Monitoring hospital wastewaters for their probable genotoxicity and mutagenicity.

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. Excluding the genetic factors, environmental factors, mainly the pollutants, have been implicated in the causation of the majority of cancers. Wastewater originated from health-care sectors such as hospitals may carry vast amounts of carcinogenic and genotoxic chemicals to surface waters or any other source of drinking water, if discharged untreated. Humans get exposed to such contaminants through a variety of ways including drinking water. The aim of the present study was, thus, to monitor the genotoxic and mutagenic potential of wastewaters from three big hospitals located in Jaipur (Rajasthan), India. One of them was operating an effluent treatment plant (ETP) for treatment of its wastewater and therefore both the untreated and treated effluents from this hospital were studied for their genotoxicity. Two short-term bacterial bioassays namely the Salmonella fluctuation assay and the SOS chromotest were used for the purpose. Results of fluctuation assay revealed the highly genotoxic nature of all untreated effluent samples with mutagenicity ratios (MR) up to 23.13 ± 0.18 and 42.25 ± 0.35 as measured with Salmonella typhimurium strains TA98 and TA100, respectively. As determined with the chromotest, all untreated effluents produced significant induction factors (IF) ranging from 3.29 ± 1.11 to 13.35 ± 3.58 at higher concentrations. In contrast, treated effluent samples were found to be slightly genotoxic in fluctuation test only with an MR = 3.75 ± 0.35 for TA100 at 10 % concentration. Overall, the results indicated that proper treatment of hospital wastewaters may render the effluents safe for disposal contrary to the untreated ones, possessing high genotoxic potential.

The inside mystery of jejunal gastrointestinal stromal tumor: a rare case report and review of the literature.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are malignant and rare form of soft tissue sarcoma of the digestive tract. The incidence of gastrointestinal stromal tumors is very low Kramer et al. 2005 Jejunal GISTs are extremely rare. Here we present a rare case of jejunal GIST with unusually large size at presentation. The patient presented with severe abdomen pain, exophytic growth, and dimorphic anemia. Surgical resection of the tumor was carried out, and operative findings revealed a 15 × 10 cm growth, arising from serosal surface of jejunum, at the antimesenteric surface. Diagnosis in this case was made by subjecting the resected specimen to immunohistochemical analysis. In view of large size of the resected tumor, and high-risk histopathological features, imatinib mesylate 400 mg once daily was given as adjuvant chemotherapy. Patient is asymptomatic without any evidence of tumor recurrence after six months of postoperative followup. Imatinib as such is recommended in metastatic, residual or recurrent cases of GISTs or which are surgically not removable; however, recent recommendations suggests the use of imatinib mesylate after radical surgery in high-risk cases, because it has shown a significant decrease in the recurrence rate, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved the use of imatinib as adjuvant therapy after complete resection of localized, primary GIST.

Clinical evaluation of two antiemetic combinations palonosetron dexamethasone versus ondansetron dexamethasone in chemotherapy of head and neck cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Palonosetron and ondansetron are two selective 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) receptor antagonists that have shown remarkable efficacy in controlling nausea and vomiting following administration of moderately emetic anticancer chemotherapy. Their efficacy is enhanced by the concurrent administration of dexamethasone. In the present study, we aimed to compare the antiemetic efficacy of a palonosetron plus dexamethasone (PD) schedule versus an ondansetron plus dexamethasone (OD) schedule. METHODS: A randomised, crossover trial was conducted in 30 patients with head and neck cancer who were receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The patients were divided into two groups. In the first cycle, one group was given a PD schedule and the other, an OD schedule. For the subsequent cycle, crossover of the antiemetic schedules was done. The antiemetic effects were evaluated by recording the intensity of nausea and the frequency of vomiting in the acute and delayed phases. RESULTS: Complete response in the acute phase was observed in 83.3 percent of the patients on the PD schedule and in 80 percent of those on the OD schedule. In the delayed phase, complete response was observed in 76.7 percent and 66.7 percent of the patients on the PD schedule and OD schedule, respectively. The overall rate of complete response was 66.7 percent in the PD group and 46.7 percent in the OD group. In the PD group, there were 73.3 percent of nausea-free patients as opposed to 66.7 percent in the OD group. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the PD schedule was superior to the OD schedule in controlling emesis in cancer chemotherapy, although this difference was not statistically significant.