Update of the ICUD-SIU consultation on upper tract urothelial carcinoma 2016: treatment of low-risk upper tract urothelial carcinoma

Introduction The conservative management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) has historically been offered to patients with imperative indications. The recent International Consultation on Urologic Diseases (ICUD) publication on UTUC stratified treatment allocations based on high- and low-risk groups. This report updates the conservative management of the low-risk group. Methods The ICUD for low-risk UTUC working group performed a thorough review of the literature with an assessment of the level of evidence and grade of recommendation for a variety of published studies in this disease space. We update these publications and provide a summary of that original report. Results There are no prospective randomized controlled studies to support surgical management guidelines. A risk-stratified approach based on clinical, endoscopic, and biopsy assessment allows selection of patients who could benefit from kidney-preserving procedures with oncological outcomes potentially similar to radical nephroureterectomy with bladder cuff excision, with the added benefit of renal function preservation. These treatments are aided by the development of high-definition flexible digital URS, multi-biopsies with the aid of access sheaths and other tools, and promising developments in the use of adjuvant topical therapy. Conclusions Recent developments in imaging, minimally invasive techniques, multimodality approaches, and adjuvant topical regimens and bladder cancer prevention raise the hope for improved risk stratification and may greatly improve the endoscopic treatment for low-risk UTUC

The database of the PREDICTS (Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems) project

The PREDICTS project-Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems (www.predicts.org.uk)-has collated from published studies a large, reasonably representative database of comparable samples of biodiversity from multiple sites that differ in the nature or intensity of human impacts relating to land use. We have used this evidence base to develop global and regional statistical models of how local biodiversity responds to these measures. We describe and make freely available this 2016 release of the database, containing more than 3.2 million records sampled at over 26,000 locations and representing over 47,000 species. We outline how the database can help in answering a range of questions in ecology and conservation biology. To our knowledge, this is the largest and most geographically and taxonomically representative database of spatial comparisons of biodiversity that has been collated to date; it will be useful to researchers and international efforts wishing to model and understand the global status of biodiversity

Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity

Human activities, especially conversion and degradation of habitats, are causing global biodiversity declines. How local ecological assemblages are responding is less clear--a concern given their importance for many ecosystem functions and services. We analysed a terrestrial assemblage database of unprecedented geographic and taxonomic coverage to quantify local biodiversity responses to land use and related changes. Here we show that in the worst-affected habitats, these pressures reduce within-sample species richness by an average of 76.5%, total abundance by 39.5% and rarefaction-based richness by 40.3%. We estimate that, globally, these pressures have already slightly reduced average within-sample richness (by 13.6%), total abundance (10.7%) and rarefaction-based richness (8.1%), with changes showing marked spatial variation. Rapid further losses are predicted under a business-as-usual land-use scenario; within-sample richness is projected to fall by a further 3.4% globally by 2100, with losses concentrated in biodiverse but economically poor countries. Strong mitigation can deliver much more positive biodiversity changes (up to a 1.9% average increase) that are less strongly related to countries' socioeconomic status