The plasminogen system in microdissected colonic mucosa distant from an isolated adenoma.

In the colon, the urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA), its receptor (uPAR), and plasminogen activator inhibitors, PAI-1 and PAI-2, are implicated in the transition from mucosa to adenoma and tumour progression. However, expression in the mucosa adjacent, or distant, to an adenoma has not yet been investigated. Three biopsies from mucosae adjacent (20 cm, ipsilateral) and distant (contralateral) to an isolated tubular adenoma were analysed in 14 patients and 8 controls. Laser microdissection isolated stromal and epithelial crypt components, and quantitative RT-PCR analyses of uPA, uPAR, PAI-1 and PAI-2 mRNA levels were performed. Among controls, no significant differences in the markers were noted. With left colon isolated tubular adenoma, uPA, uPAR, and PAI-2 mRNA levels were significantly increased in the adjacent mucosal stroma compared to epithelial crypt levels (p < 0.05). In right colon adenoma, the mRNA levels of these 3 molecular markers were significantly increased only in the adjacent mucosal stromal samples (p < 0.05). Isolated tubular adenoma in the colon increases significantly the mRNA levels of 3 proteolysis-associated molecular markers in the stromal, but not in the epithelial, components of adjacent mucosa. These results suggest the presence of regional and dynamic interactions in apparently non-involved mucosae.

Clinical presentation, etiology, and outcome of infective endocarditis in the 21st century: the International Collaboration on Endocarditis-Prospective Cohort Study.

We sought to provide a contemporary picture of the presentation, etiology, and outcome of infective endocarditis (IE) in a large patient cohort from multiple locations worldwide. Prospective cohort study of 2781 adults with definite IE who were admitted to 58 hospitals in 25 countries from June 1, 2000, through September 1, 2005. The median age of the cohort was 57.9 (interquartile range, 43.2-71.8) years, and 72.1% had native valve IE. Most patients (77.0%) presented early in the disease (<30 days) with few of the classic clinical hallmarks of IE. Recent health care exposure was found in one-quarter of patients. Staphylococcus aureus was the most common pathogen (31.2%). The mitral (41.1%) and aortic (37.6%) valves were infected most commonly. The following complications were common: stroke (16.9%), embolization other than stroke (22.6%), heart failure (32.3%), and intracardiac abscess (14.4%). Surgical therapy was common (48.2%), and in-hospital mortality remained high (17.7%). Prosthetic valve involvement (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.90), increasing age (1.30; 1.17-1.46 per 10-year interval), pulmonary edema (1.79; 1.39-2.30), S aureus infection (1.54; 1.14-2.08), coagulase-negative staphylococcal infection (1.50; 1.07-2.10), mitral valve vegetation (1.34; 1.06-1.68), and paravalvular complications (2.25; 1.64-3.09) were associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death, whereas viridans streptococcal infection (0.52; 0.33-0.81) and surgery (0.61; 0.44-0.83) were associated with a decreased risk. In the early 21st century, IE is more often an acute disease, characterized by a high rate of S aureus infection. Mortality remains relatively high.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. We reviewed systematically data on smoking cessation rates from controlled trials that used biomedical risk assessment and feedback. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We systematically searched he Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to 2004), and EMBASE (1980 to 2004). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: From 4049 retrieved references, we selected 170 for full text assessment. We retained eight trials for data extraction and analysis. One of the eight used CO alone and CO + Genetic Susceptibility as two different intervention groups, giving rise to three possible comparisons. Three of the trials isolated the effect of exhaled CO on smoking cessation rates resulting in the following odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 0.73 (0.38 to 1.39), 0.93 (0.62 to 1.41), and 1.18 (0.84 to 1.64). Combining CO measurement with genetic susceptibility gave an OR of 0.58 (0.29 to 1.19). Exhaled CO measurement and spirometry were used together in three trials, resulting in the following ORs (95% CI): 0.6 (0.25 to 1.46), 2.45 (0.73 to 8.25), and 3.50 (0.88 to 13.92). Spirometry results alone were used in one other trial with an OR of 1.21 (0.60 to 2.42).Two trials used other motivational feedback measures, with an OR of 0.80 (0.39 to 1.65) for genetic susceptibility to lung cancer alone, and 3.15 (1.06 to 9.31) for ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries performed in light smokers (average 10 to 12 cigarettes a day). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the scarcity of evidence of sufficient quality, we can make no definitive statements about the effectiveness of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. Current evidence of lower quality does not however support the hypothesis that biomedical risk assessment increases smoking cessation in comparison with standard treatment. Only two studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow pooling of data and meta-analysis.

Risk factors for head and neck cancer in young adults: a pooled analysis in the INHANCE consortium.

