NKX3.1 and Prostein Expression in Testicular Tissue and Sex Cord-stromal Tumors.

Prostate cancer is well known to metastasize to the testis and is not an uncommon finding on castration performed for advanced disease. Although germ cell tumors make up the majority of testis neoplasms, there are more rare tumors, such as rete testis adenocarcinoma, that can mimic metastatic disease. NKX3.1 and prostein (P501S) are antibodies highly specific for prostate origin. Relatively little is known of the expression of these markers in testicular tissue. We investigated the expression of NKX3.1 and P501S in testicular tissues, sex cord-stromal tumors, germ cell tumors, and rete testis adenocarcinoma. We found strong diffuse nuclear staining for NKX3.1 in Sertoli cells of the testis. Expression of NKX3.1 was seen in 0/3 ovarian Sertoli cell tumors, 1/4 testicular Sertoli cell tumors, and in the Sertoli cell component of 1/12 ovarian Sertoli-Leydig cell tumors. We found moderate, diffuse cytoplasmic positivity for P501S in rete testis epithelium and in testicular Leydig cells. P501S also highlighted Leydig cells in 9/12 Sertoli-Leydig cell tumors of the ovary. Two of 3 Leydig cell tumors of the testis showed weak to moderate, diffuse cytoplasmic staining for P501S. All cases of embryonal carcinoma and pure seminoma were negative for both NKX3.1 and P501S. One case of rete testis adenocarcinoma showed patchy positivity for both NKX3.1 and P501S. In conclusion, NKX3.1 shows routine expression in Sertoli cells and P501S shows routine expression in Leydig cells and rete testis epithelium. In addition, these markers can be positive in sex cord-stromal tumors and rete testis adenocarcinoma.

Validation and cost-effectiveness of an in-house dithiothreitol (DTT) treatment protocol for daratumumab patients in a large tertiary care hospital provides gateway for implementation in smaller community hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of multiple myeloma with daratumumab (DARA) is increasing fast. Unfortunately, this antibody also attaches to red blood cells (RBCs) and mimics an autoantibody's panreactivity during pre-transfusion testing, necessitating specialized techniques, (e.g. dithiothreitol (DTT)) for alloantibody detection. Many hospitals use a reference lab for such testing, increasing both cost and turn-around time (TAT). Herein, we compare the cost and TAT, pre and post-implementation of an in-house DTT protocol. METHODS: We designed a validation of our in-house DTT protocol from Nov to Dec 2017 with full implementation on January 1, 2018. We retrospectively reviewed all pre-transfusion tests on DARA patients from Feb 2016 to April 2018, pre and post-implementation of in-house DTT testing. Descriptive statistics were used for patient demographics and a Student t-test was used to compare cost and TATs (pre and post-implementation). RESULTS: We identified 49 patients on DARA treatment requiring transfusion. Samples from these patients were sent to the reference lab 104 times and were tested in-house 28 times. The average TAT for the reference lab was 19h25 m compared to our in-house TAT of 5h9m (an average time-savings of 14h16 m). We spent approximately $33,800 ($325 per test) for 104 reference lab samples versus $806.12 (˜$28.79 per test) for in-house testing of 28 samples. CONCLUSION: We provide an easily implementable DTT protocol for pre-transfusion testing community hospitals and beyond. As more monoclonal antibodies are developed and approved for clinical use, the lessons learned with DARA will expand to deal with interference from future targeted therapies.

New subcutaneous PowerFlow port results in cost and time-savings in a busy outpatient apheresis clinic.

Many vascular access options, such as subcutaneous ports, are currently on the market for use in both medication infusion and for procedures, such as therapeutic plasma exchange and extracorporeal photopheresis. We compared the cost and time necessary to complete apheresis procedures using either Angiodynamic's Vortex or Bard's PowerFlow subcutaneous ports by reviewing our experience on two patients undergoing long-term apheresis treatments with at least 10 procedures with each type of port. We analyzed the cost of needles and thrombolytic therapy, staff time, overall procedure length, and the total time the patient was in the apheresis unit. We also compared flow rates and alarm rates between the two ports. In this small pilot study, use of the PowerFlow port resulted in significant cost and time savings, with mixed results for flow rates. Our results need to be confirmed in a larger patient population prior to recommending wide implementation of Bard's PowerFlow port.