Predicting the development of stress urinary incontinence 3 years after hysterectomy

We aimed to develop a prediction rule to predict the individual risk to develop stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after hysterectomy. Prospective observational study with 3-year follow-up among women who underwent abdominal or vaginal hysterectomy for benign conditions, excluding vaginal prolapse, and who did not report SUI before surgery (n = 183). The presence of SUI was assessed using a validated questionnaire. Significant prognostic factors for de novo SUI were BMI (OR 1.1 per kg/m(2), 95% CI 1.0-1.2), younger age at time of hysterectomy (OR 0.9 per year, 95% CI 0.8-1.0) and vaginal hysterectomy (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.0-5.2). Using these variables, we developed the following rule to predict the risk of developing SUI: 32 + BMI-age + (7.5 × route of surgery). We defined a prediction rule that can be used to counsel patients about their individual risk on developing SUI following hysterectom

Scrotal cancer: Incidence, survival and second primary tumours in the Netherlands since 1989

Background: Since the 1970s there have been few epidemiological studies of scrotal cancer. We report on the descriptive epidemiology of scrotal cancer in the Netherlands. Methods: Data on all scrotal cancer patients were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) in the period 1989-2006 and age-standardised incidence rates were calculated also according to histology and stage. Relative survival was calculated and multiple primary tumours were studied. Results: The overall incidence rate varied around 1.5 per 1 000 000 person-years, most frequently being squamous cell carcinoma (27%), basal cell carcinoma (19%) and Bowen's disease (15%). Overall 5-year relative survival was 82%, being 77% and 95% for patients with squamous and basal cell carcinoma, respectively. In all, 18% of the patients were diagnosed with a second primary tumour. Conclusion: The incidence rate of scrotal cancer did not decrease, although this was expected; affected patients might benefit from regular checkups for possible new cancers

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

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