Mammographic parenchymal patterns in solid breast tumors

Objective: to determine the frequency of various breast parenchymal patterns on mammography and an association of the presence of a solid tumor with any pattern.Study design: analytical descriptive study.Duration and Setting: January 2009 to September 2010, at Radiology Department, Dow University of Health Sciences/Civil Hospital Karachi.Methods: Adult females diagnosed with single solid breast lesion placed in BIRADS category II-VI on mammography and ultrasound, were included. The parenchymal pattern of breast was classified into predominantly fatty (N1), \u3c 25% glandular (P1), \u3e25% glandular (P2) and very dense glandular tissue (DY) according to Wolffe’s classification. Those with multiple lumps, ductal dilatation, chemo or radiation therapy to breast, or recent hormonal or contraceptive use were excluded. The overall data was described as measures of central tendency and dispersion. Significance of association was determined using chi square test at P\u3c0.05.Results: There were a total of 76 patients with mean age of 47.6± 10.45 years; 74 (97.4%) were married with average parity of 4.5 ± 2.8 and 64 (84.2%) had lactated. Lesions included 65 (82.2%) carcinomas, 10 (10.5%) fibro adenomas and 01 (1.3%) lipoma. The distribution of parenchymal patterns was found to be 22.4% N1, 44.7% P1, 26.3% P2 and 6.6% DY patterns. There was a strong association of P1 and P2 patterns with solid breast lesions (p=0.024). The overall association of carcinoma with P1 and DY patterns was also significant (p= 0.041).Conclusion: Scattered fibro glandular and heterogeneously dense mammographic parenchyma had a strong association with presence of solid malignant lesion in breast. These findings are incongruous with the reported patterns from the West and may represent inherent oncogenic characteristic in Pakistani ladies

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field