Comparison of titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stents with zotarolimus-eluting stents for coronary revascularization a randomized controlled trial

Objectives This study sought to compare the efficacy of passive stent coating with titanium-nitride-oxide (TiNO) with drug-eluting stents releasing zotarolimus (ZES) (Endeavor, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota). Background Stent coating with TiNO has been shown to reduce restenosis compared with bare-metal stents in experimental and clinical studies. Methods In an assessor-blind noninferiority study, 302 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to treatment with TiNO or ZES. The primary endpoint was in-stent late loss at 6 to 8 months, and analysis was by intention to treat. Results Both groups were well balanced with respect to baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. The TiNO group failed to reach the pre-specified noninferiority margin for the primary endpoint (in-stent late loss: 0.64 ± 0.61 mm vs. 0.47 ± 0.48 mm, difference: 0.16, upper 1-sided 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26; pnoninferiority = 0.54), and subsequent superiority testing was in favor of ZES (psuperiority = 0.02). In-segment binary restenosis was lower with ZES (11.1%) than with TiNO (20.5%; psuperiority = 0.04). A stratified analysis of the primary endpoint found particularly pronounced differences between stents among diabetic versus nondiabetic patients (0.90 ± 0.69 mm vs. 0.39 ± 0.38 mm; pinteraction = 0.04). Clinical outcomes showed a similar rate of death (0.7% vs. 0.7%; p = 1.00), myocardial infarction (5.3% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.60), and major adverse cardiac events (21.1% vs. 18.0%, hazard ratio: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.00; p = 0.50) at 1 year. There were no differences in rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.7% vs. 0%; p = 0.51) at 1 year. Conclusions Compared with TiNO, ZES was superior with regard to late loss and binary restenosis. The concept of passive stent coating with TiNO remains inferior to drug-eluting stent technology in reducing restenosis. ([TIDE] Randomized Trial Comparing Titan Stent With Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent: NCT00492908)

[Approach to prostate cancer in men older than 75 years: active or passive?]

Based on the exponential aging of the population and the increasing life expectancy in industrialized western countries, prostate cancer (PCa) in elderly men is becoming a disease of increasing significance. Consensus exists that men over the age of 75 years should not be screened for PCa; however, higher age as a single parameter should not exclude men from being diagnosed with prostate cancer and treated accordingly. It is well-known that overdiagnosis and overtreatment are frequent in this age group. Competing mortality risks of men older than 75 years may supersede the risk of dying from PCa several fold. Both the treating physician and the patient himself should therefore balance the possible risks and benefits of diagnosing and treating prostate cancer concerning the impact on quality of life. This is of special importance when taking into account that the complication rates of curative treatment modalities are higher in older patients than in younger men and that hormonal treatment might have negative effects especially in older men.Age, existing comorbidities, cognitive and physical status in combination with specific tumor parameters are useful tools for an individualized treatment.Therapy should be considered for healthy, active men aged 75 years or older who present with high-risk PCa and/or with a PSA doubling time <12 months. Elderly men who are unfit or have low to intermediate risk PCa will most likely not benefit from treatment.

Outcome predictors of radical prostatectomy followed by adjuvant androgen deprivation in patients with clinical high risk prostate cancer and pT3 surgical margin positive disease

Patients with high risk prostate cancer with pT3 tumor and positive surgical margins have a high risk of biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy and adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy. Predictors of cancer related death in this patient group are necessary.

Assessment of estrogenic exposure in brown trout (Salmo trutta) in a Swiss midland river: integrated analysis of passive samplers, wild and caged fish, and vitellogenin mRNA and protein

This field study examined the vitellogenin (VTG) biomarker response under conditions of low and fluctuating activities of environmental estrogenicity. The present study was performed on immature brown trout (Salmo trutta) exposed to the small river Luetzelmurg, which is located in the prealpine Swiss midland region and receives effluents from a single sewage treatment plant (STP). To understand better factors influencing the relationship between estrogenic exposure and VTG induction, we compared VTG levels in caged (stationary) and feral (free-ranging) fish, VTG levels in fish from up- and downstream of the STP, and two different methods for quantifying VTG (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay vs real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction), and we used passive samplers (polar organic chemical integrative sampler [POCIS]) to integrate the variable, bioaccumulative estrogenic load in the river water over time. The POCIS from the downstream site contained approximately 20-fold higher levels of bioassay-derived estrogen equivalents than the POCIS from the upstream site. In feral fish, this site difference in estrogenic exposure was reflected in VTG protein levels but not in VTG mRNA. In contrast, in caged fish, the site difference was evident only for VTG mRNA but not for VTG protein. Thus, the outcome of VTG biomarker measurements varied with the analytical detection method (protein vs mRNA) and with the exposure modus (caged vs feral). Our findings suggest that for environmental situations with low and variable estrogenic contamination, a multiple-assessment approach may be necessary for the assessment of estrogenic exposure in fish.