International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume.

The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus conference in Boston made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to the substaging of pT2 prostate cancers according to the TNM 2002/2010 system, reporting of tumor size/volume and zonal location of prostate cancers were coordinated by working group 2. A survey circulated before the consensus conference demonstrated that 74% of the 157 participants considered pT2 substaging of prostate cancer to be of clinical and/or academic relevance. The survey also revealed a considerable variation in the frequency of reporting of pT2b substage prostate cancer, which was likely a consequence of the variable methodologies used to distinguish pT2a from pT2b tumors. Overview of the literature indicates that current pT2 substaging criteria lack clinical relevance and the majority (65.5%) of conference attendees wished to discontinue pT2 substaging. Therefore, the consensus was that reporting of pT2 substages should, at present, be optional. Several studies have shown that prostate cancer volume is significantly correlated with other clinicopathological features, including Gleason score and extraprostatic extension of tumor; however, most studies fail to demonstrate this to have prognostic significance on multivariate analysis. Consensus was reached with regard to the reporting of some quantitative measure of the volume of tumor in a prostatectomy specimen, without prescribing a specific methodology. Incorporation of the zonal and/or anterior location of the dominant/index tumor in the pathology report was accepted by most participants, but a formal definition of the identifying features of the dominant/index tumor remained undecided.

International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling.

The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference in Boston made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to the handling and processing of radical prostatectomy specimens were coordinated by working group 1. Most uropathologists followed similar procedures for fixation of radical prostatectomy specimens, with 51% of respondents transporting tissue in formalin. There was also consensus that the prostate weight without the seminal vesicles should be recorded. There was consensus that the surface of the prostate should be painted. It was agreed that both the prostate apex and base should be examined by the cone method with sagittal sectioning of the tissue sample. There was consensus that the gland should be fully fixed before sectioning. Both partial and complete embedding of prostates was considered to be acceptable as long as the method of partial embedding is stated. No consensus was determined regarding the necessity of weighing and measuring the length of the seminal vesicles, the preparation of whole mounts rather than standardized blocks and the methodology for sampling of fresh tissue for research purposes, and it was agreed that these should be left to the discretion of the working pathologist.

International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins.

The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference in Boston, made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to surgical margin assessment were coordinated by working group 5. Pathologists agreed that tumor extending close to the 'capsular' margin, yet not to it, should be reported as a negative margin, and that locations of positive margins should be indicated as either posterior, posterolateral, lateral, anterior at the prostatic apex, mid-prostate or base. Other items of consensus included specifying the extent of any positive margin as millimeters of involvement; tumor in skeletal muscle at the apical perpendicular margin section, in the absence of accompanying benign glands, to be considered organ confined; and that proximal and distal margins be uniformly referred to as bladder neck and prostatic apex, respectively. Grading of tumor at positive margins was to be left to the discretion of the reporting pathologists. There was no consensus as to how the surgical margin should be regarded when tumor is present at the inked edge of the tissue, in the absence of transected benign glands at the apical margin. Pathologists also did not achieve agreement on the reporting approach to benign prostatic glands at an inked surgical margin in which no carcinoma is present.

International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease.

The International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens in Boston made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to extraprostatic extension (pT3a disease), bladder neck invasion, lymphovascular invasion and the definition of pT4 were coordinated by working group 3. It was agreed that prostate cancer can be categorized as pT3a in the absence of adipose tissue involvement when cancer bulges beyond the contour of the gland or beyond the condensed smooth muscle of the prostate at posterior and posterolateral sites. Extraprostatic extension can also be identified anteriorly. It was agreed that the location of extraprostatic extension should be reported. Although there was consensus that the amount of extraprostatic extension should be quantitated, there was no agreement as to which method of quantitation should be employed. There was overwhelming consensus that microscopic urinary bladder neck invasion by carcinoma should be reported as stage pT3a and that lymphovascular invasion by carcinoma should be reported. It is recommended that these elements are considered in the development of practice guidelines and in the daily practice of urological surgical pathology.