BACKGROUND: Increasing incidence of head and neck cancer (HNC) in young adults has been reported. We aimed to compare the role of major risk factors and family history of cancer in HNC in young adults and older patients. METHODS: We pooled data from 25 case-control studies and conducted separate analyses for adults ≤45 years old ('young adults', 2010 cases and 4042 controls) and >45 years old ('older adults', 17 700 cases and 22 704 controls). Using logistic regression with studies treated as random effects, we estimated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The young group of cases had a higher proportion of oral tongue cancer (16.0% in women; 11.0% in men) and unspecified oral cavity / oropharynx cancer (16.2%; 11.1%) and a lower proportion of larynx cancer (12.1%; 16.6%) than older adult cases. The proportions of never smokers or never drinkers among female cases were higher than among male cases in both age groups. Positive associations with HNC and duration or pack-years of smoking and drinking were similar across age groups. However, the attributable fractions (AFs) for smoking and drinking were lower in young when compared with older adults (AFs for smoking in young women, older women, young men and older men, respectively, = 19.9% (95% CI = 9.8%, 27.9%), 48.9% (46.6%, 50.8%), 46.2% (38.5%, 52.5%), 64.3% (62.2%, 66.4%); AFs for drinking = 5.3% (-11.2%, 18.0%), 20.0% (14.5%, 25.0%), 21.5% (5.0%, 34.9%) and 50.4% (46.1%, 54.3%). A family history of early-onset cancer was associated with HNC risk in the young [OR = 2.27 (95% CI = 1.26, 4.10)], but not in the older adults [OR = 1.10 (0.91, 1.31)]. The attributable fraction for family history of early-onset cancer was 23.2% (8.60% to 31.4%) in young compared with 2.20% (-2.41%, 5.80%) in older adults. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in HNC aetiology according to age group may exist. The lower AF of cigarette smoking and alcohol drinking in young adults may be due to the reduced length of exposure due to the lower age. Other characteristics, such as those that are inherited, may play a more important role in HNC in young adults compared with older adults.

Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995-2009 : analysis of individual data for 25 676 887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2)

BACKGROUND: Worldwide data for cancer survival are scarce. We aimed to initiate worldwide surveillance of cancer survival by central analysis of population-based registry data, as a metric of the effectiveness of health systems, and to inform global policy on cancer control. METHODS: Individual tumour records were submitted by 279 population-based cancer registries in 67 countries for 25·7 million adults (age 15-99 years) and 75 000 children (age 0-14 years) diagnosed with cancer during 1995-2009 and followed up to Dec 31, 2009, or later. We looked at cancers of the stomach, colon, rectum, liver, lung, breast (women), cervix, ovary, and prostate in adults, and adult and childhood leukaemia. Standardised quality control procedures were applied; errors were corrected by the registry concerned. We estimated 5-year net survival, adjusted for background mortality in every country or region by age (single year), sex, and calendar year, and by race or ethnic origin in some countries. Estimates were age-standardised with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights. FINDINGS: 5-year survival from colon, rectal, and breast cancers has increased steadily in most developed countries. For patients diagnosed during 2005-09, survival for colon and rectal cancer reached 60% or more in 22 countries around the world; for breast cancer, 5-year survival rose to 85% or higher in 17 countries worldwide. Liver and lung cancer remain lethal in all nations: for both cancers, 5-year survival is below 20% everywhere in Europe, in the range 15-19% in North America, and as low as 7-9% in Mongolia and Thailand. Striking rises in 5-year survival from prostate cancer have occurred in many countries: survival rose by 10-20% between 1995-99 and 2005-09 in 22 countries in South America, Asia, and Europe, but survival still varies widely around the world, from less than 60% in Bulgaria and Thailand to 95% or more in Brazil, Puerto Rico, and the USA. For cervical cancer, national estimates of 5-year survival range from less than 50% to more than 70%; regional variations are much wider, and improvements between 1995-99 and 2005-09 have generally been slight. For women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2005-09, 5-year survival was 40% or higher only in Ecuador, the USA, and 17 countries in Asia and Europe. 5-year survival for stomach cancer in 2005-09 was high (54-58%) in Japan and South Korea, compared with less than 40% in other countries. By contrast, 5-year survival from adult leukaemia in Japan and South Korea (18-23%) is lower than in most other countries. 5-year survival from childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia is less than 60% in several countries, but as high as 90% in Canada and four European countries, which suggests major deficiencies in the management of a largely curable disease. INTERPRETATION: International comparison of survival trends reveals very wide differences that are likely to be attributable to differences in access to early diagnosis and optimum treatment. Continuous worldwide surveillance of cancer survival should become an indispensable source of information for cancer patients and researchers and a stimulus for politicians to improve health policy and health-care systems. FUNDING: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Toronto, Canada), Cancer Focus Northern Ireland (Belfast, UK), Cancer Institute New South Wales (Sydney, Australia), Cancer Research UK (London, UK), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta, GA, USA), Swiss Re (London, UK), Swiss Cancer Research foundation (Bern, Switzerland), Swiss Cancer League (Bern, Switzerland), and University of Kentucky (Lexington, KY, USA).