[Molecular analyses for (early) recognition of hematologic diseases - sense and sensibility for molecular analysis: the art of intelligent decision-making]

During the last 10 years several molecular markers have been established as useful tools among the armamentarium of a hematologist. As a consequence, the number of performed hematologic molecular analyses has immensely increased. Often, such tests replace or complement other laboratory methods. Molecular markers can be useful in many ways: they can serve for diagnostics, describe the prognostic profile, predict which types of drugs are indicated, and can be used for the therapeutic monitoring of the patient to indicate an adequate response or predict resistance or relapse of the disease. Many markers fulfill more than one of these aspects. Most important, however, is the right choice of analyses at the right time-points!

Sense and nonsense of an extended pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer

Lymph node metastases associated with prostate cancer (PCa) has been shown to be a poor prognostic factor. The role of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) itself in relation to survival remains unclear, however. A Medline search was conducted to address this issue. The following conclusions were drawn. Only recently, improved survival due to completion of radical prostatectomy (RP) (compared to abandoning RP) in known or presumed lymph-node-positive patients has been shown. Lymph node sampling can only be considered representative if an adequate number of nodes is removed. While several authors have suggested that a therapeutic benefit in patients undergoing RP is not provided by PLND, the reliability of these studies is uncertain. Contrary to this, several studies have indicated the possibility of long-term survival even in the presence of limited lymph node metastases. The role and timing of initiation of adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients who have node-positive disease after RP is controversial. Recent studies suggest that delaying ADT may not adversely impact survival.

Who’s to blame? How narcissists and ex-partners of narcissists make sense of romantic breakup

Objective: past research has shown relationship problems associated with narcissists’ excessive self-centeredness and lacking concern for others. Using romantic relationships as opportunities to self-enhance rather than caring about intimacy, narcissists are sensitive to shortcomings in their partners and quick to withdraw investment once relationships turn out to be less than perfect. Our research aimed to reveal whether narcissists are aware of their destructive relationship behavior or tend to put the blame for a failed relationship on their ex-partners. Conversely, do ex-partners of narcissists take the blame and feel responsible for the breakup or walk away convinced their narcissistic ex-partners’ behavior was just too unbearable? Method: 120 participants (19-59 yrs) who reported a recent romantic breakup completed a battery of questionnaires online, including measures of narcissism and self-esteem, as well as newly created scales assessing attributions for breakup. In addition to self-reports, participants retrospectively rated their ex-partners on adapted versions of the same measures. Results: narcissists made attributions to lacking relationship investment mostly in themselves and to a lesser extent in their partners. However, this pattern was reversed when self-esteem was controlled, with attributions to partner shortcomings outnumbering aspects of own destructive behavior. Narcissism perceived in the ex-partner was related to reports of lacking investment in oneself as well as the ex-partner, but controlling for self-esteem reduced the number of attributions to own shortcomings. Conclusion: our analyses revealed that narcissists do show some awareness of their contribution to a failed relationship, although controlling for self-esteem increased their blame of the ex-partner. In contrast, associations between perceived partner-narcissism and aspects of own lacking relationship investment became fewer when self-esteem was controlled for.

[Sense and nonsense of toxicological analyses in the daily clinical routine]

Screening tests for drugs of abuse are regularly used in the clinical routine. These tests identify the targeted substances very differently if tests from different manufacturers are used and sometimes also react positive after the intake of drugs which are not intended to be detected. Therefore, implausible results have to be questioned. A test result can be falsely negative, if a patient has taken a compound which is not detected by the antibody used in the test system. Chromatographic confirmation and screening assays are more laborious to perform and more demanding for the interpretation and are therefore only offered by several specialized clinical laboratories. However, their specificity is excellent and many different compounds can be detected depending on the number of compounds which are part of the mass spectra library used. If the clinical evaluation results in the differential diagnosis of an acute intoxication, screening tests for drugs of abuse can help to identify a single compound or a group of substances. The clinical picture, however, can usually not been explained by a qualitative test result. In addition, there are no published data demonstrating that these tests meaningfully influence triage, treatment, diagnosis or further therapy of a poisoned patient. The quantitative determination of specific compounds in the blood allows for example an appraisal of the prognosis and helps to indicate a specific therapy after intake of acetaminophen or methanol. New designer drugs can not at all be detected by the classic screening tests for drugs of abuse. The have to be identified by chromatographic methods.