Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: indications and open questions

Biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy occurs in approximately 15-40% of patients within 5 years. Postoperative radiotherapy is the only curative treatment for these patients. After radical prostatectomy, two different strategies can be offered, adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy. Adjuvant radiotherapy is defined as treatment given directly after surgery in the presence of risk factors (R1 resection, pT3) before biochemical relapse occurs. It consists of 60-64 Gy and was shown to increase biochemical relapse-free survival in three randomized controlled trials and to increase overall survival after a median followup of 12.7 years in one of these trials. Salvage radiotherapy, on the other hand, is given upon biochemical relapse and is the preferred option, by many centers as it does not include patients who might be cured by surgery alone. As described in only retrospective studies the dose for salvage radiotherapy ranges from 64 to 72 Gy and is usually dependent on the absence or presence of macroscopic recurrence. Randomized trials are currently investigating the role of adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy. Patients with biochemical relapse after prostatectomy should at the earliest sign of relapse be referred to salvage radiotherapy and should preferably be treated within a clinical trial.

Intraperitoneal mesh implantation for fascial dehiscence and open abdomen

Postoperative fascial dehiscence and open abdomen are severe postoperative complications and are associated with surgical site infections, fistula, and hernia formation at long-term follow-up. This study was designed to investigate whether intraperitoneal implantation of a composite prosthetic mesh is feasible and safe.

Candida species distribution and antifungal susceptibility testing according to European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing and new vs. old Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute clinical breakpoints: a 6-year prospective candidaemia survey from the fungal infection network of Switzerland

We analyzed the species distribution of Candida blood isolates (CBIs), prospectively collected between 2004 and 2009 within FUNGINOS, and compared their antifungal susceptibility according to clinical breakpoints defined by the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) in 2013, and the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) in 2008 (old CLSI breakpoints) and 2012 (new CLSI breakpoints). CBIs were tested for susceptiblity to fluconazole, voriconazole and caspofungin by microtitre broth dilution (Sensititre® YeastOne™ test panel). Of 1090 CBIs, 675 (61.9%) were C. albicans, 191 (17.5%) C. glabrata, 64 (5.9%) C. tropicalis, 59 (5.4%) C. parapsilosis, 33 (3%) C. dubliniensis, 22 (2%) C. krusei and 46 (4.2%) rare Candida species. Independently of the breakpoints applied, C. albicans was almost uniformly (>98%) susceptible to all three antifungal agents. In contrast, the proportions of fluconazole- and voriconazole-susceptible C. tropicalis and F-susceptible C. parapsilosis were lower according to EUCAST/new CLSI breakpoints than to the old CLSI breakpoints. For caspofungin, non-susceptibility occurred mainly in C. krusei (63.3%) and C. glabrata (9.4%). Nine isolates (five C. tropicalis, three C. albicans and one C. parapsilosis) were cross-resistant to azoles according to EUCAST breakpoints, compared with three isolates (two C. albicans and one C. tropicalis) according to new and two (2 C. albicans) according to old CLSI breakpoints. Four species (C. albicans, C. glabrata, C. tropicalis and C. parapsilosis) represented >90% of all CBIs. In vitro resistance to fluconazole, voriconazole and caspofungin was rare among C. albicans, but an increase of non-susceptibile isolates was observed among C. tropicalis/C. parapsilosis for the azoles and C. glabrata/C. krusei for caspofungin according to EUCAST and new CLSI breakpoints compared with old CLSI breakpoints.

The assessment of mindfulness with self-report measures: existing scales and open issues

During recent years, mindfulness-based approaches have been gaining relevance for treatment in clinical populations. Correspondingly, the empirical study of mindfulness has steadily grown; thus, the availability of valid measures of the construct is critically important. This paper gives an overview of the current status in the field of self-report assessment of mindfulness. All eight currently available and validated mindfulness scales (for adults) are evaluated, with a particular focus on their virtues and limitations and on differences among them. It will be argued that none of these scales may be a fully adequate measure of mindfulness, as each of them offers unique advantages but also disadvantages. In particular, none of them seems to provide a comprehensive assessment of all aspects of mindfulness in samples from the general population. Moreover, some scales may be particularly indicated in investigations focusing on specific populations such as clinical samples (Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale, Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire) or meditators (Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory). Three main open issues are discussed: (1) the coverage of aspects of mindfulness in questionnaires; (2) the nature of the relationships between these aspects; and (3) the validity of self-report measures of mindfulness. These issues should be considered in future developments in the self-report assessment of mindfulness.

Recent developments and open questions in the field of semantic roles

This introductory chapter briefly introduces a few milestones in the voluminous previous literature on semantic roles, and charts the territory in which the papers of this volume aim to make a contribution. This territory is characterized by fairly disparate conceptualizations of semantic roles and their status in theories of grammar and the lexicon, as well as by diverse and probably complementary ways of deriving or identifying them based on linguistic data. Particular attention is given to the question of how selected roles appear to relate to each other, and we preliminarily address the issue of how roles, subroles, and role complexes are best thought of in general.

Endoscopic and Open Release Similarly Safe for the Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND The Endoscopic Release of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (ECTR) is a minimal invasive approach for the treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. There is scepticism regarding the safety of this technique, based on the assumption that this is a rather "blind" procedure and on the high number of severe complications that have been reported in the literature. PURPOSE To evaluate whether there is evidence supporting a higher risk after ECTR in comparison to the conventional open release. METHODS We searched MEDLINE (January 1966 to November 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2013), the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (November 2013) and CENTRAL (2013, issue 11 in The Cochrane Library). We hand-searched reference lists of included studies. We included all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials (e.g. study using alternation, date of birth, or case record number) that compare any ECTR with any OCTR technique. Safety was assessed by the incidence of major, minor and total number of complications, recurrences, and re-operations.The total time needed before return to work or to return to daily activities was also assessed. We synthesized data using a random-effects meta-analysis in STATA. We conducted a sensitivity analysis for rare events using binomial likelihood. We judged the conclusiveness of meta-analysis calculating the conditional power of meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS ECTR is associated with less time off work or with daily activities. The assessment of major complications, reoperations and recurrence of symptoms does not favor either of the interventions. There is an uncertain advantage of ECTR with respect to total minor complications (more transient paresthesia but fewer skin-related complications). Future studies are unlikely to alter these findings because of the rarity of the outcome. The effect of a learning curve might be responsible for reduced recurrences and reoperations with ECTR in studies that are more recent, although formal statistical analysis failed to provide evidence for such an association. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I.