832 resultados para U.S. Government Working Group on Electronic Commerce.
Resumo:
Background There has been an explosion in research into possible associations between periodontitis and various systemic diseases and conditions. Aim To review the evidence for associations between periodontitis and various systemic diseases and conditions, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia, chronic kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis, cognitive impairment, obesity, metabolic syndrome and cancer, and to document headline discussions of the state of each field. Periodontal associations with diabetes, cardiovascular disease and adverse pregnancy outcomes were not discussed by working group 4. Results Working group 4 recognized that the studies performed to date were largely cross-sectional or case-control with few prospective cohort studies and no randomized clinical trials. The best current evidence suggests that periodontitis is characterized by both infection and pro-inflammatory events, which variously manifest within the systemic diseases and disorders discussed. Diseases with at least minimal evidence of an association with periodontitis include COPD, pneumonia, chronic kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis, cognitive impairment, obesity, metabolic syndrome and cancer. The working group agreed that there is insufficient evidence to date to infer causal relationships with the exception that organisms originating in the oral microbiome can cause lung infections. Conclusions The group was unanimous in their opinion that the reported associations do not imply causality, and establishment of causality will require new studies that fulfil the Bradford Hill or equivalent criteria. Precise and community-agreed case definitions of periodontal disease states must be implemented systematically to enable consistent and clearer interpretations of studies of the relationship to systemic diseases. The members of the working group were unanimous in their opinion that to develop data that best inform clinicians, investigators and the public, studies should focus on robust disease outcomes and avoid surrogate endpoints. It was concluded that because of the relative immaturity of the body of evidence for each of the purported relationships, the field is wide open and the gaps in knowledge are large. © 2013 European Federation of Periodontology and American Academy of Periodontology.
Resumo:
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.
