Development of an automated 7-day 96-well Caco-2 cell culture model.

Caco-2 cells are a widely accepted model to predict permeability and absorption of compounds in humans. We built up an automated 96-wellplate Caco-2 permeation model with reduced growth time. Model compounds (metoprolol, ketoprofen, verapamil, naproxen, hydrochlorthiazide), permeability markers (TEER, Lucifer Yellow, D-[1-(14)C]-mannitol) and confocal microscopy were used to assess the utility of our method on Biomek-FX-automation. The confocal imaging data showed that Caco-2 cells formed monolayers when cultured for 7 days with initial cell density of 2.1 x 10(5) cells/cm2. P-Glycoprotein was present in Caco-2 cells, localized on the plasma membrane. Permeation of model compounds was comparable to those obtained from traditional 12-wellplate experiments.

Expression of CD147 and monocarboxylate transporters MCT1, MCT2 and MCT4 in porcine small intestine and colon.

Lactate, formed mainly in the stomach and small intestines, and short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) formed in the colon, are ionised and require transporter proteins such as monocarboxylate transporters (MCTs) for absorption. The amounts of MCT1, MCT2, MCT4 and CD147, an ancillary protein for MCT1 and MCT4, were measured by immunoblotting the small intestine and colon of 40 pigs (Landrace, Yorkshire and LandracexYorkshire). MCT1 and MCT4 were found in both small intestine and colon, but MCT2 only in the small intestine. In both small intestine and colon, Yorkshire pigs had more CD147 than Landrace pigs, while no interbreed differences were found in MCT isoforms. Since CD147 is essential for the activity of MCT1 and MCT4, the breed difference suggests that MCT activity is higher in Yorkshire than in Landrace pigs. The absence of MCT2 in the colon suggests that it is mainly a lactate transporter, while MCT1 and MCT4 facilitate the transport of both lactate and SCFA.

The visibility of cancer on earlier mammograms in a population-based screening programme.

The aim of this study was to examine how frequently the later-round screen-detected and interval breast cancers were visible in earlier screening mammograms by retrospective review and to compare their radiological and clinicopathological features with those diagnosed by primary screening. In a population-based mammography screening programme 63,731 women aged 50-59 years were invited and 56,158 examinations were carried out in the period 1987-1992 in the Tampere area in Finland. A total of 276 breast cancers were detected, of which 131 were diagnosed on later screening rounds or were interval cancers. A retrospective review of previous screening mammograms was carried out in 130 cases by the radiologist who diagnosed the breast cancer and thus knew the exact location of the tumour, no blinded review was carried out. 43 (33%) cancers were visible, 84 (65%) were not visible and 3 (2%) not included on the mammogram in a retrospective review. Later round screen-detected cancers were statistically significantly more often visible in earlier screening mammograms (43%) than interval cancers (19%) (P = 0.002). Tumours missed by screening mammography but which were visible on retrospective review were often histologically well-differentiated and were more often diagnosed in the subsequent screening round than by clinical diagnosis as interval cancers. If all retrospectively visible interval cancers had been diagnosed by screening 19% (10/54) of the interval cancers could have been avoided. If all retrospectively visible cancers had been diagnosed at the time of false-negative screening or assessment 65% (84/130) of all patients would have benefitted from an earlier diagnosis compared with the actual figure of 31% (41/130).

Validity of radiological examinations of patients with breast cancer in different age groups in a population based study.

By studying which radiological examinations had been performed before breast cancer operations the aim was to assess, how much benefit ultrasonography (US) and fine or core needle biopsy (FNAB, CNB) gave in addition to mammography, and whether the sensitivity of these examinations varied with the age of the patient. There were 659 consecutive histologically and six cytologically verified breast cancer cases included in the study. Information on mammography, US and FNAB findings were retrieved from the original patient files and classified as malignant or benign. The sensitivity (Se) of these was compared in three age groups (26-49, 50-59 and 60-92). Seventeen (3%) tumours had operations without any radiological examination and 73 (11%) without cytological or histological verification. The sensitivity of mammography (Se=0.92) was statistically significantly higher than the sensitivity of FNAB (Se=0.85, P=0.002) or US (Se=0.86, P=0.003). The sensitivity of mammography increased with age; US sensitivity was slightly higher amongst younger than older patients; the sensitivity of FNAB did not depend on the age of the patient. The sensitivity using a cutoff level of class 5 for mammography was higher (50% typical malignant findings) than for US (45%) or FNAB (30%). Among cases with benign mammographic finding (classes 1-2), the US finding was malignant (classes 3-5) in 4% and FNAB was malignant in 7%. Mammography is a reliable method of breast examination especially for women over 50 years of age. Ultrasonography is beneficial, particularly in younger women, but it is mainly performed as a complementary examination to a mammography and therefore could not be evaluated as an independent examination. FNAB and CNB results were not related to the age of the patient.

