Correlation of umbilical cord blood haematopoietic stem and progenitor cell levels with birth weight: implications for a prenatal influence on cancer risk

We examined the relation with birth weight and umbilical cord blood concentrations of haematopoietic stem and progenitor populations in 288 singleton infants. Across the whole range of birth weight, there was a positive relation between birth weight and CD34+CD38− cells, with each 500 g increase in birth weight being associated with a 15.5% higher (95% confidence interval: 1.6–31.3%) cell concentration. CD34+ and CD34+c-kit+ cells had J-shaped relations and CFU-GM cells had a U-shaped relation with birth weight. Among newborns with ⩾3000 g birth weights, concentrations of these cells increased with birth weight, while those below 3000 g had higher stem cell concentrations than the reference category of 3000–3499 g. Adjustment for cord blood plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 levels weakened the stem and progenitor cell–birth weight associations. The positive associations between birth weight and stem cell measurements for term newborns with a normal-to-high birth weight support the stem cell burden hypothesis of cancer risk

Ampicillin/Sulbactam versus Cefuroxime as antimicrobial prophylaxis for cesarean delivery: a randomized study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The efficacy and safety of a single dose of ampicillin/sulbactam compared to a single dose of cefuroxime at cord clamp for prevention of post-cesarean infectious morbidity has not been assessed.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Women scheduled for cesarean delivery were randomized to receive a single dose of either 3 g of ampicillin-sulbactam or 1.5 g of cefuroxime intravenously, after umbilical cord clamping. An evaluation for development of postoperative infections and risk factor analysis was performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred and seventy-six patients (median age 28 yrs, IQR: 24-32) were enrolled in the study during the period July 2004 - July 2005. Eighty-five (48.3%) received cefuroxime prophylaxis and 91 (51.7%) ampicillin/sulbactam. Postoperative infection developed in 5 of 86 (5.9%) patients that received cefuroxime compared to 8 of 91 (8.8%) patients that received ampicillin/sulbactam (p = 0.6). In univariate analyses 6 or more vaginal examinations prior to the operation (p = 0.004), membrane rupture for more than 6 hours (p = 0.08) and blood loss greater than 500 ml (p = 0.018) were associated with developing a postoperative surgical site infection (SSI). In logistic regression having 6 or more vaginal examinations was the most significant risk factor for a postoperative SSI (OR 6.8, 95% CI: 1.4-33.4, p = 0.019). Regular prenatal follow-up was associated with a protective effect (OR 0.04, 95% CI: 0.005-0.36, p = 0.004).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Ampicillin/sulbactam was as safe and effective as cefuroxime when administered for the prevention of infections following cesarean delivery.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01138852</p

Use Of Primary High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing For Cervical Cancer Screening: Interim Clinical Guidance

In 2011, the American Cancer Society, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology updated screening guidelines for the early detection of cervical cancer and its precursors. Recommended screening strategies were cytology and cotesting (cytology in combination with hrHPV testing). These guidelines also addressed the use of hrHPV testing alone as a primary screening approach, which was not recommended for use at that time. There is now a growing body of evidence for screening with primary hrHPV testing, including a prospective US-based registration study. Thirteen experts including representatives from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Cancer Society, American Society of Cytopathology, College of American Pathologists, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology, convened to provide interim guidance for primary hrHPV screening. This guidance panel was specifically triggered by an application to the FDA for a currently marketed HPV test to be labeled for the additional indication of primary cervical cancer screening. Guidance was based on literature review and review of data from the FDA registration study, supplemented by expert opinion. This document aims to provide information for healthcare providers who are interested in primary hrHPV testing and an overview of the potential advantages and disadvantages of this strategy for screening as well as to highlight areas in need of further investigation

Use Of Primary High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing For Cervical Cancer Screening: Interim Clinical Guidance

In 2011, the American Cancer Society, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology updated screening guidelines for the early detection of cervical cancer and its precursors. Recommended screening strategies were cytology or cotesting (cytology in combination with high-risk human papillomavirus [hrHPV] testing). These guidelines also addressed the use of hrHPV testing alone as a primary screening approach, which was not recommended for use at that time. There is now a growing body of evidence for screening with primary hrHPV testing, including a prospective U.S.-based registration study. Thirteen experts, including representatives from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Cancer Society, the American Society of Cytopathology, the College of American Pathologists, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology, convened to provide interim guidance for primary hrHPV screening. This guidance panel was specifically triggered by an application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a currently marketed HPV test to be labeled for the additional indication of primary cervical cancer screening. Guidance was based on literature review and review of data from the FDA registration study, supplemented by expert opinion. This document aims to provide information for health care providers who are interested in primary hrHPV testing and an overview of the potential advantages and disadvantages of this strategy for screening as well as to highlight areas in need of further investigation

Use Of Primary High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing For Cervical Cancer Screening: Interim Clinical Guidance

In 2011, the American Cancer Society, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology updated screening guidelines for the early detection of cervical cancer and its precursors. Recommended screening strategies were cytology or cotesting (cytology in combination with high-risk HPV (hrHPV) testing). These guidelines also addressed the use of hrHPV testing alone as a primary screening approach, which was not recommended for use at that time. There is now a growing body of evidence for screening with primary hrHPV testing, including a prospective US-based registration study. Thirteen experts including representatives fromthe Society of Gynecologic Oncology, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Cancer Society, American Society of Cytopathology, College of American Pathologists, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology, convened to provide interim guidance for primary hrHPV screening. This guidance panel was specifically triggered by an application to the FDA for a currently marketed HPV test to be labeled for the additional indication of primary cervical cancer screening. Guidance was based on literature review and review of data from the FDA registration study, supplemented by expert opinion. This document aims to provide information for health care providers who are interested in primary hrHPV testing and an overview of the potential advantages and disadvantages of this strategy for screening as well as to highlight areas in need of further investigation