The effect of a smoking ban introduction to environmental tobacco smoke exposure in Swiss hospitality workers : Abstracts of the 23rd Annual Conference of the International Society of Environmental Epidemiology (ISEE), September 13-16, 2011, Barcelona, Spain

Background and Aims: To protect the population from environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) Switzerland introduced a nationwide rather heterogeneous smoking ban in May 2010. The exposure situation of non-smoking hospitality workers before and after implementation of the new law is being assessed in a prospective cohort study. Methods: Exposure to ETS was measured using a novel method developed by the Institute for Work and Health in Lausanne. It is a passive sampler called MoNIC (Monitor of NICotine). The nicotine of the ETS is fixed onto a filter and transformed into salt of not volatile nicotine. Subsequently the number of passively smoked cigarettes is calculated. Badges were placed at the workplace as well as distributed to the participants for personal measuring. Additionally a salivary sample was taken to determine nicotine concentration. Results: At baseline Spearman's correlation between workplace and personal badge was 0.47. The average cigarette equivalents per day at the workplace obtained by badge significantly dropped from 5.1 (95%- CI: 2.4 to 7.9) at baseline to 0.3 (0.2 to 0.4) at first follow-up (n=29) three months later (p<0.001). For personal badges the number of passively smoked cigarettes declined from 1.5 (2.7 to 0.4) per day to 0.5 (0.3 to 0.8) (n=16).Salivary nicotine concentration in a subset of 13 participants who had worked on the day prior to the examination was 2.63 ng/ml before and 1.53 ng/ml after the ban (p=0.04). Spearman's correlation of salivary nicotine was 0.56 with workplace badge and 0.79 with personal badge concentrations. Conclusions: Workplace measurements clearly reflect the smoking regulation in a venue. The MoNIC badge proves to be a sensitive measuring device to determine personal ETS exposure and it is a demonstrative measure for communication with lay audiences and study participants as the number of passively smoked cigarettes is an easily conceivable result.

Prevention and treatment of protein energy wasting in chronic kidney disease patients: a consensus statement by the International Society of Renal Nutrition and Metabolism.

Protein energy wasting (PEW) is common in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is associated with adverse clinical outcomes, especially in individuals receiving maintenance dialysis therapy. A multitude of factors can affect the nutritional and metabolic status of CKD patients requiring a combination of therapeutic maneuvers to prevent or reverse protein and energy depletion. These include optimizing dietary nutrient intake, appropriate treatment of metabolic disturbances such as metabolic acidosis, systemic inflammation, and hormonal deficiencies, and prescribing optimized dialytic regimens. In patients where oral dietary intake from regular meals cannot maintain adequate nutritional status, nutritional supplementation, administered orally, enterally, or parenterally, is shown to be effective in replenishing protein and energy stores. In clinical practice, the advantages of oral nutritional supplements include proven efficacy, safety, and compliance. Anabolic strategies such as anabolic steroids, growth hormone, and exercise, in combination with nutritional supplementation or alone, have been shown to improve protein stores and represent potential additional approaches for the treatment of PEW. Appetite stimulants, anti-inflammatory interventions, and newer anabolic agents are emerging as novel therapies. While numerous epidemiological data suggest that an improvement in biomarkers of nutritional status is associated with improved survival, there are no large randomized clinical trials that have tested the effectiveness of nutritional interventions on mortality and morbidity.

International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 4: seminal vesicles and lymph nodes.

The 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology Consensus Conference in Boston made recommendations regarding the standardization of pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. Issues relating to the infiltration of tumor into the seminal vesicles and regional lymph nodes were coordinated by working group 4. There was a consensus that complete blocking of the seminal vesicles was not necessary, although sampling of the junction of the seminal vesicles and prostate was mandatory. There was consensus that sampling of the vas deferens margins was not obligatory. There was also consensus that muscular wall invasion of the extraprostatic seminal vesicle only should be regarded as seminal vesicle invasion. Categorization into types of seminal vesicle spread was agreed by consensus to be not necessary. For examination of lymph nodes, there was consensus that special techniques such as frozen sectioning were of use only in high-risk cases. There was no consensus on the optimal sampling method for pelvic lymph node dissection specimens, although there was consensus that all lymph nodes should be completely blocked as a minimum. There was also a consensus that a count of the number of lymph nodes harvested should be attempted. In view of recent evidence, there was consensus that the diameter of the largest lymph node metastasis should be measured. These consensus decisions will hopefully clarify the difficult areas of pathological assessment in radical prostatectomy evaluation and improve the concordance of research series to allow more accurate assessment of patient prognosis.

