Prognostic factors in lymph node metastases of prostatic cancer patients: the size of the metastases but not extranodal extension independently predicts survival

AIMS: To analyse tumour characteristics and the prognostic significance of prostatic cancers with extranodal extension of lymph node metastases (ENE) in 102 node-positive, hormone treatment-naive patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and extended lymphadenectomy. METHODS AND RESULTS: The median number of nodes examined per patient was 21 (range 9-68), and the median follow-up time was 92 months (range 12-191). ENE was observed in 71 patients (70%). They had significantly more, larger and less differentiated nodal metastases, paralleled by significantly larger primary tumours at more advanced stages and with higher Gleason scores than patients without ENE. ENE defined a subgroup with significantly decreased biochemical recurrence-free (P = 0.038) and overall survival (P = 0.037). In multivariate analyses the diameter of the largest metastasis and Gleason score of the primary tumour were independent predictors of survival. CONCLUSIONS: ENE in prostatic cancer is an indicator lesion for advanced/aggressive tumours with poor outcome. However, the strong correlation with larger metastases suggests that ENE may result from their size, which was the only independent risk factor in the metastasizing component. Consequently, histopathological reports should specify the true indicator of poor survival in the lymphadenectomy specimens, which is the size of the largest metastasis in each patient.

Low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma with inferior vena cava tumor thrombus and intracardiac extension: radical resection may improve recurrence free survival

BACKGROUND: Endometrial stromal sarcoma (ESS) represents 0.2% of all uterine malignancies. Based on the mitotic activity, a distinction is made between low and high-grade ESS. Although the overall five-year survival rate for low-grade ESS exceeds 80%, about 50% of the patients show tumor recurrence, mostly after a long latency period. Tumor invasion of the great vessels is extremely rare. We describe a patient with advanced low-grade ESS with tumor invasion of the infrarenal aorta and the inferior vena cava. The patient presented with a large tumor thrombus extending from the inferior vena cava into the right atrium. METHODS: Review of literature and identification of 19 patients, including our own case report, with advanced low-grade ESS with invasion of the great vessels and formation of an inferior vena cava tumor thrombus. RESULTS: All 19 patients presented with an abdominal tumor mass and a tumor thrombus protruding into the inferior vena cava. The tumor thrombus extended into the right heart cavities in nine patients reaching the right atrium in four, the right ventricle in three and the pulmonary artery in two patients. There were 5 patients with an advanced primary tumor and 14 patients with an advanced recurrent tumor. Seven patients presented with synchronous metastatic disease and six patients with a pelvic tumor infiltrating the bladder, the rectosigmoid colon or the infrarenal aorta. Mean age at surgery was 45.9+/-12.3 years (median 47, range 25-65 years). Tumor thrombectomy was accomplished by cavatomy or by right atriotomy after installation of a cardiopulmonary bypass. There was no peri-operative mortality and a very low morbidity. Radical tumor resections were achieved in 10 patients. The follow-up for these 10 patients was 2+/-1.3 years (median 2, range 0.3-4.5 years). Nine patients remained recurrence free whereas one patient suffered an asymptomatic local recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Low-grade ESS is a rare angioinvasive tumor with a high recurrence rate. Resection of an inferior vena cava tumor thrombus, even with extension into the right heart cavities, can be performed safely. Extensive radical surgery is therefore justified in the treatment of advanced tumor manifestations of a low-grade ESS potentially improving recurrence free survival.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA)--an extension of the STROBE statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed, but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct or analysis.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA)--an extension of the STROBE statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence, the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association (STREGA) studies initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed, but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE Statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information into the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and issues of data volume that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE Statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

The use of extraoral implants for distal-extension removable dentures: a clinical evaluation up to 8 years

PURPOSE: This retrospective study reports the clinical outcome following placement of extraoral implants in severely resorbed posterior ridges to support distal-extension removable dentures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Consecutively treated patients with partially or completely edentulous ridges, with available bone height in the posterior region of 6 mm or less, were included in the study. Implants originally intended for extraoral use (Straumann) were placed in second molar regions and allowed to heal for 4 to 6 months before abutment connection. At recall appointments, the peri-implant hard and soft tissues were evaluated. Complications with implant components, as well as mechanical and structural failures of the prostheses, were recorded. Two-year survival rates were calculated and life table analyses undertaken. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (19 women and 10 men; average age 61.2 years, range, 44 to 75 years) were included in the study. Forty-seven extraoral implants in 26 patients were placed in the second molar site of the mandible. Two extraoral implants in 2 patients failed during the osseointegration phase, yielding an 8-year cumulative success rate of 91.8%. The mean distance from the extraoral implants to the most distal tooth/implant was 28.1 mm (range, 16.7 to 39.2 mm). Twenty-three extraoral implants were restored with magnets, 18 with ball anchors, and 4 with conical cylinders. Replacement of abutments and retention elements was necessary in 2 patients. Four abutments in 2 patients were disconnected from the restorations. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the employed research design, extraoral implants may be used successfully to provide support for distal-extension removable dentures in severely resorbed posterior alveolar ridges.

Self-help extension: Farmer-to-farmer extension

As staff and mobility cost have the lion share of the costs of extension work, there have been many alternatives to assign farmers the job of facilitators, trainers and advisors. The arguments behind are that they are geopraphically closer to the clients, but also mentally and culturally, because they are members of the client group themselves, speak their language and share their experience and daily life. The article starts with the origins of the larger movement in Latin-America, and then discusses potentials and limitations, and finally experience from elsewhere.

Learning for Sustainability - LforS: An extension approach in small scale farming

Description of LforS as a integrativ and learning oriented extension approach