Rare hereditary COL4A3/COL4A4 variants may be mistaken for familial focal segmental glomerulosclerosis.

Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) is a histological lesion with many causes, including inherited genetic defects, with significant proteinuria being the predominant clinical finding at presentation. Mutations in COL4A3 and COL4A4 are known to cause Alport syndrome (AS), thin basement membrane nephropathy, and to result in pathognomonic glomerular basement membrane (GBM) findings. Secondary FSGS is known to develop in classic AS at later stages of the disease. Here, we present seven families with rare or novel variants in COL4A3 or COL4A4 (six with single and one with two heterozygous variants) from a cohort of 70 families with a diagnosis of hereditary FSGS. The predominant clinical finding at diagnosis was proteinuria associated with hematuria. In all seven families, there were individuals with nephrotic-range proteinuria with histologic features of FSGS by light microscopy. In one family, electron microscopy showed thin GBM, but four other families had variable findings inconsistent with classical Alport nephritis. There was no recurrence of disease after kidney transplantation. Families with COL4A3 and COL4A4 variants that segregated with disease represent 10% of our cohort. Thus, COL4A3 and COL4A4 variants should be considered in the interpretation of next-generation sequencing data from such patients. Furthermore, this study illustrates the power of molecular genetic diagnostics in the clarification of renal phenotypes.

Contemporary results of focal therapy for prostate cancer using cryoablation.

The concept of focal therapy is rapidly evolving and gaining popularity from both physician and patient perspectives. We review the rationale, candidate selection, and results of the first clinical studies of focal cryoablation for selected patients with low volume and low- to low-moderate-risk features of prostate cancer as an alternative to whole-gland treatment. In spite of improved understanding of the tumor biology of early stage disease, we currently have limited tools to select appropriate patients with low- to low-moderate risk unifocal or unilateral prostate cancer who may be amenable to focal therapy. From a technical point, a number of ablative treatment options for focal therapy are available, with cryoablation having the most clinical experience. Recently, several reports have been published from single and multi-institutional studies that discuss focal therapy as a reasonable balance between cancer control and quality-of-life outcomes. Retrospective pathologic data from large prostatectomy series, however, do not clearly reveal valid and reproducible criteria to select appropriate candidates for focal cryoablation because of the complexity of tumorigenesis in early stage disease. At this time, a more feasible option remains hemiablation of the prostate with reasonable certainty about the absence of clinically significant cancer lesion(s) on the contralateral side of the prostate based on three-dimensional transperineal prostate biopsy mapping studies. Minimally invasive, parenchyma-preserving cryoablation can be considered as a potential feasible option in the treatment armamentarium of early stage, localized prostate cancer in appropriately selected candidates. There is a need to further test this technique in randomized, multicenter clinical trials.

Should Physicians be Encouraged to use Generic Names and to Prescribe Generic Drugs?

While using the brand names seems like a trivial issue at the outset, using these names is inherently problematic. Cardiovascular drugs remain the most commonly prescribed drugs by the physicians. The junior doctors are likely to introject practices of their seniors and consequently to reciprocate from the experiences learnt from their preceptors. Using the generic names may be one way to facilitate prescription of the generic drugs who have a better cost profile and similar efficacy than the more expensive branded drugs. In this editorial, we have outlined several arguments to suggest the importance of using the generic names in academic discussions and clinical documentation.