The Effect of Propofol Versus Isoflurane Anesthesia on Human Cerebrospinal Fluid Markers of Alzheimer's Disease: Results of a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies have found differential effects of isoflurane and propofol on the Alzheimer's disease (AD)-associated markers tau, phosphorylated tau (p-tau) and amyloid-β (Aβ). OBJECTIVE: We asked whether isoflurane and propofol have differential effects on the tau/Aβ ratio (the primary outcome), and individual AD biomarkers. We also examined whether genetic/intraoperative factors influenced perioperative changes in AD biomarkers. METHODS: Patients undergoing neurosurgical/otolaryngology procedures requiring lumbar cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drain placement were prospectively randomized to receive isoflurane (n = 21) or propofol (n = 18) for anesthetic maintenance. We measured perioperative CSF sample AD markers, performed genotyping assays, and examined intraoperative data from the electronic anesthesia record. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to examine changes in AD markers by anesthetic type over time. RESULTS: The CSF tau/Aβ ratio did not differ between isoflurane- versus propofol-treated patients (p = 1.000). CSF tau/Aβ ratio and tau levels increased 10 and 24 h after drain placement (p = 2.002×10-6 and p = 1.985×10-6, respectively), mean CSF p-tau levels decreased (p = 0.005), and Aβ levels did not change (p = 0.152). There was no interaction between anesthetic treatment and time for any of these biomarkers. None of the examined genetic polymorphisms, including ApoE4, were associated with tau increase (n = 9 polymorphisms, p > 0.05 for all associations). CONCLUSION: Neurosurgery/otolaryngology procedures are associated with an increase in the CSF tau/Aβ ratio, and this increase was not influenced by anesthetic type. The increased CSF tau/Aβ ratio was largely driven by increases in tau levels. Future work should determine the functional/prognostic significance of these perioperative CSF tau elevations.

Prognostic value of the diagnostic criteria distinguishing endometrial stromal sarcoma, low grade from undifferentiated endometrial sarcoma, 2 entities within the invasive endometrial stromal neoplasia family

The World Health Organization (WHO 2003) recognizes 3 endometrial stromal neoplasms: noninvasive endometrial stromal nodule and the 2 invasive neoplasms, endometrial stromal sarcoma (ESS), low grade and undifferentiated endometrial sarcoma (UES). It is important to note that the WHO 2003 does not define moderate atypia (an important differentiating diagnostic criterion for ESS, low grade and UES), nor does it discuss its significance. Moreover, studies on reproducibility and additional prognostic value of other diagnostic features in large are lacking. Using strict definitions, we analyzed the agreement between routine and expert-review necrosis and nuclear atypia in 91 invasive endometrial stromal neoplasias (IESN). The overall 5-year and 10-year recurrence-free survival rate estimates of the 91 IESN patients were 82% and 75%, respectively. Necrosis was well reproducible, and nuclear atypia was reasonably well reproducible. The 10-year recurrence-free survival rates for necrosis absent/inconspicuous versus prominent were 89% and 45% (P<0.001) and those for review-confirmed none/mild, moderate, severe atypia were 90%, 30%, and <20% (P<0.00001). Therefore, cases with moderate/severe atypia should be grouped together. Nuclear atypia and necrosis had independent prognostic values (Cox regression). Once these features were taken into account, no other feature had an independent additional prognostic value, including mitotic count. Using "none/mild atypia, necrosis absent/inconspicuous" as ESS, low grade versus "moderate/severe atypia present or necrosis present" as UES resulted in 68 ESS, low grade and 23 UES cases with disease-specific overall mortality-free survival of 99% versus 48% (P<0.00001, hazard ratio=45.4). When strictly defined microscopic criteria are used, the WHO 2003 diagnoses of ESS, low grade and UES are well reproducible and prognostically strong. © 2012 International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.