Consensus summary statement of the International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring in Neurocritical Care : A statement for healthcare professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

Neurocritical care depends, in part, on careful patient monitoring but as yet there are little data on what processes are the most important to monitor, how these should be monitored, and whether monitoring these processes is cost-effective and impacts outcome. At the same time, bioinformatics is a rapidly emerging field in critical care but as yet there is little agreement or standardization on what information is important and how it should be displayed and analyzed. The Neurocritical Care Society in collaboration with the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, the Society for Critical Care Medicine, and the Latin America Brain Injury Consortium organized an international, multidisciplinary consensus conference to begin to address these needs. International experts from neurosurgery, neurocritical care, neurology, critical care, neuroanesthesiology, nursing, pharmacy, and informatics were recruited on the basis of their research, publication record, and expertise. They undertook a systematic literature review to develop recommendations about specific topics on physiologic processes important to the care of patients with disorders that require neurocritical care. This review does not make recommendations about treatment, imaging, and intraoperative monitoring. A multidisciplinary jury, selected for their expertise in clinical investigation and development of practice guidelines, guided this process. The GRADE system was used to develop recommendations based on literature review, discussion, integrating the literature with the participants' collective experience, and critical review by an impartial jury. Emphasis was placed on the principle that recommendations should be based on both data quality and on trade-offs and translation into clinical practice. Strong consideration was given to providing pragmatic guidance and recommendations for bedside neuromonitoring, even in the absence of high quality data.

Official Positions for FRAX(®) clinical regarding glucocorticoids: the impact of the use of glucocorticoids on the estimate by FRAX(®) of the 10 year risk of fracture from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX(®).

Given the significant impact the use of glucocorticoids can have on fracture risk independent of bone density, their use has been incorporated as one of the clinical risk factors for calculating the 10-year fracture risk in the World Health Organization's Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX(®)). Like the other clinical risk factors, the use of glucocorticoids is included as a dichotomous variable with use of steroids defined as past or present exposure of 3 months or more of use of a daily dose of 5 mg or more of prednisolone or equivalent. The purpose of this report is to give clinicians guidance on adjustments which should be made to the 10-year risk based on the dose, duration of use and mode of delivery of glucocorticoids preparations. A subcommittee of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation joint Position Development Conference presented its findings to an expert panel and the following recommendations were selected. 1) There is a dose relationship between glucocorticoid use of greater than 3 months and fracture risk. The average dose exposure captured within FRAX(®) is likely to be a prednisone dose of 2.5-7.5 mg/day or its equivalent. Fracture probability is under-estimated when prednisone dose is greater than 7.5 mg/day and is over-estimated when the prednisone dose is less than 2.5 mg/day. 2) Frequent intermittent use of higher doses of glucocorticoids increases fracture risk. Because of the variability in dose and dosing schedule, quantification of this risk is not possible. 3) High dose inhaled glucocorticoids may be a risk factor for fracture. FRAX(®) may underestimate fracture probability in users of high dose inhaled glucocorticoids. 4) Appropriate glucocorticoid replacement in individuals with adrenal insufficiency has not been found to increase fracture risk. In such patients, use of glucocorticoids should not be included in FRAX(®) calculations.

FRAX® International Task Force of the 2010 Joint International Society for Clinical Densitometry & International Osteoporosis Foundation Position Development Conference.

Osteoporosis is a serious worldwide epidemic. FRAX® is a web-based tool developed by the Sheffield WHO Collaborating Center team, that integrates clinical risk factors and femoral neck BMD and calculates the 10 year fracture probability in order to help health care professionals identify patients who need treatment. However, only 31 countries have a FRAX® calculator. In the absence of a FRAX® model for a particular country, it has been suggested to use a surrogate country for which the epidemiology of osteoporosis most closely approximates the index country. More specific recommendations for clinicians in these countries are not available. In North America, concerns have also been raised regarding the assumptions used to construct the US ethnic specific FRAX® calculators with respect to the correction factors applied to derive fracture probabilities in Blacks, Asians and Hispanics in comparison to Whites. In addition, questions were raised about calculating fracture risk in other ethnic groups e.g., Native Americans and First Canadians. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) in conjunction with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) assembled an international panel of experts that ultimately developed joint Official Positions of the ISCD and IOF advising clinicians regarding FRAX® usage. As part of the process, the charge of the FRAX® International Task Force was to review and synthesize data regarding geographic and race/ethnic variability in hip fractures, non-hip osteoporotic fractures, and make recommendations about the use of FRAX® in ethnic groups and countries without a FRAX® calculator. This synthesis was presented to the expert panel and constitutes the data on which the subsequent Official Positions are predicated. A summary of the International Task Force composition and charge is presented here.

