The Localized Neuroendocrine Transformation of Prostate Adenocarcinoma: A Case Report and Literature Review of Current Treatment Modalities.

Most prostate cancers are adenocarcinomas. However, there is a rare and aggressive subtype known as small cell carcinoma of the prostate (SCCP). This variant of prostate cancer is marked by its distinctive features, including high-grade malignancy, neuroendocrine differentiation, and a unique clinical presentation, often involving metastases. This report details the presentation and management of a 66-year-old African-American male who was originally diagnosed with high-risk adenocarcinoma of the prostate. At initial diagnosis, the patient was suboptimally treated with radiation alone without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). On re-biopsy several years later, he was found to have localized recurrent disease with transformation into SCCP. The prognosis for SCCP is poor with a mean survival. Patients typically present with metastases, commonly to the brain, liver, bones, or bladder. SCCP after treatment for adenocarcinoma of the prostate is more common than de novo presentation. The amount of neuroendocrine differentiation of SCCP often increases with treatment, particularly after treatment with ADT. This report emphasizes the importance of timely and optimal care when treating prostate cancer and suggests potential consequences that inappropriate treatment or treatment delays may entail.

6-Mercaptopurine and Macrophage Activation Syndrome Case Report and Review of the Literature.

Macrophage activation syndrome is a life-threatening syndrome of uncontrolled immune activation with variable clinical presentation making early diagnosis difficult. It is often manifested by the development of multi-organ failure due to systemic inflammatory response. Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) on purine antimetabolites are at high risk for severe myelosuppression due to the mechanism of thiopurine toxicity which potentially contributes to the development of macrophage activation syndrome. We present a case of a 39-year-old woman with a 2-year history of UC previously treated with 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) and recent COVID-19 infection, who was admitted to our emergency department for C. difficile infection and subsequently developed macrophage activation syndrome. This case report also raises the question of whether abrupt discontinuation of 6-MP may have contributed to the worsening of the patient's symptoms of underlying hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) and her rapid deterioration. Both macrophage activation syndrome and COVID-19 infection can produce a large number of pro-inflammatory cytokines termed "cytokine storm," but a pro-inflammatory cytokine panel breakdown helps to differentiate between the two. Our case report emphasizes the importance of close monitoring of patients on purine antimetabolite therapy who present with signs and symptoms of systemic toxicity.

Intranasal Sufentanil Versus Intravenous Morphine for Acute Pain in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Pilot Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients in the United States frequently seek medical attention in the emergency department (ED) to address their pain. The intranasal (i.n.) route provides a safe, effective, and painless alternative method of drug administration. Sufentanil is an inexpensive synthetic opioid with a high therapeutic index and rapid onset of action, making it an attractive agent for management of acute pain in the ED. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of i.n. sufentanil as the primary analgesic for acute pain in the ED. METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial that evaluated the use of i.n. sufentanil 0.7 µg/kg via mucosal atomizer device vs. intravenous morphine 0.1 mg/kg in adult patients who presented to the ED with acute pain. The primary outcome was patient's pain score at 10 min after administration of intervention. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, the need for rescue analgesia, and patient satisfaction after treatment. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled in each group. There was no significant difference in pain scores at 10 min after administration of intervention (sufentanil: 2.0, interquartile range = 2.0-3.3 vs. morphine: 3.0, interquartile range = 2.0-5.3, p = 0.198). No serious adverse events were reported. Rescue analgesia was not requested in either group. No significant difference in median satisfaction scores was found. CONCLUSION: The use of i.n. sufentanil at 0.7 µg/kg/dose resulted in rapid and safe analgesia with comparable efficacy to i.v. morphine for up to 30 min in patients who presented with acute pain in the ED.