The visibility of cancer on previous mammograms in retrospective review.

AIM: To study how many tumours were visible in restrospect on mammograms originally reported as normal or benign in patients coming to surgery with proven breast cancer. The effect of making the pre--operative mammogram available was also assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred and twenty initial mammograms of consecutive new breast cancer cases were analysed by a group of radiologists in the knowledge that all patients were later diagnosed with breast cancer. The films were read twice, first without and then with the later (pre-operative) mammograms available. The parenchymal density in the location of the tumour was classified as fatty, mixed or dense, and the tumours were classified as visible or not visible. The reasons for the invisibility of the tumour in the earlier examination were analysed. RESULTS: Fourteen per cent (45) of cancers were retrospectively visible in earlier mammograms without the pre-operative mammograms having been shown, and 29% (95) when pre-operative mammograms were shown. Breast parenchymal density decreased with age and the visibility of tumours increased with age. When considered simultaneously, the effect of age (over 55 vs under 55) was greater (OR = 2.9) than the effect of density (fatty vs others) (OR = 1.5). The most common reasons for non-detection were that the lesion was overlooked (55%), diagnosed as benign (33%) or was visible only in one projection (26%). Growing density was the most common (37%) feature of those lesions originally overlooked or regarded as benign. CONCLUSIONS: Tumours are commonly visible in retrospect, but few of them exhibit specific signs of cancer, and are recognized only if they grow or otherwise change. It is not possible to differentiate most of them from normal parenchymal densities. Saarenmaa, I. (2001). Clinical Radiology56, 40-43.

The effect of age and density of the breast on the sensitivity of breast cancer diagnostic by mammography and ultasonography.

PURPOSE: We studied which, age of the patient or density of the breast accounts for the sensitivity of mammography and ultrasonography (US). Furthermore we studied whether the overall impression on the density of the breast or the density in tumour area accounts for the sensitivity of mammography and ultrasonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The material consisted of 572 consecutive histologically and 5 cytologically verified breast cancer cases. Mammography and US examinations were performed immediately before breast cancer operations and information on the findings were received from the original patient files and classified as malignant or benign. The density of breast parenchyma to fatty, mixed or dense in total breast and separately in tumour area was defined by a radiologist group from the original mammograms by comparing to model mammograms. The sensitivity (Se) of mammography and US was compared in 3 age groups (26-49, 50-59 and 60-92) and in the different density classes. RESULTS: Sensitivity of mammography increased by age (density-adjusted OR = 0.2, 95%, CI 0.1-0.5) in age group 26-49 compared to age group 60-92) and with fattiness of the breast (age-adjusted OR= 0.4, 95%, CI 0.1-1.0 for dense breast parenchyma in tumour area compared to fatty breast). Sensitivity of US was inversely related to age (density-adjusted OR = 2.3, 95%, CI 1.0-5.2 in age group 26-49 compared to age group 60-92) and directly related with fattiness of breast (age-adjusted OR = 0.5, 95%, CI 0.2-0.9 by dense breast parenchyma in tumour area compared to fatty breast). Density in the tumour area compared to total breast density was related only mariginally better sensitivity both of mammography (0.4 vs. 0.6) and of US (0.5 vs. 0.6). CONCLUSION: Sensitivity of both mammography and sensitivity of US are independently related both to the age of the patient and to the density of the breast. The effect of age is inverse and that of density parallel between mammography and US on sensitivity. The effect of overall breast density was close to the effect of density at the site of the tumour on the sensitivity of both mammography and US.