Official Positions for FRAX® clinical regarding international differences from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

Osteoporosis is a serious worldwide epidemic. Increased risk of fractures is the hallmark of the disease and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and economic burden. FRAX® is a web-based tool developed by the Sheffield WHO Collaborating Center team, that integrates clinical risk factors, femoral neck BMD, country specific mortality and fracture data and calculates the 10 year fracture probability in order to help health care professionals identify patients who need treatment. However, only 31 countries have a FRAX® calculator at the time paper was accepted for publication. In the absence of a FRAX® model for a particular country, it has been suggested to use a surrogate country for which the epidemiology of osteoporosis most closely approximates the index country. More specific recommendations for clinicians in these countries are not available. In North America, concerns have also been raised regarding the assumptions used to construct the US ethnic specific FRAX® calculators with respect to the correction factors applied to derive fracture probabilities in Blacks, Asians and Hispanics in comparison to Whites. In addition, questions were raised about calculating fracture risk in other ethnic groups e.g., Native Americans and First Canadians. In order to provide additional guidance to clinicians, a FRAX® International Task Force was formed to address specific questions raised by physicians in countries without FRAX® calculators and seeking to integrate FRAX® into their clinical practice. The main questions that the task force tried to answer were the following: The Task Force members conducted appropriate literature reviews and developed preliminary statements that were discussed and graded by a panel of experts at the ISCD-IOF joint conference. The statements approved by the panel of experts are discussed in the current paper.

FRAX(®) Clinical Task Force of the 2010 Joint International Society for Clinical Densitometry & International Osteoporosis Foundation Position Development Conference.

The World Health Organization fracture risk assessment tool, FRAX(®), is an advance in clinical care that can assist in clinical decision-making. However, with increasing clinical utilization, numerous questions have arisen regarding how to best estimate fracture risk in an individual patient. Recognizing the need to assist clinicians in optimal use of FRAX(®), the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) in conjunction with the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) assembled an international panel of experts that ultimately developed joint Official Positions of the ISCD and IOF advising clinicians regarding FRAX(®) usage. As part of the process, the charge of the FRAX(®) Clinical Task Force was to review and synthesize data surrounding a number of recognized clinical risk factors including rheumatoid arthritis, smoking, alcohol, prior fracture, falls, bone turnover markers and glucocorticoid use. This synthesis was presented to the expert panel and constitutes the data on which the subsequent Official Positions are predicated. A summary of the Clinical Task Force composition and charge is presented here.

Official Positions for FRAX® clinical regarding smoking from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

The worldwide prevalence of smoking has been estimated at about 50% in men, and 10% in women, with larger variations among different populations studied. Smoking has been shown to affect many organ systems resulting in severe morbidity and increased mortality. In addition, smoking has been identified as a predictor of ten-year fracture risk in men and women, largely independent of an individual's bone mineral density. This finding has eventually lead to incorporation of this risk factor into FRAX®, an algorithm that has been developed to calculate an individual's ten-year fracture risk. However, only little, or conflicting data is available on a possible association between smoking dose, duration, length of time after cessation, type of tobacco and fracture risk, limiting this risk factor's applicability in the context of FRAX®.

Joint Official Positions of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX(®). Executive Summary of the 2010 Position Development Conference on Interpretation and use of FRAX® in clinical practice.

The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) and the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) convened the FRAX(®) Position Development Conference (PDC) in Bucharest, Romania, on November 14, 2010, following a two-day joint meeting of the ISCD and IOF on the "Interpretation and Use of FRAX(®) in Clinical Practice." These three days of critical discussion and debate, led by a panel of international experts from the ISCD, IOF and dedicated task forces, have clarified a number of important issues pertaining to the interpretation and implementation of FRAX(®) in clinical practice. The Official Positions resulting from the PDC are intended to enhance the quality and clinical utility of fracture risk assessment worldwide. Since the field of skeletal assessment is still evolving rapidly, some clinically important issues addressed at the PDCs are not associated with robust medical evidence. Accordingly, some Official Positions are based largely on expert opinion. Despite limitations inherent in such a process, the ISCD and IOF believe it is important to provide clinicians and technologists with the best distillation of current knowledge in the discipline of bone densitometry and provide an important focus for the scientific community to consider. This report describes the methodology and results of the ISCD-IOF PDC dedicated to FRAX(®).