A randomized-controlled, double-blind study of the impact of selenium supplementation on thyroid autoimmunity and inflammation with focus on the GPx1 genotypes.

PURPOSE: To analyze the impact of selenium supplementation on serum antiTPO levels and thyroid echogenicity in patients with CAT, evaluating the response in subgroups with different GPx1 genotypes. METHODS: CAT patients (n = 55) with positive antiTPO were randomized to selenomethionine (SeMet) 200 µg daily (n = 28) or placebo (n = 27) for 3 months. Assessments included GPx1 genotyping at baseline and serum levels of plasma selenium, erythrocyte GPx1 activity, antiTPO and thyroid echogenicity at baseline, and 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: In the SeMet group, the increase in plasma levels of selenium and erythrocyte GPx1 activity was similar among patients with different GPx1 genotypes. In the overall cohort, patients randomized to SeMet showed a 5 % decrease in antiTPO levels at 3 months (p = non-significant) and 20 % at 6 months (p < 0.001 versus 3 months). In contrast, patients in the placebo group did not show significant changes in antiTPO levels at any time point. Subgroup analysis showed that patients with different GPx1 genotypes presented comparable responses in antiTPO levels and echogenicity index to SeMet. CONCLUSIONS: Selenium supplementation decreased serum antiTPO levels in CAT patients, with similar response among patients with different GPx1 genotypes.

Laminin concentration in ascites of patients with hepatic cirrhosis and peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Laminin levels in ascitic fluid have been proposed as a marker for neoplastic ascites. We compared the concentration of laminin in serum and in ascitic fluid from patients with hepatic cirrhosis and peritoneal carcinomatosis and assessed the diagnostic value of serum laminin levels in differentiating neoplastic from benign ascites. Laminin concentrations were determined by ELISA with antibodies against laminin extracted from the human placenta, in patients with ascites due to peritoneal carcinomatosis (N = 20) and hepatic cirrhosis (N = 33). Patients with infected or hemorrhagic ascites were excluded. The receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of serum laminin for the diagnosis of neoplastic ascites. When compared to the group with cirrhosis, the carcinomatosis group presented significantly higher mean laminin levels in serum (3.3 +/- 0.5 vs 2.1 +/- 0.4 microg/ml, mean +/- SD, P < 0.05) and ascites (2.8 +/- 0.5 vs 1.6 +/- 0.4 microg/ml, P < 0.05). Although laminin concentration was higher in serum than in ascites, the laminin serum/ascites ratio and serum-ascites gradient did not differ between the studied groups. A significant correlation (r = 0.93, P < 0.0001) was observed between the serum and ascites laminin values. Serum laminin levels >2.25 microg/ml showed 100% sensitivity and 73% specificity for the diagnosis of neoplastic ascites. Serum concentration seems to be the main determinant of laminin levels in ascitic fluid and its values can be used as a diagnostic parameter in the study of neoplastic ascites.

Laminin concentration in ascites of patients with hepatic cirrhosis and peritoneal carcinomatosis

Laminin levels in ascitic fluid have been proposed as a marker for neoplastic ascites. We compared the concentration of laminin in serum and in ascitic fluid from patients with hepatic cirrhosis and peritoneal carcinomatosis and assessed the diagnostic value of serum laminin levels in differentiating neoplastic from benign ascites. Laminin concentrations were determined by ELISA with antibodies against laminin extracted from the human placenta, in patients with ascites due to peritoneal carcinomatosis (N = 20) and hepatic cirrhosis (N = 33). Patients with infected or hemorrhagic ascites were excluded. The receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of serum laminin for the diagnosis of neoplastic ascites. When compared to the group with cirrhosis, the carcinomatosis group presented significantly higher mean laminin levels in serum (3.3 ± 0.5 vs 2.1 ± 0.4 æg/ml, mean ± SD, P < 0.05) and ascites (2.8 ± 0.5 vs 1.6 ± 0.4 æg/ml, P < 0.05). Although laminin concentration was higher in serum than in ascites, the laminin serum/ascites ratio and serum-ascites gradient did not differ between the studied groups. A significant correlation (r = 0.93, P < 0.0001) was observed between the serum and ascites laminin values. Serum laminin levels >2.25 æg/ml showed 100 percent sensitivity and 73 percent specificity for the diagnosis of neoplastic ascites. Serum concentration seems to be the main determinant of laminin levels in ascitic fluid and its values can be used as a diagnostic parameter in the study of neoplastic ascites.

Estrogen and progesterone receptors in gastric and colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Estrogen (ER) and progesterone receptors (PR) have been evaluated in gastrointestinal cancer by several groups with conflicting results. The aim of the study is to examine the presence of these receptors in gastric and colon cancer. METHODOLOGY: Estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PR) receptors were assayed by the dextran-coated charcoal adsorption method from malignant and normal adjacent tissues in 16 patients with gastric adenocarcinomas and in 10 with colorectal adenocarcinomas. RESULTS: In gastric cancer, ER were detected in 62.5% and PR in 75% of the patients. In colorectal cancer, the ER and PR were detected in 60% of the patients. The binding activity ranged from 1.14-9.27 fmol/mg protein for estradiol and from 1.43-10.84 fmol/mg protein for progesterone. ER and PR were detected in normal gastric tissue in 62.5% and in 50%, respectively. In the normal colorectal tissue the ER and PR were detected in 30% and 50%. ER ranged from 1.20-16.63 fmol/mg protein for estradiol and from 1.44-9.94 fmol/mg protein for progesterone. There was no statistical difference in levels of ER and PR in both tissues. CONCLUSIONS: ER and PR were detected in normal and cancer tissues in low levels, suggesting a feature of the tissue rather than a consequence of a malignant process. Eventual role of ER or PR in these cancers remains to be elucidated.