Bipolar Endoscopic Enucleation of Big Benign Prostate Enlargement

Large benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) has been a major health problem and the surgical management could be technically challenging to urologists due to the limitation of conventional monopolar transurethral resection of prostate. Bipolar endoscopic enucleation of prostate aimed to remove the adenoma of BPE by stepwise adenoma devascularization and maximal adenoma removal through minimally invasive surgery. In this chapter we described the general principle, the surgical techniques of bipolar endoscopic enucleation and the related modifications of the technique in the recent years. As compared with open prostatectomy, bipolar endoscopic enucleation avoided the wound complications but achieved similar functional outcome. Bipolar endoscopic enucleation also allowed much more adenoma removal comparing with transurethral resection of the prostate. Unlike Holmium laser or thulium laser enucleation of the prostate, the required instruments for bipolar endoscopic enucleation of the prostate were familiar and more readily available to most urologists

Urinary bladder metastasis from lung adenocarcinoma: A rare cause of hematuria

We presented an unusual case of hematuria caused by a solitary bladder metastasis from lung adenocarcinoma. A confident diagnosis of secondary adenocarcinoma of the bladder was made by clinical suspicion based on patient′s past history, careful examination of tumor morphology, and a directed panel (cytokeratin [CK] 7/CK20/thyroid transcription factor 1) of immunohistochemistry. We sought, through sharing our experience in the investigative and diagnostic process, to contribute to the better understanding of this unusual cause of hematuria

Use of the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) in Chinese male patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Purpose: To test the psychometric properties of the International Prostate Symptom Score (Hong Kong Chinese version 2) (IPSS) in Chinese male patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) under secondary care. Methods: A prospective longitudinal study was done by interviewing subjects at baseline, at 2 week after baseline for assessing testâretest reliability and at 26 week after baseline for assessing responsiveness. All subjects were interviewed to complete a structured questionnaire including IPSS, Short Form-12 Health Survey version 2 (SF-12v2) and Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS). Results: The IPSS HRQOL score had weak correlations with SF-12v2 summary and DASS domain scores. For reliability analysis, Cronbachâs alpha coefficient was 0.90 for the seven symptom-related items. The intraclass correlation coefficients of the IPSS total symptom score and HRQOL score were 0.90 and 0.86, respectively. For sensitivity, statistically significant differences were detected between the subjects with BPH and those without for IPSS total symptom score (effect size = 0.68) but not the IPSS HRQOL score. The areas under ROC curves for the IPSS total symptom and HRQOL scores were 0.67 and 0.60, respectively. Conclusions: The IPSS was valid, reliable instrument in Chinese patients with BPH. The IPSS total symptom score, but not the HRQOL score, is sensitive in differentiating subgroups.Link_to_subscribed_fulltex

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

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field