient care outcomes within our community-based emergency department setting. METHODS: This retrospective study compared the use of no ultrasound (No US), a formal technician performed ultrasound (Tech US) and Bedside US for gallstone and gallbladder related diseases within a community hospital emergency department between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2018. Initial vitals, lab work, patient socio-demographics, medical history, emergency department length of stay in hours and disposition were reviewed. RESULTS: Of a total N = 449 patients included, patients who received a Bedside US had the fewest computerized tomography scans (No US 62% vs. Tech US 29% vs. Bedside US 16%; p < 0.0001), the shortest median emergency department length of stay (No US 4.5 days vs. Tech US 5.0 days vs. Bedside US 3.0 days; p < 0.0001), and were more likely to be discharged home (No US 41% vs. Tech US 55% vs. Bedside US 81%; p = 0.0006) compared to those that received no ultrasound or a formal ultrasound. Patients who received a Bedside US also had the statistically significant highest incidence of prior cholelithiasis (No US 29.4% vs Tech US 14.3% vs. Bedside US 31.3%; p = 0.001) and lowest total median bilirubin levels (No US 0.5 vs. Tech US 0.5 vs. Bedside US 0.3; p = 0.016) when compared to the other two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was a confirmation bias, these study results indicate that point-of-care bedside ultrasound could be a viable alternative for gallstones and gallbladder-related diseases with benefits of use in a community hospital setting.
RESUMEN
5 million central venous access lines are placed every year in the United States, and it is a common surgical bedside procedure. We present a case of a central venous catheter placement with port for chemotherapy use, during which a duplication of a superior vena cava was discovered on CTA chest after fluoroscopy could not confirm placement of the guidewire. Due to its potential clinical implications, superior vena cava duplication must be recognized when it occurs.
