Expression of Endocan in Tissue Samples from Prostate Adenocarcinoma and Prostate Hyperplasia: A Comparative Retrospective Study

Purpose: In this study, we aimed to determine whether there is a significant difference in endocan expression levels between prostate adenocarcinoma and prostate hyperplasia tissues by using an immunohistochemical method. Materials and Methods: All 51 patients, who were getting treatment for the last 5 years, participated in the study. 31 of 51 patients underwent transrectal sonography (TRUSG)-assisted prostate biopsy because of prostate adenocarcinoma as diagnosed with elevated PSA levels and histopathological examination. The remaining 20 patients comprised the control group. The control group included patients with benign prostate hyperplasia based on pathological examination. Results: It was found that there was strong positive epithelial staining in 74.2% of patients with prostate cancer while in 5% of controls, indicating a statistically significant difference (P < .001). It was also found that the rate of strong positive endothelial staining was 77.4% in the patient group whereas 5% in the control group (P < .001). Also, the rate of strong positive stromal staining was 64.5% in the patient group while 5% in the control group (P < .001). Conclusion: We found that tissue endocan expression level was statistically significantly higher in patients with prostate cancer compared to those with benign prostate hyperplasia by using an immunohistochemical method

Efficacy of Silodosin Dose in Medical Expulsive Therapy for Distal Ureteral Stones: A Retrospective Study

WOS: 000397175400002PubMed ID: 28116737Purpose: We aimed to investigate the efficacy of silodosin 4 mg/day and 8 mg/day for medical expulsive therapy (MET) of lower ureteral stones. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 161 patients admitted to urology clinics of Ahi Evran University Medical Faculty and Ankara Training and Research Hospital with distal ureteral stones and treated with MET with different doses of silodosin between January 2013 and August 2015. 81 patients were treated with silodosin 4mg/day in group-1 and 80 patients with silodosin 8mg/day in group-2. Age, gender, complaints on admission, stone size, the distance between the stone and ureterovesical junction, stone passage rate, duration of stone passage after starting MET, and adverse effects were noted from the charts of the patients, and the groups were compared. Results: There were 81 patients in group-1, and 80 patients in group-2. Two groups were similar for age (P =.38) and gender (P =.92). Spontaneous stone passage was seen in 41 (50.9%) patients in group-1, and in 59 (73.8%) patients in group 2. The groups were different for spontaneous stone passage rate (P =.002). In group-1, 10 (25%) patients that could not pass their stones spontaneously and were treated with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), and 30 (75%) of them were treated with ureterolithotripsy. Eight (38%) patients that could not undergo ureterolithotripsy and/or anesthesia and were not able to pass their stones were treated with SWL, and 13 (62%) patients were treated with ureterolithotripsy in group-2. All of the patients were stone free at the end of the treatment. Conclusion: A dose of 8 mg/day should be preferred if silodosin is to be preferred for MET in lower ureteral stones